Ad description
A TV ad for Flarin, seen on 22 October 2023, featured a voice-over that stated, “For joint paint, no other ibuprofen has been proven to be more effective.” At the same time, the same text appeared on screen alongside an image of Flarin Joint & Muscular Pain Relief packaging. The ad switched to a scene of two people out jogging whilst another voice-over-stated, “I discovered Flarin and I’m just amazed at how much it helped my hip pain.” The first voice-over then stated, “Only Flarin features lipid lock technology, encasing ibuprofen in lipid oils, which are absorbed in the small intestine. So when joint pain flares, choose Flarin.” At the same time, the ad included an animation of the lipid lock technology working as two tablets moved through the stomach into the small intestine, and product shots of Flarin and Flarin Joint & Muscular Pain Relief with on-screen text that stated, “WHEN JOINT PAIN FLARES CHOOSE FLARIN”. Throughout the ad, on-screen text at the bottom of the ad stated, “Flarin Joint & Muscular Pain Relief 200mg soft capsules & Flarin 200mg soft capsules. Contain ibuprofen. Relief from rheumatic or muscular pain, joint pain, back pain […]”.
Issue
The complainant who believed the ad implied that Flarin was more, or uniquely, effective for joint pain, challenged whether it was misleading.
Response
infirst Ltd t/a Flarin said that they did not agree that the ad was misleading, as it neither directly nor indirectly implied better efficacy than other ibuprofen products; rather, it was a ‘top parity’ claim. They provided evidence to support that Flarin was just as good, but not better than, any other ibuprofen on the market for treating joint pain. They did not agree that a competitor was identifiable in the ad, as the comparison was with an active ingredient, which was present in multiple branded and unbranded products.
They had updated their advertising following an ASA ruling in 2020 regarding a TV ad for Flarin, which the ASA concluded had implied that Flarin was superior to other ibuprofen products for treating joint pain. They had paid attention to both the BCAP Code and the previous ruling when developing the new ad, which was approved without amendment by both Clearcast and the Proprietary Association of Great Britain (PAGB). The new ad did not use the claim “Flarin is different”, and the information about the product was presented in a different order than in the previous ad. They believed the new version of the ad would be understood to mean that Flarin was as effective as other ibuprofen products, but that it was unique due to its lipid formulation, referred to in the ad as “Lipid Lock” technology. That was a trademark, which was a brand device to explain how the Flarin product was formulated. However, it did not describe how the product worked, and there was no link to efficacy.
They considered that the ad contained two distinct claims, firstly, the ‘top parity’ claim, and secondly the factual claim that only Flarin featured Lipid Lock technology. Both of those claims were separately substantiated.
They highlighted that the voice-over claim “Only Flarin ibuprofen has Lipid Lock Technology” was accompanied by on-screen text stating “LIPID LOCK” and a pack shot showing the claim “LIPID FORMULATION” on-pack. This was followed by a factual description, including an illustrating animation, of how the product was absorbed in the body. It was clearly separated from the top parity efficacy claim because there was a testimonial, accompanied by footage of a man and woman running, in between the two statements. They said the animated typographic style of the accented statements at the beginning of the ad was widely used in advertising, particularly in shorter TV ads, to deliver a message more prominently. The full text had appeared on screen for the legally required ‘hold time’ for consumers to be able to read and comprehend all the words appearing on screen at a given time. The use of the testimonial allowed consumers to hear the genuine experience of using Flarin from a satisfied customer who believed that brand had delivered joint pain relief from them. It was presented in the manner of an ‘ad within an ad’ and was clearly separate from the other claims. They said that other pain relief brands used terms such as “targets the source of pain” or “lasts up to eight hours” to help consumers understand their differences. Regarding the endline “So, when joint pain flares, choose Flarin”, they said that the call to action only requested the consumers to consider trying the product as a conclusion from the ad as a whole, rather than a specific part of it.
Clearcast stated that they took care to ensure the ad did not imply that Flarin was more effective than any other ibuprofen on the market, but they understood it was acceptable to say that the product was just as effective as other ibuprofen products. They had taken into consideration the previous ruling, and considered that the claim “For joint pain, no other ibuprofen has been proven to be more effective” was acceptable as a top parity claim. They believed that it did not claim that Flarin was more effective, or superior. The claim had appeared in Flarin’s TV ads since the ASA’s 2020 ruling.
They considered that within the overall context of the ad, there was no implication that Flarin was better than other products, through difference or uniqueness. The presentation of the claims was set out as a top parity efficacy claim, followed by a user testimonial, and then an outline of its formulation. They did not believe that the claim “Only Flarin features lipid lock technology, encasing ibuprofen in lipid oils, which are absorbed in the small intestine” implied the product was better. There was no indication that the formulation differentiated the product as a more effective ibuprofen because the testimonial created a gap between the two claims.
The Proprietary Association of Great Britain (PAGB), a trade association of which infirst Ltd was a member, said the ad was reviewed and approved by PAGB in August 2023. As part of that process, they considered the ASA’s 2020 ruling. The previously investigated claim “Flarin is different” did not feature in this ad. Instead, the top parity claim “For joint pain, no other ibuprofen has been proven to be more effective” was used as a standalone claim, followed by a testimonial which reflected the product’s function. The next scene highlighted Flarin’s lipid lock technology. While it correctly stated that Flarin was the only product to feature the technology, it did not connect this to efficacy. Rather, it highlighted that the defining feature of the technology was that it encased ibuprofen in lipid oils, which were absorbed in the small intestine. All featured claims were fully substantiated by evidence supplied to PAGB and Clearcast. PAGB also considered that when comparisons of medicines were made with an active ingredient rather than a branded product, the ASA was unlikely to consider that the comparison was being made with identifiable competitors. Based on their experience, they believed that consumers would understand the claims the way they were intended, and not as implying that Flarin was more, or uniquely, effective for joint pain relief than other forms of ibuprofen.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA understood that the ad was for an ibuprofen product and was intended to make two distinct claims. Firstly, that Flarin was just as effective for joint pain, but not more effective than, other ibuprofen products on the market (a ‘top parity’ claim). Secondly, that only Flarin featured Lipid Lock technology, which encased ibuprofen in lipid oils, and was absorbed in the small intestine.
We understood that both of those claims were substantiated. Our investigation was instead concerned specifically with whether those claims as presented in the ad, as well as the overall impression created by the ad, would be understood to mean that because of Flarin’s Lipid Lock technology, Flarin was more, or uniquely, effective for joint pain, which was not the case.
We therefore assessed how the ad was likely to be interpreted by consumers. The voice-over in the ad stated, “For joint pain, no other ibuprofen has been proven to be more effective.” The claim also appeared in on-screen text, with the phrases “joint pain” and “more effective” in red print, with the remaining text contrasted in blue. As the claim was spoken, the statements “joint pain” and “more effective” were enlarged and animated. We considered that the claim in the voice-over could in isolation be understood to mean that Flarin was just as good, but not better than, any other ibuprofen on the market for treating joint pain. We further acknowledged that the on-screen claim appeared for the required ‘hold time’ for consumers to be able to read and comprehend the text. We considered, however, that the visual emphasis placed on the words “joint pain” and “more effective” both in colouring and animation introduced ambiguity to the way in which consumers would interpret the claim. The accented statements, “joint pain” and “more effective”, presented in rapid succession, would be understood by consumers to mean that Flarin was specifically more effective for joint pain than other ibuprofen products. The claim was then followed by a testimonial which supported Flarin’s efficacy for treating hip joint pain, which added to that impression.
The second claim then stated, “Only Flarin features Lipid Lock technology, encasing ibuprofen in lipid oils, which are absorbed in the small intestine”. We acknowledged that the claim relating to the Lipid Lock technology was a factual claim. We also understood that the Lipid Lock technology did not affect Flarin’s efficacy, and instead referred to the product’s formulation. However, the claim was succeeded by a voice-over that concluded, “So when joint pain flares, choose Flarin”. Because this conclusion was presented after the claim “Only Flarin features Lipid Lock technology […]”, and the top parity claim, which placed visual emphasis on the words “joint pain” and “more effective”, we considered that consumers would understand that the Lipid Lock technology was linked to the product’s efficacy. For the above reasons, we considered that the ad implied that Flarin, due to its Lipid Lock technology, was more, or uniquely, effective for relieving joint pain, compared to other ibuprofen products.
Because we considered that the ad implied that Flarin was superior to other ibuprofen products for treating joint pain, we concluded that the ad was misleading and breached the Code.
The ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Substantiation) and 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told infirst Ltd t/a Flarin to ensure they did not imply that Flarin was more, or uniquely, effective for joint pain relief than other forms of ibuprofen.
