Background
Summary of Council decision:
Six issues were investigated, three of which were Not upheld and three were Upheld.
Ad description
Three ads, on TV, YouTube and Video On Demand (VOD) for XLS Medical, a slimming aid:
a. The TV ad featured two women exchanging text messages. One woman texted a photo of herself to the other with the text “Ready for the holidays?”, who replied "Wow you lost weight, you look great!". Her friend then explained that her weight loss was due to XLS Medical, which she said could help users lose up to three times more weight than dieting alone. The second actress then looked in the mirror frowning and said "Urgh. I'll never fit into my holiday wardrobe" and sent her friend a text which said “!!!”. At the end of the ad, both women were shown on holiday posing together for a photo.
b. The YouTube ad was the same as ad (a).
c. The VOD ad was the same as ad (a).
Issue
The ASA received 200 complaints.
1. British Naturism and 198 viewers challenged whether ad (a) was addressed or likely to appeal to those under 18 years of age, because it had used actresses whom they believed were under the age of 18.
2. Those same complainants challenged whether ad (a) was irresponsible because it promoted an unhealthy body image, particularly amongst young girls.
British Naturism challenged whether ad (b):
3. was addressed or likely to appeal to under-18s because it had used actresses whom they believed were under the age of 18 for the same reasons; and
4. was irresponsible because it promoted an unhealthy body image, particularly amongst young girls.
One viewer challenged whether ad (c):
5. was addressed or likely to appeal to under-18s, because it had used actresses whom they believed were under the age of 18 for the same reasons; and
6. was irresponsible because it promoted an unhealthy body image, particularly amongst young girls.
Response
1. to 6. Omega Pharma Ltd said XLS Medical Max was a class II(b) medical device for general weight management and the prevention and treatment of excess weight and featured two models who they confirmed were aged 24 (actress A) and 29 (actress B) years.
Omega Pharma explained that the ad featured a representative user of XLS, actress A, who told her friend, actress B, that XLS was an effective “helping hand” for weight management ahead of their holiday. At the end of the ad, they said both women were depicted as being representative of consumers who had used XLS Medical products to reach their healthy target weight.
Omega Pharma said both women had a Body Mass Index (BMI) figure of greater than 19 kg/m2, which they understood was within the guidelines set out in the Advertising Codes. Because of that, they did not believe the ads promoted an unhealthy body image. Additionally, they said the on-screen text “can help slimming as part of a calorie controlled diet & healthy lifestyle” helped contribute to the promotion of a healthy body image as well as lifestyle. They believed the context of the ad and the text encouraged a healthy lifestyle with XLS Medical supporting the user to help achieve their weight goal.
Omega Pharma said the sentiment shown by actress B was in line with the well accepted concept that before going on a summer holiday, some consumers sought to adopt a healthier diet and lifestyle. Therefore, actress B was presented as representing a general lack of preparation before going on holiday compared to actress A, not that she had low body confidence. In that context, they said the ad showed both actresses as being representative of consumers who had used XLS Medical Max to reach their healthy target weights for a common goal – holiday preparation and elation when arriving on holiday.
In relation to ad (a) only, Clearcast said the ad was subject to a scheduling restriction which prevented it from being shown during or adjacent to programmes commissioned for, principally directed at or likely to appeal particularly to audiences below the age of 18. Consequently, they considered the ad was not addressed to under-18s. Given the models’ ages and the scheduling restriction applied to the ad, they believed it was unlikely to appeal to under-18s. In addition, Clearcast said the female models featured in the ads both had a BMI of greater than 19 kg/m2. They understood the models’ BMI was within the healthy range and therefore, they did not believe the ad promoted an unhealthy body image.
In relation to ad (c) only, Channel 4, the VOD service provider, said Clearcast had applied the scheduling restriction referred to above in point 1. They transposed their broadcast audience index for programmes to the show’s VOD equivalent and as a result, the ad was not served in programmes where the content indexed high for children. They provided us with details of the audience index for the two programmes watched by the complainant.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA understood the complainants were concerned that the ad appeared to be targeting or addressed to under-18s because they believed the models appeared to be under the age of 18.
The ad was subject to a scheduling restriction which prevented it from being shown during or around programmes principally directed at or likely to appeal particularly to audiences below the age of 18. It was also subject to the BCAP Code rule which prohibited its content from being addressed to people under 18 and prevented the use of creative treatments likely to be of particular appeal to them. It also said that they should not feature a person whose example, people under 18 were likely to follow or who had a particular appeal to them.
The ad featured models rather than a well-known figure under the age of 18 or someone who was known to have a fan base of people under the age of 18. We acknowledged actress A sent actress B a “selfie” but we considered the act of taking and sharing selfies was not limited to under-18s. In those circumstances, we considered the ad did not use a creative treatment likely to be of appeal to under-18s nor feature someone who was popular and/or influential with under-18s.
We acknowledged the models were in their mid to late 20s and that both, especially actress B, had a youthful appearance. However, because they were over 18, were portrayed in a way that was unlikely to be seen as typical of under-18s, and the ad was subject to a scheduling restriction, we concluded the ad was not addressed to or targeted towards under-18s and did not contain anything likely to appeal to that age group. Therefore, we concluded the ad did not breach the Code on that basis.
We investigated ad (a) under BCAP Code rule 12.5 12.5 Advertisements for slimming or weight control products or services must not be addressed to people under 18, use creative treatments likely to be of particular appeal to them, or feature any person whose example people under 18 are likely to follow or who has a particular appeal to them. This rule does not apply to advertisements for calorie-reduced or energy-reduced foods and drinks, provided the product is not presented as part of a slimming regime and the advertisement does not use the theme of slimming or weight control. (Weight control and slimming) but did not find it in breach.
2. Upheld
We acknowledged Omega Pharma’s view that the ad showed both actresses using XLS Medical to achieve their goal – holiday preparation and the elation of arriving on holiday. The ad showed that XLS Medical Max could be used to help achieve a weight loss goal – losing weight before going on holiday. However, in the context of an ad for a weight loss and weight management aid, we considered viewers were likely to interpret the actresses’ shared goal was to lose weight ahead of their holiday.
The context of the ad was set by the initial text sent by actress A to demonstrate her weight loss which was attributed to XLS Medical Max. While we recognised that there might be viewers who would consider a change in diet and lifestyle ahead of the summer season in general or a summer holiday, we considered there was nothing else in the ad to suggest that weight loss was just one element of preparing for a holiday. The ad focused on the weight loss of actress A and the subsequent desire for actress B to lose weight so that she would be able to fit into the clothes she had set aside for her holiday. In that context, we considered actress B’s thought “Urgh. I'll never fit into my holiday wardrobe” was likely to be seen by viewers as presenting her as needing to lose weight, despite her already slim and healthy appearance. In addition, we considered the ad appeared to portray her as being dissatisfied with her seemingly already healthy appearance until she was shown on holiday, having seemingly lost the weight. We considered that was likely to be seen by viewers as actress B having a poor body image, rather than frustration that she might have left it too late to slim down to fit into her clothes. We therefore considered that, together with the combination of her slim build and healthy weight created the impression that despite her healthy physical appearance, weight loss was still necessary. Although the ad included on-screen text which explained that XLS Medical should be used as part of a healthy lifestyle, we considered nevertheless that the overall impression created by the ad presented an irresponsible approach to body image and confidence. In that regard, we concluded the ad was socially irresponsible and therefore, breached the Code.
On this point, ad (a) breached BCAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 1.3 Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. (Socially responsibility).
3. Not upheld
As noted above, we considered the age of the models and the way in which they were portrayed within the ad was unlikely to have appeal to under-18s. We considered further that the ad did not contain anything that was likely to appeal particularly to under-18s. For those reasons, we concluded ad (b) did not breach the Code.
On this point, we investigated ad (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 13.3 13.3 Marketing communications for any weight-reduction regime or establishment must neither be directed at nor contain anything that is likely to appeal particularly to people who are under 18 or those for whom weight reduction would produce a potentially harmful body weight (BMI of less than 18.5 kg/m2). Those marketing communications must not suggest that being underweight is desirable or acceptable. (Weight control and slimming), but did not find it in breach.
4. Upheld
We considered the models’ had a slim healthy appearance but actress B, in particular, had been portrayed as having poor body image and confidence, expressed through her desire to lose weight ahead of her holiday and her belief and disappointment that she would not be able to wear the clothes she had already set aside for her holiday. We considered the combination of her already healthy slim appearance and poor body image and confidence created the impression that weight loss was desirable. The overall impression of the ad presented an irresponsible approach to body image and confidence and therefore, we concluded ad (b) breached the Code.
On this point, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 1.3 Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. (Socially responsibility).
5. Not upheld
We acknowledged that Channel 4 applied a restriction to the ad which prevented it from being served during or around programmes which were commissioned for, principally directed at or likely to appeal particularly to audiences below the age of 18. We noted their response which demonstrated that restriction had been adhered to.
On this particular point, we investigated ad (c) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 13.3 13.3 Marketing communications for any weight-reduction regime or establishment must neither be directed at nor contain anything that is likely to appeal particularly to people who are under 18 or those for whom weight reduction would produce a potentially harmful body weight (BMI of less than 18.5 kg/m2). Those marketing communications must not suggest that being underweight is desirable or acceptable. (Weight control and slimming), but did not find it in breach.
6. Upheld
We considered the models’ had a slim healthy appearance but actress B, in particular, had been portrayed as having poor body image and confidence, expressed through her desire to lose weight ahead of her holiday and her belief and disappointment that she would not be able to wear the clothes she had already set aside for her holiday. We considered the combination of her already healthy slim appearance and poor body image and confidence created the impression that weight loss was desirable. The overall impression of the ad presented an irresponsible approach to body image and confidence and therefore, we concluded ad (c) breached the Code.
On this particular point, ad (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 1.3 Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. (Socially responsibility).
Action
The ads must not appear in again in their current form. We told Omega Pharma Ltd to take care to ensure their products were advertised in a socially responsible way.
