Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
An Instagram post by Pall Mall Cosmetics, seen on 14 July 2024, included text that stated, "[…] take a moment to read about Hannah, our lovely patient […] who underwent Rhinoplasty surgery. Swipe to the end for her amazing transformation! […]".
The ad featured a carousel of five images. The first image showed a side profile of Hannah. The second image included text that stated, “Rhinoplasty is something I’ve always thought about but never been brave enough to do. I saw Lillie Haynes post about her positive experience and it gave me the push I needed to go for it. Hannah Moult, Rhinoplasty patient”. The third image included text that stated, “The process was so easy, especially surgery day, it was fab. The level of care I got was outstanding and I felt I was in extremely safe hands. I wish I’d done it sooner”. The fourth image included text that stated, “My new nose has actually been life changing. For anyone considering rhinoplasty…just go for it. You won’t regret it. I’ve never been happier and more confident!”. The fifth image included two side profile photos of Hannah’s face with text that stated, “Before” and “After”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the ad was irresponsible because it:
1. trivialised the decision to undergo cosmetic surgery; and
2. linked confidence and happiness to undergoing cosmetic surgery.
Response
1.& 2. Pall Mall Medical (Manchester) Ltd t/a Pall Mall Cosmetics said that they had a proven track record as a responsible cosmetic surgery provider with 14 years of safe practice. They placed a strong emphasis on informed consent and encouraged patients to approach surgery with caution. They had consistently been responsible and transparent in their advertising, using pinned posts across their platforms to clearly outline the potential risks of surgery and the importance of conducting research prior to making important decisions.
They said that the content of their ad was based on the personal experience and words of their patient, Hannah, who had willingly shared her story. Hannah’s comments about her surgery being “so easy” and “life-changing” and the references to confidence and happiness reflected her personal journey, and her satisfaction with the results. They said that her description of the process as “easy” referred to the straight-forward nature of the process, from enquiring through to the day of surgery, and the care she received, not the surgical procedure itself and they believed that consumers would make that distinction. Additionally, the testimonial made clear that Hannah’s decision to undergo surgery was a long and considered one. They did not intend for the ad to suggest that cosmetic surgery was a decision to be taken lightly or was risk free.
The wording that they believed the ASA considered problematic only appeared on slide four of a five-slide carousel, and not in the caption of the ad. Most consumers only interacted with the initial slide and accompanying caption.
However, they recognised that the way in which they had presented this content overall may have unintentionally conveyed a message that was against ASA guidelines, particularly concerning the portrayal of surgery as a straightforward decision, and the linking of happiness and confidence directly with the procedure. They understood they had fallen short of the ASA’s guidelines in this case, for which they apologised and had consequently removed the ad and provided further staff training to ensure that future communications were aligned with ASA guidelines.
Assessment
1.Upheld
The CAP Code required marketing communications to be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society. CAP Advertising Guidance on Cosmetic interventions stated that marketers should avoid irresponsibly describing cosmetic interventions as “safe” or “easy”, because it was likely that all such interventions would carry some level of risk to the patient. It also stated that testimonials and endorsements should not detract from the seriousness of the intervention.
The ad included claims that “the process” of getting cosmetic surgery was “so easy, especially surgery day, it was fab”; “anyone considering rhinoplasty…just go for it. You won’t regret it”; and seeing someone else have a positive experience of the surgery “gave me the push I needed to go for it”. We considered that these claims portrayed the decision to have cosmetic surgery as one that could be taken lightly and quickly, and the procedure, including the “surgery day” itself as straight-forward and without risk. We considered that the ad detracted from both the seriousness of the decision to undertake a cosmetic intervention and the seriousness of the surgery itself. We therefore concluded that the ad trivialised the decision to undergo cosmetic surgery and was irresponsible.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 (Responsible advertising).
2. Upheld
The ad included the claim “My new nose has actually been life changing. For anyone considering rhinoplasty…just go for it. You won’t regret it. I’ve never been happier and more confident!”. We considered that the ad implied that by changing their physical appearance via cosmetic surgery, an individual could significantly improve their happiness and confidence. We considered the ad risked exploiting people’s insecurities around body image, particularly those with insecurities relating to the shape of their nose. Because of the way in which the ad significantly linked confidence and happiness to cosmetic surgery, we concluded that it was irresponsible.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 (Responsible advertising).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Pall Mall Medical (Manchester) Ltd t/a Pall Mall Cosmetics to ensure that their future ads did not trivialise the decision to undergo cosmetic surgery, nor irresponsibly link happiness and confidence with cosmetic surgery.
