Print This Post
Product: Health (Hospitals/Private clinics)
Advertiser: Thérapie Fertility
Medium: Social Media (Company's Own Page)
ASAI Code 7th Edition: 2.4(c), 3.10, 4.1, 4.4, 4.9, 4.10
The advertisement featured an image of a doctor from Thérapie Fertility clinic alongside his post-nominal titles, MB, BCh, BAO, MRCPI.
The text underneath the image provided the following information:
“…The most active doctor in IVF in Ireland over the last 6 years....and has been responsible for more successful IVF cycles than any other doctor in the country at that time...”
Beacon Care Fertility considered the statement “the most active doctor in IVF in Ireland over the last 6 years and has been responsible for more successful IVF cycles than any other doctor in the country at that time” to be misleading. They asked what data and statistics were available to substantiate the following claims in the advertisement:
That the doctor was responsible for more successful IVF cycles than any other doctor in the country.
That the doctor was the most active doctor in IVF in Ireland over the last 6 years.
The advertisers failed to provide a response to the complaint.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and expressed concern at the advertisers’ failure to respond to the complaint. They reminded them that there is an onus on advertisers to ensure that their advertising is in conformity with the Code.
The Committee noted the Code required that marketing communications should not contain claims – whether direct or indirect, expressed or implied – which a consumer would be likely to regard as being objectively true unless the objective truth of the claims can be substantiated (S 4.9) and that relevant evidence should be sent without delay if requested by the ASAI and should be adequate to support both detailed claims and the overall impression created by the marketing communication. (S 4.10).
They noted that evidence to support the claims in the advertising had not been provided to the ASAI and in light of this and in the absence of a response from the advertisers, the Committee concluded that the advertisement was in breach of Code sections 3.10, 4.9, and 4.10 of the Code.
The advertisement should not be published in the same format again unless the advertisers can provide substantiation for the claims made.