Download 13/585 COMPLAINT NUMBER 13/585 COMPLAINANT E. Neill

COMPLAINT NUMBER
13/585
COMPLAINANT
E. Neill
ADVERTISER
GlaxoSmithKline
ADVERTISEMENT
Panadol Television
DATE OF MEETING
29 January 2014
OUTCOME
Not Upheld
SUMMARY
The television advertisement for Panadol Extra said, in part, the product was “37% more
powerful than standard paracetamol tablets.” The advertisement contained a bar graph to
represent the “37% more powerful than standard paracetamol tablets” and contained the
disclaimer “for illustrative purposes only.”
The Complainant said the bar graph in the advertisement did not represent “37% more.” In
their view, the graph appeared to represent over “100% more” when considering the
proportions of the bars. The Complainant said the visual representation of the fact in the
form of the bar graph was misleading.
A minority of the Complaints Board agreed, it said the advertisement was likely to mislead
consumers even in conjunction with the visual and voiceover “37%” qualifiers and the
“illustrative purposes” disclaimer. It said the advertisement should have been prepared with
a high standard of social responsibility in consideration of the product being advertised.
The majority of the Complaints said the advertisement went far enough to qualify the bar
graph in conjunction with the voiceover and visual “37%” which in its view made it clear to
consumers the bar graph was representative, not illustrative, of “37% more.” The majority
said the advertisement was not in breach of Principles 2 or 3 of the Therapeutic Products
Advertising Code. In accordance with the majority, the Complaints Board ruled the complaint
be not upheld.
[No further action required]
Please note this headnote does not form part of the Decision.
13/585
COMPLAINTS BOARD DECISION
The Chairman directed the Complaints Board to consider the advertisement with reference
to Principles 2 and 3 of the Therapeutic Products Advertising Code. This required the
Complaints Board to consider whether the advertisement contained anything which as likely
to mislead or deceive the consumer and if the advertisement had been prepared with a high
standard of social responsibility.
The Complaints Board noted the concerns of the Complainant that the advertisement was
misleading because a graph representing 37% greater painkilling capacity compared to
regular paracetamol actually appeared to be more than 100% visually.
Turning to the Advertiser’s response, the Complaints Board noted where they addressed
the complaint in two parts. Firstly, the Advertiser addressed the claim “37% more powerful
than standard paracetamol tablets” and the Complaints Board noted the percentage was in
relation to the potency not the efficacy. It also noted the Advertiser provided robust
substantiation to support the factual claim.
The Complaints Board then turned to the Advertiser’s explanation regarding the visual
representation of the graph. It noted the Advertiser said “for illustrative purposes only” was
clearly visible in the advertisement under the graph and was “not intended to be
mathematically proportionate.”
The Complaints Board noted the response from the Commercials Approvals Bureau (CAB)
which said in relation to the graph that the substantiated “fact of the 37% improved efficacy
is stated in both the voiceover for the advertisement and as a large graphic accompanying
the bar graph.” The Complaints Board noted the CAB’s perspective that the voiceover and
visual of “37%” saved the bar graph from misleading the consumer.
Turning to the advertisement before it a minority of the Complaints Board said the
advertisement was likely to mislead consumers. It said the visual representation of the bar
graph outweighed the voice and written descriptions of 37%. A minority continued that while
the advertisement contained the disclaimer “for illustrative purposes only” it was of the view
the graph was so disproportionate that it was likely to mislead to consumers. It said
advertisements for therapeutic products should be prepared with a high standard of social
responsibility, which was not adhered to in the advertisement before them.
The majority of the Complaints Board said the graph, while exaggerated, was unlikely to
mislead consumers. It said the voiceover and visual referring to “37%”, which appeared
during the fleeting image of the graph, made it clear to consumers what the graph
represented. The majority said the likely consumer take-out, when coupled with the
disclaimer, would be that Panadol Extra was “37% more powerful than standard paracetamol
tablets” not 100%.
On consideration of the above the majority of the Complaints Board said the advertisement
was unlikely to mislead consumers and as such had been prepared with a high standard of
social responsibility required of advertisements relating to therapeutic products. As such, the
majority said the advertisement was not in breach of Principles 2 or 3 of the Therapeutic
Products Advertising Code.
In accordance with the majority, the Complaints Board ruled to Not Uphold the complaint.
2
13/585
DESCRIPTION OF ADVERTISEMENT
The television advertisement for Panadol Extra said, in part, the product was “37% more
powerful than standard paracetamol tablets.” The advertisement contained a bar graph to
represent the “37% more powerful than standard paracetamol tablets” and contained the
disclaimer “for illustrative purposes only.”
COMPLAINT FROM E. NEILL
The graph depicted in this advertisement shows panadol extra compared to regular
paracetamol. Panadol extra is purported to have a 37% greater painkilling capacity
compared to regular paracetamol, which is written above the graph. The graph obviously
and misleadingly shows a far higher percentage of panadol Extra's performance compared
to regular paracetamol-appearing over double or 100% greater than that of the regular
paracetamol value on the graph. This misleads the veiwer into falsely believing the
percentage margin that panadol is better than regular paracetamol and as such is
misleading advertising.
THERAPEUTIC PRODUCTS ADVERTISING CODE
Principle 2 - Advertisements must be truthful, balanced and not misleading.
Claims must be valid and have been substantiated.
Principle 3 - Advertisements must observe a high standard of social responsibility.
Part B1 Requirement 3 – To assist consumers to make informed decisions,
advertisements must contain truthful and balanced representations and claims
that are valid and have been substantiated
Part B1 Requirement 4 – Advertisements must not directly nor by implication,
omission, ambiguity, exaggerated claim or comparison:
a) mislead or deceive, or be likely to mislead or deceive; or
b) abuse trust, or exploit lack of knowledge; or
RESPONSE FROM ADVERTISER, GLAXO SMITH KLINE
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is in receipt of the complaint received by the Advertising Standards
Authority (ASA) in relation to a television advertisement for Panadol Extra with Optizorb
Formulation. The following is GSK's response to the concerns raised by the complainant.
Important to note, the television advertisement which is the subject of this complaint was
vetted and pre-cleared in its final form on 08 AUG 2013, by the Therapeutic Advertising
Prevetting systems (TAPS) {Attachment 1}.
Response to the Complaint
The complaint raises two points of concern in relation to the subject television commercial:
i)
Panadol extra is purported to have a 37% greater painkilling capacity
compared to regular paracetamol'
ii)
'The graph obviously and misleadingly shows a far higher percentage of
3
13/585
panadol Extra's performance compared to regular paracetamol-appearing
over double, or 100% greater than that of the regular paracetamol value on
the graph'
These points will be addressed separately below.
i)
Panadol extra is purported to have a 37% greater painkilling capacity
compared to regular paracetamol'
The television advertisement for Panadol Extra with Optizorb Formulation communicates the
claim: ''New Panadol Extra with Optizorb technology is 37% more powerful than standard
paracetamol tablets.''
Of note, this particular claim (or similar claim) is not a new claim and has been used in the
New Zealand marketplace in a wide variety of healthcare professional and consumer media
since 2002. In addition, an identical graph was used in a televisit: advertisement for Panadol
Extra in 2012.
Importantly, the claim '37% more powerful than regular paracetamol tablets' and the
associated graph in question relate to the potency of Panadol Extra compared with regular
paracetamol tablets and NOT its efficacy. That is, the reference to potency refers to the ratio
of doses required to achieve the same analgesic effect rather than any improved efficacy
result.
In October 2009, a complaint was considered by the ASA in relation to the claim that
Panadol Extra is '37% more powerful than regular paracetamol tablets'. The ASA Panel was
of the view that this was an accurate description of potency and that it did not communicate
efficacy improvements. The Panel was also satisfied that the claim 37% more powerful had
been substantiated by the Laska 1984 study (Attachment 2). Accordingly, the Panel
determined that the advertised claim was not, directly or by implication, deceiving or
misleading consumers (Attachment 3).
Given the historical consideration of this claim by the ASA it is GSK's view that the claim
accurately communicates the potency of Panadol Extra and not the efficacy of this product
compared to regular paracetamol tablets.
ii) 'The graph obviously and misleadingly shows a far higher percentage of panadol
Extra's performance compared to regular paracetamol-appearing over double, or
100% greater than that of the regular paracetamol value on the graph'
As indicated above, this graph was used in the advertising of Panadol Extra in 2012.
Moreover in relation to the alleged misleading nature of the graph, GSK would like to draw
attention to the important inclusion of the statement "For illustrative purposes only positioned
immediately beneath the graph. This statement was specifically included to indicate that the
graph is not intended to be mathematically proportionate and that the bars of the graphs are
purely to help illustrate the point that Panadol Extra is "37% more powerful than standard
paracetamol tablets."
Conclusion
In GSK's view, the television advertisement for Panadol Extra with Optizorb Formulation
complies with the Therapeutic Products Advertising Code, including Principles 2 and 3. The
claim that Panadol Extra with Optizorb is '37% more powerful than regular paracetamol
tablets' has been substantiated and is truthful, balanced, not misleading and socially
4
13/585
responsible.
GSK trusts that the response provided has addressed the concerns raised by the
complainant. Please contact the undersigned if you require any further information
RESPONSE FROM COMMERCIAL APPROVALS BUREAU ON BEHALF OF THE MEDIA
We have been asked to respond to this complaint under the following codes:
Therapeutic Products Advertising Code – Principle 2
Therapeutic Products Advertising Code – Principle 3
A complainant has taken issue with the representation of a bar graph in an advertisement for
Panadol Extra, noting that the illustration of a 37% higher rate of efficacy for pain relief is
shown at a disproportionate scale.
Therapeutic Products Advertising Code – Principle 2 states that advertisements must be
truthful, and that the claims they make must be valid and substantiated. The claim of 37%
improved efficacy over standard paracetamol is verifiable fact, and the client has sufficient
data to substantiate this claim. We should recognise then that the requirements of
truthfulness, validity and substantiation for Principle 2 have been met in full.
The Board’s decision on this complaint should rest on the requirements of Therapeutic
Products Advertising Code – Principle 3, which states that advertisements should observe a
high standard of responsibility. The main point of consideration is whether the representation
of the bar graph has a deleterious effect on viewer’s interpretation of truthful data.
The Board should note that the truthful and clear fact of the 37% improved efficacy is stated
in both the voiceover for the advertisement and as a large graphic accompanying the bar
graph, meaning the average viewer will have a very clear impression of the substantiated
qualities of this product. A breach of Principle 3 would require the view that the bar graph
overrides this very clear impression, and would mislead the average viewer into believing the
product’s improved efficacy exceeds the stated and visualised 37%.
The advertiser has undertaken measures to temper the effect of the bar graph with a legible
graphic explain the graph is for illustrative purposes only. The Board must decide whether
the graph itself creates a stronger impression than the effect of the voiceover, the graphically
stated 37% and the disclaimer put together. CAB eagerly awaits the Board’s decision.
5