Advertisment
The advertising support feature offered the following information:
“Health and wellbeing ‘gift’ for Nenagh
The people of Nenagh and its surrounds have been gifted a new centre of healing for troubles of the mind, body and soul. The Prasada Centre for Integrative Health & Wellbeing on the outskirts of the town offers a complementary and holistic health service to the local community. A Sanskrit word meaning ‘divine offering’ or ‘gift’.
Prasada aims to be a centre of excellence offering therapies that support health on a physical, mental, emotional and spiritual level. Therapists from all over the country, all of them vastly experienced in their particular fields, visit the centre on a regular basis…”
Background information was then provided on the owner of the centre and how she came to open the centre in Nenagh. The advertising stated that she “would like people to see the centre as a gift to them…”
Under the heading “Services offered at the Prasada Centre” two of the following services were referenced:
HOMEOPATHY
Homeopathy is a natural and safe alternative to conventional medicine and is suitable for both adults and young children. Remedies used are from natural substances.
PSYCHIC READINGS
A psychic is someone with extra sensory perception (ESP for short). He or she is able to ‘read’ or sense things most of us are unable to pick up.”
Complaint
Complaint 1 – Use of term ‘gifted’.
The complainant challenged the claim that the centre had been ‘gifted’ to the people of Nenagh. He said that while in fairness the word ‘gift’ had been in inverted commas, that in the body of the advertisement no such concession was made. He considered, therefore, that the centre had not been gifted to the people of Nenagh but that it was rather a private company which had not been gifted to anybody and one which no doubt would incur a fee for people availing of its services.
Complaint 2 – Homeopathy
The complainant challenged the claim that “Homeopathy is a natural and safe alternative to conventional medicine and is suitable for both adults and young children. Remedies used are from natural substances.” The complainant queried the validity of such a claim and considered that placing trust in such remedies could be positively dangerous, as it may lead to people ignoring or neglecting the use of conventional medicine which is founded on sound, proven science. He said that peer-reviewed tests, conducted over many years,
had conclusively proven Homeopathy to have no curative properties whatsoever.
Complaint 3 – Psychic Readings
The complainant challenged the claim that “A psychic is someone with extra sensory perception (ESP for short). He or she is able to ‘read’ or sense things most of us are unable to pick up on”.
Response
Complaint 1 – Use of term ‘gifted’.
The advertisers said the term “gifted” was as a play on words, and linked to the name of the Centre. As they had explained in their advertisement the name was derived from a Sanskrit word, meaning “divine offering” or “gift”. They did not accept that it implied a free service. They said the Prasada Centre was indeed a privately run venture and as quoted they would “like people to see the Centre as a gift to them”. The “gift” was simply the provision of a broad range of services under one roof, for those who might wish to avail of them and to interpret the meaning otherwise would, they believed, be disingenuous.
Complaint 2 – Homeopathy
In relation to their homeopathy services, the advertisers said the Irish Society of Homeopaths is the registering body for homeopathy in Ireland. The Society both sets and maintains the standards for homeopathy and homeopathic practice. They said registered members were bound by the Code of Ethics and Practice of the Society and participated in the Continuing Professional Development programme of the Society. This ensured that professional homeopaths practiced in an environment which ensured the highest quality healthcare for patients.
The advertisers also pointed out that the Irish Society of Homeopaths was a member of the European Central Council for Homeopathy (E.C.C.H.) the regulating body for homeopathy in Europe and their syllabus followed the European guidelines.
Complaint 3 – Psychic Readings
The advertisers said the Cambridge Dictionary defined a psychic as having a special mental ability, for example, they are able to know what will happen in the future or know what people are thinking. They said the definition used in conjunction with their services section had been loosely based on this definition. They said it is a service which they offered occasionally and one which was provided by visiting psychics. They said there was nothing in their advertising that encouraged or coerced the public into availing of this service.
In conclusion the advertisers said all of their therapists were fully qualified and where appropriate, accredited to the appropriate governing bodies.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld In Part.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaints and the advertisers’ response.
Complaint 1 – Use of term ‘gifted’.
The Committee noted the Code requirement that compliance with the Code is assessed in the light of a marketing communication’s probable effect when taken as a whole and in context. They did not consider that readers would believe that the services offered in the Prasada Centre were free of charge and on that basis did not consider that the advertising was likely to mislead.
Complaint 1: Not Upheld.
Complaint 2 – Homeopathy
The Committee noted that evidence had not been provided to demonstrate the claim that homeopathy was a natural and safe “alternative to conventional medicine”. In the circumstances they considered that the advertising breached Sections 4.1 and 4.9 of the Code.
Complaint 2: Upheld.
Complaint 3 – Psychic Readings
The Complaints Committee noted that the content described what psychic readers are purported to provide by way of a service and that this was in accordance with an objective and reliable dictionary source. They noted that the marketing communication was restricted to an explanatory statement and was devoid of a specific claim. Accordingly, they considered that the content concerned was not in breach of the Code.
Complaint 3: Not Upheld.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The advertisement should not run in the same format again.
