Advertisment
The following information was provided under the heading “Anti-wrinkle injections” on the homepage of the website:
“Less is more when it comes to any facial aesthetic treatment. This is particularly important with Bro-tox* …”
“When treating my patients it is important to also look after the condition of the skin to optimise results, by combining a sprinkling of Bro-tox with a medical grade skin care. This is important to enhance the outcome of any facial aesthetic treatments”.
Complaint
The advertising content came to the attention of the ASA via its monitoring programme.
The ASA Executive challenged whether the references to ‘Botox’ and ‘Botulinum toxin’ were compliant with the Code requirement that prescription only medicines may not be advertised to the public.
Response
The advertisers initially failed to provide a response. On receipt of the draft adjudication, they said that they would like to clarify that the wording “Bro-tox” was never intended as a direct reference to “Botox” or prescription only medication. It was intended as a play on the owner’s own name, Bronagh, rather than a reference to “Bro-tox” for men. They apologised for any misunderstanding caused and said the advertising had now been amended.
Conclusion
Complaint upheld.
The Complaints Council expressed concern at the advertisers’ delay responding to the ASA’s correspondence. They noted that the advertising had been amended at the time of adjudication.
The Council noted that the initial advertisement had promoted a treatment using a prescription only medicine, and while the term ‘Bro-tox’ had been referred to, they considered it was in fact a reference and would be understood by consumers as such, to the prescription only medicine, Botox. The Council also noted that the Code required that “Prescription-only medicines may not be advertised to the public. In view of the fact that a prescription only medicine was advertised to the public and in light of the delay in responding by the advertisers, the Council concluded that the advertisement was in breach of Code Sections 3.10 and 11.16.
Action Required
As the advertising had been amended, no further action was required.
The Council reminded the advertisers that the adjudication applied to all media.
