Advertisment
The Instagram post for the Sisu Aesthetic Clinic in Cork referred to the following:
“DO IT FOR YOU
SISU: SUCCESS STORIES
Sisuclinic You saw in yesterday’s video how delighted … is with her ant-wrinkle injections and Botox from SISU. Why not treat yourself to a bit of transformation too? Call … to make your appointment”.
The post was accompanied by before and after treatment photographs of the Client.
In the before treatment picture the Client’s forehead was set in a frown. In the second after treatment picture the Client’s forehead was set in a relaxed pose.
Complaint
The complainant considered the advertising to be misleading. She said that the before treatment photographs had the model’s face scrunched up / frowning to emphasise her wrinkles, while in the after anti-wrinkle treatment photographs her face appeared to be far more relaxed.
Response
The advertisers said they strongly repudiated the issue raised by the complainant. They said it was their assertion that, in the second photograph, the individual’s face was also “scrunched/frowning” but that she was unable to form dynamic lines due to the inhibitory effect of the botulinum neurotoxin type A treatment on the Frontalis muscle.
The advertisers said it was standard practice to have the individual receiving the treatment to “scrunch/frown” pre and post treatment to demonstrate the efficacy of the botulinum neurotoxin type A in the intended area of treatment.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the details of the complaint and the advertisers’ response. The Committee considered that when comparing ‘before’ and ‘after’ photographs, care should be taken so as not to exaggerate the benefits of the treatment concerned. They noted that in the case of anti-wrinkle injections, the desired outcome was the reduction of the appearance of wrinkles, rather than restriction of the ability to, for example, furrow a brow to emphasise wrinkles. They considered that the use of the ‘before’ photographs in this case had not depicted the normal appearance of the wrinkles and was therefore likely to mislead as to the actual impact of the treatment on the appearance of the wrinkles. In the circumstances, the Committee considered that the advertising was in breach of Section 4.1 of the Code.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The advertisement should not appear in its current format again.
