Advertising Standards Agency

What is the ASAThe Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is the self-regulatory organisation (SRO) of the advertising industry in the United Kingdom. The ASA is a non-statutory organisation and so cannot interpret or enforce legislation. However, its code of advertising practice broadly reflects legislation in many instances. The ASA is not funded by the British Government, but by a levy on the advertising industry.
Its role is to "regulate the content of advertisements, sales promotions and direct marketing in the UK" by investigating "complaints made about ads, sales promotions or direct marketing", and deciding whether such advertising complies with its advertising standards codes. These codes stipulate that "before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation" and that "no marketing communication should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise"

What code does the ASA use in it's judgement? used
BCAP is responsible for writing and maintaining The UK Code of Broadcast Advertising.
CAP is responsible for the rulebook The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotions and Direct Marketing. Non-broadcast means ads in media such as cinema, press, posters and online.

what new area does the ASA cover from March this year?
The ASA is the UK's independent regulator of advertising across all media, including, from 1 March, marketing on websites. We work to ensure ads are legal, decent, honest and truthful by applying the Advertising Codes.

Write about an example of an ASA decision on a complaint.
Ad
A TV ad, for Deep Relief pain relief gel, featured a woman diving into a swimming pool, which, the further down she swam, turned into the seabed. A voice-over stated "Two way action Deep Relief gel contains prescription strength ibuprofen and soothing levomenthol, which work to reduce inflammation and give effective deep relief from rheumatic and muscular pain. Go deeper and discover the effective two way action of Deep Relief gel."

Issue
DDD Ltd challenged whether the claims:

1. "prescription strength ibuprofen" was misleading and could be substantiated; and

2. "go deeper" misleadingly implied that the product could go deeper into tissue than other similar products.

BCAP TV Code
5.1.15.1.35.2.15.2.25.4.6
Response
Mentholatum said they received written approval from both the Proprietary Association of Great Britain (PAGB) and Clearcast prior to the broadcast of the ad, and believed that it complied with all relevant regulations.

1. Mentholatum said 5% ibuprofen gels were routinely prescribed by UK doctors to their patients, and understood that 5% ibuprofen gel prescriptions outnumbered those of 10% strength by approximately two to one.

Clearcast said they consulted one of their consultant physicians who confirmed that ibuprofen was available as a prescription medicine in two strengths - 5% and 10%. They said they therefore approved the claim.

2. Mentholatum said the claim "Go deeper" aimed to highlight Deep Relief's delivery mechanism of skin penetration by ibuprofen. They said it was a pun based on the approved product name, Deep Relief. They said "Go deeper" was deliberately separated from the product name in order to emphasise that, in the context of a woman swimming to the bottom of the sea, it was a call to action for consumers to search out another possible treatment for their pain.

Clearcast said the claim was based on one of the products ingredients, levomenthol, which was a rubefacient. They explained that rubefacients were counter irritants and 'deep seated' pain could be relieved by any method which itself produced irritation of the skin. They said their consultant believed that, because the product dealt with deep seated pain, the claim was justified. Clearcast believed that the verbal and visual pun of a woman swimming to the bottom of the ocean to retrieve the product was acceptable on the basis that Deep Relief would be able to treat deep seated pain differently to a product that did not contain a rubefacient.