ASA Adjudication on Pfizer Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, for Benylin Cold & Flu Max Strength capsules, featured a laboratory dummy. He sneezed and half of his face fell off. He went on to explain how Benylin worked to help cold and flu symptoms. At one point he removed part of his brain and explained that an active ingredient worked with the hypothalamus to bring a person's temperature down.

Issue

Twelve viewers complained. Eight said their children, who were under the age of four years, were distressed by the image of a human-like figure removing parts of its body. Five said it was unsuitable to be shown at times when children were watching.

BCAP TV Code

BCAP TV Scheduling Code

Response

Pfizer said the ad had been approved with an ex kids restriction, which meant that it could not be shown in ad breaks in an and around childrens programmes or in programmes likely to be seen by significant numbers of small children; that restriction was given to all TV ads for medicinal products. Pfizer said the ad had also been approved by the Proprietary Association of Great Britain.

They said the figure in the ad resembled that of an anatomical model used in schools to teach children. The figure was used to help show how and where the active ingredients acted within the body, and subsequently the effect they had to help relieve the symptoms associated with colds and flu. They said the character in the ad was created to be authoritative and informative, with a reassuring and friendly manner and a soft, pleasant voice.

Pfizer said they carried out extensive market research before making the ad; after quantitative research, an animatic of the ad was qualitatively tested amongst 100 consumers. They said the results showed that the ad was considered enjoyable, involving, interesting and relevant and consumers felt the character was warm and charming. Pfizer said they took great care to remove any detail from the model that might not be well received by some viewers, e.g. veins showing. They also said the model could not be confused with a live human because it was merely a torso, had a rubbery appearance, bright abstract colours and no hair.

Pfizer said the model was chosen because it was likely to be familiar to children through school lessons. They pointed out that a comparable, but in their view more life-like, anatomical model was currently available from a well-known toy shop.

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) said they had warned the ad agency, when they had first read the script, that the creative treatment should not be gory or gruesome. The agency had reassured them that that was far from their intention and had showed the BACC an animatic which reassured them that the character was friendly and informative and the visuals were not horrific or overly realistic, being in the style of an educational anatomy model. On seeing the final version of the ad, the BACC was content that an ex-kids restriction was a suitable one. They said they maintained that view and, although there had been a small number of complaints, there seemed to be no evidence of widespread concern.

Assessment

Not upheld

We noted the ad had an 'ex-kids' restriction which minimised the risk of the ad being seen by very young children. We also noted Pfizer had carried out research which showed that consumers had had a positive reaction to the character in the ad. We considered that the anatomical model was similar to that used in schools and that even pre-school children were sometimes exposed to similar educational models and books. We noted the model's voice was soft and friendly and Pfizer had made efforts to remove details, such as veins, from the model so as not to distress viewers. We considered that, although they were unlikely to find it attractive or appealing, most children would not find the model horrific or gruesome. Although some young children had been upset by the ad, we considered that it was unlikely to harm or distress the vast majority of children who saw it. We concluded that an 'ex-kids' restriction was appropriate.

We investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 7.3.6 (Distress), 7.3.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions) and CAP (Broadcast) rules on the Scheduling of Television Advertisements 4.2.1(d) and 4.2.3 (Treatments Unsuitable for Children) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No action required.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)