ASA Adjudication on Parish and Bell Ltd

Ad

A national press ad, for the Parish and Bell Clinic, was headed "Heel Pain Nearly Ended my Life" and stated "98% success rate ... a revolutionary clinic used a 3D laser scanner which gave them extremely precise measurements to create highly specialised orthotics … the 3D optical foot laser from America. This laser is one weapon in our armoury but it is our unique specialisation and experience in treating heel pain that allows us to achieve such dramatic results with patients who have suffered for decades ... After 17 years of dealing with foot and heel pain, the clinic now receives patients from all over the globe and has an astonishing success rate above 98%".

Issue

A complainant challenged whether the claims:

1. "our unique specialisation" and

2. "98% success rate"

were misleading and whether they could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Parish and Bell said they had searched numerous clinics and websites over the years and they had not found another clinic in the UK that treated and specialised in heel pain and that had researched the subject and authored books on plantar fasciitis.  They said their senior consultant had developed a certain type of orthotic with their lab technicians, which they used on the treatment of plantar fasciitis.  They also said their American laboratory did not supply that type of orthotic to any other practitioner in the UK and supplied a letter from them which confirmed that.  They said they also used laser measurement systems but they were aware that those systems were no longer exclusive to Parish and Bell.  However, they said laser measurement systems combined with the type of orthotic they used, as well as their own research into the condition and the number of patients they treated, did give them a "unique specialisation" in heel pain.

2. Parish and Bell said their success rates were compiled in house from their computer data.  They said it was based on the number of patients who had requested a refund under their money back guarantee.  They provided updated figures, which demonstrated that 99% of the patients they treated did not request a refund.  They said, however, they had recently changed the claim to "90%" to allow for changes to that rate.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted Parish and Bells assertion that they were the only clinic in the UK that specialised in heel pain and that they had developed a certain type of orthotic to treat heel pain, which was not used by any other clinic in the UK.  We noted the laser measurement system they used was also available in other clinics, however, we noted the claim stated "This laser is one weapon in our armoury but it is our unique specialisation and experience in treating heal pain..." and we considered readers were likely to understand that the claim was not based on the laser measurement system.  Because Parish and Bell had demonstrated that the type of orthotic they used was unique to the UK and they had conducted research to establish that they were the only clinic that specialised in treating heel pain, we considered that the claim was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

2. Upheld

We noted Parish and Bell had based the "98% success rate" claim on the number of treated patients who had requested a refund under their money-back guarantee.  We acknowledged the evidence provided did demonstrate that less than 2% of the patients treated in 2007 had requested a refund.

However, we considered readers were likely to understand the claim "98% success rate" to mean that Parish and Bell's treatment had been clinically proven and that 98% of patients no longer had heel pain.  We considered that not all patients who had not been cured of heel pain would claim a refund and that the evidence provided was not sufficient to prove the success rate of their treatment.  We considered that, in the absence of clinical studies to prove the effectiveness and success rate of the treatment, the claim was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health & Beauty Products and Therapies).

Action

We told Parish and Bell to remove the claim "98% success rate" and to ensure that had sufficient evidence to support any similar claims.  We advised them to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team on their future advertising.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)