ASA Adjudication on Direct Beauty Products Ltd

Ad

A magazine ad, for LA Looks Body Wrap, was headed "Drop a dress size IN 1 Hour!* WITH LA LOOKS BODY WRAP". Below, text stated "We've all tried to follow the latest celebrity diet in the hope that we too will look like the airbrushed images we see in our magazines, but many of us fall off the wagon not long after we get on it. However, Vanessa Feltz found a new, easier way to lose inches. She lost an inch and a quarter from her waist when she tried and tested a body wrap live on Richard and Judy's show. An hour later Vanessa was visibly delighted with the results ...". Text, further down the page, stated "Skinny v's Super Size. Gillian McKeith recently put a Body Wrap up against 7 other inch loss methods, the results: 'The ladies of Basingstoke lost a total of 19 inches. This means the wrap wins the competition for the best inch loss method tested." Gillian McKeith'. Small print stated "*LA LOOKS BODY WRAP provides fast, temporary inch-loss - individual results may vary". The ad included a 'Before' and an 'After' picture of a woman's torso.

Issue

1.  One reader believed the ad was misleading, because the ad implied Vanessa Feltz and Gillian McKeith had tested the LA Looks Body Wrap, whereas she understood other makes had been tested.

2.  Three readers challenged whether the before and after pictures were genuine.

3.  The ASA challenged whether the before and after pictures exaggerated the likely efficacy of the product for inch loss.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

UK Advertising & Marketing Services plc (UKAMS) responded on behalf of Direct Beauty Products.

1. UKAMS said the ad did not claim that Vanessa Feltz or Gillian McKeith had tested the LA Body Wrap, but had tested "a body wrap" and "home body wraps".  They said CAP Compliance had approved the ad but had not perceived this to be an issue.  However, UKAMS said the body wrap tested by Vanessa Feltz was made by the same company, to the same formulation, as the LA Looks Body Wrap but sold under a different name.  They sent a letter from the manufacturer as confirmation.

2. UKAMS said the before and after pictures were genuine and attached an e-mail from someone present at the photo shoot confirming that the photos were genuine.  They said they were unable to trace the model used in the photo shoot.

3. UKAMS said the pictures were genuine and needed to be considered in the overall context of the ad.  They believed the pictures clearly stated what the product did and did not exaggerate the LA Looks Body Wrap performance.  They argued that CAP had approved the pictures and the captions that accompanied them.

Assessment

The ASA noted the CAP Compliance team had not approved the ad but had commented on claims regarding weight and inch loss in an earlier version; we understood that they had not discussed with UKAMS the issues raised by the complainants.

1. Upheld

We noted the manufacturer's letter but, because we saw no evidence to show which body wrap Vanessa Feltz tested or evidence to show the products were identical, we considered the claim was not justified.  We considered that in the overall context of the ad, readers were likely to believe Gillian McKeith had tested the LA Looks Body Wrap, whereas we understood that another make had in fact been tested.  Although we noted the claims referred to "a body wrap", we concluded that, because UKAMS were unable to show the testimonials related to the product being advertised, the ad was misleading.  

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness), and 14.2 and 14.3 (Testimonials).

2. Upheld

The ASA reminded UKAMS that, when using "before" and "after" photos as testimonials, marketers should hold signed and dated proof that the photos are genuine and have not been manipulated.  We noted UKAMS had not sent signed and dated proof to show that the photos were genuine, but an e-mail dated after the ad had appeared.  We also noted there was no indication who the e-mail was from, other than stating that the person had been present at the photo shoot.  We therefore considered that UKAMS had not shown that the photos were genuine.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness), and 14.2 and 14.3 (Testimonials).

3. Upheld

We considered that, because UKAMS did not provide evidence to substantiate the level of efficacy implied by the photos, the "before" and "after" photos exaggerated the likely effects of the LA Looks Body Wrap in terms of retaining inch reduction for a period of time after removal.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness), 14.2 and 14.3 (Testimonials) and 51.12 (Weight control).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.  We told UKAMS to ensure that they held evidence to show "before and "after" photos were genuine and to hold relevant evidence to substantiate the impression created by such photos.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)