ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: Pentoc Ltd

Complaint

The London Centre of Trichology and a member of the public objected to a national press advertisement for hair treatment. The advertisement stated "GET YOUR HAIR SORTED!" and featured three pictures, two of which were small inserts one above the other, of Austin Healey. The first insert stated "BEFORE" and showed a picture of Austin Healey in which the hair on either side of his temples was greatly receded. The second insert stated "SORTED!" and showed a picture of Austin Healey in which the hair at his temples was barely receded. Smallprint under the pictures stated ""I''m Austin Healey and I''m saying to you, Get your hair sorted! If you''re serious about tackling your hair loss you need to see the experts. That''s why when I started losing hair I went to the internationally successful Advanced Hair Studio. Now I''ve regrown my lost hair with their Advanced Hairloss Therapy Program ..."". The complainants challenged:

1. whether the advertisers'' Advanced Hairloss Therapy Program was proven to regrow hair;

2. whether the "sorted" photograph was an accurate representation of the amount of hair Austin Healey had regrown through the advertised treatment.

3. the member of the public challenged whether the advertisers could justify the implication that customers would see "experts", because he understood that most customers saw a locally employed consultant.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Adjudication

1. Complaints upheld

The advertisers explained that their Advanced Hairloss Therapy Program was a combination therapy that included minoxidil (a medicine that had been proven to regrow hair), laser treatment and a herbal shampoo. They sent a copy of a randomised control trial of a combination therapy for male pattern baldness that they believed showed the advertised Advanced Hairloss Therapy Program could regrow hair.

The Authority noted the study was conducted on 28 subjects only and contained many protocol violations. Although it acknowledged that the advertisers had followed advice from CAP which suggested that, because it contained minoxidil, hair regrowth claims for the advertisers'' Advanced Hairloss Therapy Program were likely to be acceptable, the Authority nevertheless considered that readers were likely to infer from the advertisement that the Advanced Hairloss Therapy Program offered greater efficacy than did minoxidil alone. Because it was not satisfied that the advertisers'' evidence proved the additional components of the Advanced Hairloss Therapy Program could promote hair regrowth, the Authority considered that the advertisers had not justified making hair regrowth claims for the whole programme. The Authority told the advertisers to ensure that hair regrowth claims were made only for the minoxidil component of the programme in future.

2. Complaints upheld

The advertisers said the "before" picture was taken in August 2001 and the "sorted" picture was taken in March 2002. They sent a photocopy of the advertisement, signed by Austin Healey, that stated "These photos are a true and actual representation of prior to Austin Healey''s hair treatment and After [sic]". They sent duplicates of the before and after photographs used in the advertisement and four further photographs of Austin Healey that they said had been taken after more hair loss treatment. The Authority acknowledged Austin Healey''s confirmation that the photographs were an accurate reflection of the amount of hair he had regrown through the advertisers'' treatment. It noted Austin Healey had received the Advanced Hairloss Therapy Program, also know as Advanced Laser Therapy, which comprised several components, only one of which was proven to regrow hair.

The Authority considered that readers were likely to infer from the advertisement that the non-minoxidil components of the advertised treatment had contributed to the hair regrowth shown in the photograph; it noted the advertisers had not demonstrated the other components of the treatment had contributed to that regrowth. Because the advertisement made a general claim for the effect of minoxidil combined with unproven hair regrowth methods under the title Advanced Hairloss Therapy Program, the Authority considered that the "sorted" photograph and testimonial were likely to mislead about how the hair regrowth was achieved. The Authority told the advertisers to ensure that future claims for hair regrowth using Advanced Hairloss Therapy Program or Advanced Laser Therapy stated clearly that the regrowth was achieved by using minoxidil alone.

3. Complaint upheld

The advertisers believed they were market leaders in the hair loss industry; they explained that they were a large company with clinics worldwide. The advertisers asserted that they had invented and patented many of their own hair treatments. They believed they were innovators in the field of hair loss and believed that, because they had considerable experience in the hair loss market and owned several patents and trademarks, their employees should be recognised as representatives of their expertise.

The Authority considered that the claim implied that customers who visited the advertisers about hair loss problems would be assessed by someone who had technical knowledge and qualifications related to hair loss. Because the advertisers did not send evidence of their employees'' experience, the Authority was not satisfied that the advertisers had justified the claim and asked them not to repeat it.