Sitting alongside mainstream healthcare approaches, complementary therapies can help to support a person’s sense of wellbeing and are popular choices for many.
But not all therapies are created equal, and not all advertising claims are acceptable - as many advertisers have found out the hard way through ASA rulings.
When advertising such services, practitioners should take care that they hold robust clinical evidence for any claims made about a therapy’s efficacy. Here are a few tips to ensure everyone will be complimentary about your complementary therapy ads.
A general sense of well-being
There are a wide range of complementary therapies, ranging from reiki to aromatherapy. Practitioners often make claims in ads about the general spiritual and emotional benefits which their treatments can bring.
Claims about the relaxing nature of a therapy, its calming surroundings, or its ability to improve a sense of self are likely to be acceptable, as are descriptions about a therapy’s history or foundations (provided this doesn’t stay into objective claims of efficacy).
It’s just my opinion
Although we recognise that claims in testimonials are intended to reflect an individual’s experience, those testimonials may still imply that a therapy is efficacious - especially if it refers to specific health conditions. Unless clinical evidence is held to support direct and implied treatment claims, marketers are encouraged to use testimonials that refer to subjective or sensorial aspects of their experience. This CAP Advice on Claims in testimonials and endorsements explains the position further.
Evidence, evidence, evidence!
As with any other marketing claim, all efficacy claims about a complementary therapy must be supported with strong and robust evidence. Some therapies, such as osteopathy, are regulated by statute and have efficacy claims supported by high-level clinical evidence.
Other therapies, however, do not have the same evidence base and practitioners should, therefore, take care in the claims they make about these therapies.
Claims in an ad for acupuncture, for example, were found to be misleading as the advertiser did not hold sufficiently robust evidence to support claims that it could help with issues such as fertility problems, anxiety and insomnia.
These ASA rulings on IV Drips demonstrate the extent to which the ASA will assess, and sometimes reject, submitted clinical evidence.
This CAP Guidance explains the types and levels of evidence the ASA would expect to see.
Serious conditions, serious Requirements
Some people might turn to complementary therapies when faced with health problems. It is important, however, that practitioners who are not suitably qualified do not refer to serious medical conditions (CAP Code rule 12.2) in their ads, as this might discourage people from seeking medical supervision for essential treatment.
These 2023 rulings on hyperbaric oxygen chambers were found to discourage essential medical treatment for conditions including long COVID, chronic health conditions and depression, because the advertisers had not provided evidence to demonstrate that treatment had been overseen by a suitably qualified health professional.
Other examples of ailments that cannot usually be referred to in marketing communications include: arthritis, depression, diabetes, infertility and impotence. For further reading, this CAP Guidance includes a non-exhaustive list of medical conditions to which this position applies.
For further guidance, search our AdviceOnline entries and if you need bespoke advice on your non-broadcast ads then our Copy Advice team are here to help.
More on
-
Keep up to date
Sign up to our rulings, newsletters and emargoed access for Press. Subscribe now.
