HolfordWatch would like to direct your attention to a news item: YouTube virals must play by US ad rules: UK advertising rules may change to close loophole.[a] We have blogged several ASA rulings that involve Patrick Holford and Equazen where the ASA has found that their advertising is untruthful, unsubstantiated etc. and yet, these breaches of advertising guidelines continue. We have remarked upon how very frustrating it is that it is possible to find a form of words in breach of guidelines when it is printed in a brochure or reproduced in a Google Ad or Sponsored Link but there is no redress against untruths and distortions when they are on a company’s own website. That may be about to change.
The…[ASA's] rulebook, the CAP Code, makes clear that it covers adverts in emails and “text transmissions.” But the CAP Code also states that “the Code does not apply to… website content, except sales promotions and advertisements in paid-for space”…
“Adverts on YouTube or on a company’s own websites are not in our remit,” he said. “For example, Tesco could say something on their website [that breaches the CAP Code] and we can’t do anything about that, but the same statement on a billboard is within our remit.”
Wilson said the position only changes if a company ‘pushes’ the video, such as by email…
UK industry body the Advertising Association set up a committee to review the remit of the ASA earlier this year. Its Digital Media Group was convened to put forward proposals for future-proofing the industry’s self-regulation of advertising on digital media and its report is expected in 2009. A spokesman for the DMG said that the group expects to make recommendations “within the course of 2009″.
It will be interesting to see if there is a further exploration of what constitutes ‘educational text’ and advertising. We have highlighted substantial errors and distortions in newsletters from Patrick Holford, both the ones that are distributed free of charge to an email subscription list and the ones that are paid for by subscription. We recently mentioned some unevidenced Holford claims about chromium in his (paid for) subscription newsletter and shall shortly be discussing yet more of his distortions about the state of research evidence for chromium in his latest (free) email newsletter. It would be good to see some formal redress about those errors.
We would like to see tighter guidelines on the claims that Patrick Holford and others like him can make on television, radio and other broadcast media (something more akin to the german model). Some readers might recall a thorough exploration of Patrick Holford’s sales techniques masquerading as education or health advice and whether they conform to the BANT code of ethics.[b]
Now, it is an entirely sensible business decision that Holford and similar pundits should take full advantage of air time[c] to offer unfounded criticisms of systematic reviews or criticise medical management of chronic diseases with only a distorted evidence-base to support them: although this is a great disservice to their audience, it is a fabulous opportunity for self-promotion and reinforces pundit brand equity. GMTV shares the blame for allowing both self-styled nutritionists and credulous GPs (e.g., Drs Hilary Jones and Chris Steele) to confuse their audience with pseudoscience and inaccurate information. British TV audiences deserve informed health commentary – they deserve better than Patrick Holford or pundits of that ilk.
Of course, there are already ways around restrictions on a company’s website advertising, as we pointed out when we discussed Food for the Brain’s endorsement of Cherry Active products: endorsements that allow claims to be made for the product by FFTB, a 3rd party, and thus not covered by advertising regulations that would preclude those claims being made by the manufacturer or distributor.
However, it is absurd that a claim is acceptable and can be referred to when on a website, but is in breach of guidelines if reproduced, verbatim, on a bill-board or on a paid-for slot. Similarly, it is beyond belief that Patrick Holford and his ilk are permitted to make claims when acting as health pundits on TV or radio that they would be forbidden to make in advertising material. It is past time that this situation is rationalised.
Notes
[a] Specific ASA guidance on viral videos (pdf).
[b] Highlights of the analysis were that Holford:
- recommended IgG tests; an expensive diagnostic test that has no proven value for diagnosing food intolerance and that has been explicitly deprecated by a House of Lords’ Special Committee and criticised by the ASA
- repeatedly referred questioners to his own books and website
- suggested the use of supplements for which there is no evidence base for the conditions for which he recommended them and for which he has his own range
- advised people to seek the help of one of his nutritionists or to attend the Brain Bio Centre for which he is a director
- repeatedly seemed to breach BANT’s own ethics code, a code that is already notoriously pliable in some matters, such as commission.
You might also recall the segment that Patrick Holford did with Dr Sarah Jarvis in which there was a negligible interval before he started to promote unproven supplements for the management of diabetes type 2.
Watch the entire segment in which Holford and Jarvis discuss diabetes management; read some discussion and analysis, Part 1 and Part2. Plus, the full story of the lack of an appropriate evidence-base to support Holford’s recommended supplements.
Yet, GMTV has no no qualms allowing Holford unfettered access to their sofas to spread mis-information to their audience: access that has the potential to net books sales and commission for him.
[c] Advertising equivalents are a frequent topic for discussion. Proving the value of public relations gives a good overview of the current state of this discussion: Advertising Value Equivalents Revisited.
3 Comments
November 25, 2008 at 10:38 am
I have a default and probably childish knee-jerk about anything that looks like the US imposing its ideas of what is acceptable on other countries.
It’s no surprise that consumers can be confused about what is and isn’t true. It is asking too much to expect consumers to context switch: ‘Statement is probably verifiable if on a billboard but not on a website may even be dripping in Hon Code or accreditations’. Or – what out for hook statements in print that lure me to a website where claims will look plausible but don’t need to be even vaguely grounded in fact.
I agree that the situation with the ASA and the lack of penalties for repeat offenders of the ‘truth, substantiation’ parts of the code are frustrating. Why would a business change its ways when there are no consequences for repeated infractions?
November 25, 2008 at 3:25 pm
If a pundit appears on TV or Radio and has the imprimatur of (say) the BBC’s respectability, then it is almost impossible to separate that out from the website to which you may be directed by said pundit. After that there is the issue of source amnesia which is a recipe for disaster. The material that was read on the website may well be muddled in with the Ofcom-safe advice given on TV and the whole cloth then becomes ‘validated’ and ‘respectable’ rather than there being strict demarcations between the parts. (I know the paper was just about websites but it may not be that great a stretch to think that there may be a confusion that extends to broadcast material that directs you to a website.)
April 21, 2009 at 4:12 pm
[...] is aware of some irritating inconsistencies about its regulatory remit but there may soon be some useful amendments to current loopholes. For example, Tesco could say something on their website [that breaches the CAP Code] and we [...]