Will the Nurofen ad ban set a precedent for a marketing claims crackdown?

clearly 1 tablet does not cure all (and I am glad you have found one that works for you) but one that has a general use should not be advertised as specific to a particular pain, when it is not.

“marketing & sales” is two words plus an ampersand – but otherwise I agree with your point. (I suppose “advertising” is only one word though…)

As John Ward said, when you need good medicine it really does make sense to go and talk to your local pharmacist. If the stuff you need is only available on prescription, they’ll tell you that too.

I support speaking to the pharmacist too. A good pharmacist should ask whether you have taken a drug before, what the problem is and what other medications you are taking.

Everyone should watch this, very funny , very informative.
youtube.com/watch?v=tfNqBP900L8

We have still got Miele’s advertising that suggests products will last for 20 years, despite the standard guarantee period being only two years in most cases. In Australia, Miele was instructed to withdraw their advertising.

I liked the video, DT. Which? could do the same to ridicule those companies that behave irresponsibly.

In the spirit of consumerism I bet the Australians would have been very pleased and agreeable if Which? had asked to use it.

Scoring on grounds of cheapness to us and also illustrating that with multi-nationals you need a global view also.

Maybe we will align the Disunited Kingdom more with Australia following the Referendum.

Miele have, quite rightly, said that they test their products for the equivalent of 20 years use. They should be applauded for doing this – product durability is something we should seek to promote. I wish many other companies, particularly white goods suppliers, did the same.

I’d be much more concerned to criticise dubious companies who produce rubbish than one that produces decent, reliable products.

I would have thought the best way to tackle claims like that is to make the guarantee last the length of the claim. We’d soon see the ads removed. And if it whoopie

Miele are not making a “claim” from what I have seen on their website, they are saying how long they test products for to check their likely life. I’d rather be given this sort of information. And I’d like that sort of information for all “important” products so I don’t buy a washing machine that is only likely to last 2 years and can’t be repaired. Information is important to make considered decisions.

Thanks William. I was going to suggest a guarantee half the length of the claim as a compromise. I am not criticising the quality of the products, just the marketing and thankfully Miele was instructed to withdraw its adverts in Australia.

It is a statement, not a claim, isn’t it? Thankfully we have some companies that produce reliable products. Many are available with 5 year and 10 year warranties. We should be pursuing information on durability and repairability just as BEUC are asking for (umbrella organisation for European consumers associations). Do Which? actively support this stance?

We have discussed this many times, Malcolm, and I want to see decent guarantees, durable and repairable products. I believe that the inference is that a Miele product will last 20 years, so it is effectively a misleading claim. If Miele was ordered to withdraw their advertising in Australia, it’s not just me that is unhappy. Maybe we should get back to Reckitt Benckiser and their misleading claims regarding Nurofen.

The ruling will certainly help as a precedent for tackling similar advertising that is unsatisfactory. I would like to see all NEW claims approved before they appear in advertising. If a claim has been approved then it can be used in new advertising unless new evidence comes to light that negates the claim.

I would be tempted to agree apart forma potential log-jam and whoever is responsible for the testing. And who pays.

Seems to me that we could be cheaper and yet offer more deterrence by charging for every time a false claim is made in an advert before it is removed. And consider jail terms for a companies advertising commpliance director/and or the advertising company.

The first part of my suggestion would catch the very large advertisers as the fines could be huge. The jail term is to make the manufacturers very wary of breaching the guidelines. Of course jail is expensive but tagging directors to staying at home other than medical appointments may be the lower level of enforcement.

And for those of you thinking of politicians and lies ….. let us get the advertisers sorted first.

I don’t see why it is an insurmountable problem to have all NEW claims in advertising vetted, paid for by the company. Existing claims can be reused.

Thinking of corporate punishment, it’s time to hold senior staff accountable and punish them rather than having fines, which are just passed on to the consumer in increased costs of goods and services.

This keeps cropping up. Given the amount of new adverts across all fields and products we would be tying up vast quantities of “experts” (who might they be and where would we find them?) checking claims, tying up testing resources in a bureaucratic empire when all we have to do is treat most adverts with common sense and a sceptical outlook and require the regulators to impose very heavy penalties on the real misleading and fraudulent offenders. We need “experts” doing real productive jobs. Oh, and if the “experts” endorse an advert and it proves wrong, do we then take legal action against the “experts”.

I don’t believe Voltarol is capable of targeting particular parts of my body effectively, because that has been publicised. Similarly I don’t believe Nurofen will target, just help reduce pain. If we are “educated” on misleading claims, like superfoods, for example, then those many people with common sense can make a choice. Perhaps apply the same scepticism as we do to political statements?

I am not over-bothered whether the claims made for an X-Hose turn out to be false but it does worry me that misleading claims are made for medical remedies because they could lead to sufferers not seeking the best treatment for their ailments. I would agree that all NEW claims for medicinal products should be put to the test before advertising is permitted.

We have discussed the claims made for foods in other Conversations and the UK has guidance based on European legislation: gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/204320/Nutrition_and_health_claims_guidance_November_2011.pdf It is quite clear what is and is not allowed.

There are infringements, of course, but I believe the degree of control is adequate. We have tight control on the licensing of drug (both prescription and other drugs) manufacture and sale, so I don’t understand how there is not control to strongly discover companies from making false claims, as RB has done for Nurofen.

Presumably all these drugs are licensed so they meet the basic requirements to treat the ailment(s) for which they are sold, so it is not a safety or function issue. It is simply how some people are persuaded to buy more of them than they might need. If you have a particular ailment – back ache maybe – and the drug helps, it has done its job. You are unlikely to have ladies pains, joint pains or other pains at the same time so are you likely to buy all these varieties at the same shopping trip?

I am averse to salesmen and marketing almost on principle (I was one told it is the 90% of salesmen that get the other 10% a bad name – but I don’t believe that 🙂 ) because I like the facts on which to make my own mind up rather than listen to persuasive people trying to make my mind up for me. Perhaps we need to educate people better to make their own minds up by asking questions – try the pharmacist in this case.

Incidentally this is why I am occasionally critical of Which? campaigns and surveys that lack information or facts – I prefer to look at the problem and make my own mind up, not be bulldozed with an unbalanced case into voting the chosen way. Perhaps the ASA equivalent could be applied here? 🙂

If the manufacturers of Nurofen wanted to sell it as a painkiller suitable for a variety of conditions , I can see no problem as long as they stick to ones that are normally treated with the drug.

They could also make a valid claim that ‘Nurofen is considerably more expensive and equally effective as ibuprofen sold in most supermarkets’. Maybe I should have gone into marketing. 🙂

How’s the dog basket charger?
We, consumers, have to be savvy. Life is about dealing with such things. I do not condone fraudulent or misleading advertising but equally we have to learn to deal with life as it is. Simply publicise that Nurofen is the equivalent of cheap Ibuprofen and I bet many people will still opt for the “trusted brand”. In the same way people buy water in expensive bottles when it is free out of their taps.

The problem as posted elsewhere, is that consumers may unwittingly take the same drug for the various aches and pains such as headache , backache etc because they believe they ARE specific to an area. It is irrelevant what the little bits of paper and the warnings as humans being simple creatures simply remember those big bold adverts.

The manufacturers marketing is potentially dangerous and on those grounds alone should be hammered.

Reading Wikipedia lists the potential side-effects. They may not be over common but with millions taking them daily it adds up.

nhs.uk/Conditions/Painkillers-ibuprofen/Pages/Missed-or-extra-doses.aspx
If you have taken more than your recommended daily dose of ibuprofen, contact your GP or call NHS 111. If you have taken a large overdose, go to your nearest ..

Malcolm – It is interesting to explore the concept of a ‘trusted brand’.
– Perhaps it is easiest to equate trusted brand with the market share, which makes, Coca Cola and McDonalds trusted brands. A significant minority has nothing but contempt for these companies.
– Familiarity can create a trusted brand. It’s well established that advertising works, which I assume accounts for the popularity of Nurofen. As far as I know there is no evidence that Nurofen is any better than other brands, but maybe it comes in a nicer looking box. Maybe it comes with better instructions in larger print, which is the only advantage I have yet found with the better known brands of prescription drugs.
–Selling products at a higher price is sometimes used to convince us that a product must be better than other brands. Maybe that’s a factor with Nurofen.

I question whether the average consumer is likely to be ‘savvy’ over pharmaceuticals. They will appreciate that ibuprofen gel applied to a sore knee could give targeted pain relief and many asthmatics know that inhaled steroids are less likely to cause side effects than oral steroids. Some will know that there are drugs that genuinely target specific sites (unlike ibuprofen) but probably as a result of a medical condition that they or a family member suffers from. The fact that many buy Nurofen rather than an equally effective and significantly cheaper brand of ibuprofen suggests to me that the population is anything but savvy in this context.

Dieseltaylor – I share your concerns regarding safety. Ibuprofen is a very useful drug but selling it in supermarkets carries various risks. I don’t watch TV advertising but I’ll bet there is little warning of the risks associated with Nurofen (which would obviously apply to other brands too).

“Perhaps it is easiest to equate trusted brand with the market share””. I don’t follow the logic of this. These are jusr default brands – widely available but not consequentially “trusted”. I would trust, for example, Miele, Marks and Spencer food, Felco secateurs, Veritas wood planes. Not necessarily market leaders but products that have given me cause to trust them with decent credentials behind them. Whirlpool might be high in market share but I would not “trust” them in the way I would other appliance manufacturers.

It is a shame when brands are sold so someone else can simply trade on their established credentials, but without continuing to support those credentials – Qualcast perhaps as an example. I believe the ultimate owner of a branded product should be very clearly shown; we can then decide whether we are comfortable dealing with them. As an example I have no respect for Coca Cola’s operation and with control of Innocent Smoothies I would not trust the latter either – maybe wrongly but attitudes can be contagious.

It was simply one interpretation of ‘trusted brand’, Malcolm. As I said, some of us have nothing but contempt for the company, but for people to continue to buy Coca Cola there must be a fair number who do trust the brand.

I have too have brands that I trust, both of products and retailers, but there are actions that can put me off brands too. For example, I generally avoid Nestle products for ethical and other reasons well documented on Wikipedia. I avoid various products because they are/were expensive compared with alternatives. One example is Nurofen, which is no better than ibuprofen sold in the supermarket for a fraction of the price.

We need to keep up the pressure, Rob. The recent ASA ruling overturns one made in 2012 regarding Nurofen being able to target the source of pain.

I want advertising that is ‘legal, decent, honest and truthful’ by everyone’s standards – not just the lax standards of the ASA. At least you have done something, which is more than most of us have done.

Advert shows someone rubbing Voltarol gel on their back………….. what does it do to their fingers ?

Robert -are we talking the drug Voltaren ? Or is it just an advertising name ? If it has a chemical relationship to Diclofenac Sodium then it has a long list of dangerous side effects and it kills birds eating the carcass of dead animals containing that drug . But maybe they have no relationship??

Voltarol is a gel – TV advert – as far as I can remember.
(.co.uk website “Voltarol Emulgel® P brings targeted and localised relief from pain and swelling (inflammation) in muscles, back and neck.”)

It may be the same as/similar to Voltaren as you describe. Maybe I am confused. All the more reason not to allow TV adverts for drugs. (I am not saying ban the drugs if useful and recommended by a pharmacist)

Having done another check, Voltaren (you describe, appears on a .com website) and Voltarol (I remember) seem to be the same.

For the purpose of this Which Conversation, my point is it is another example claiming to target specific areas……. but magically has no corresponding effect on the hand that rubbed it on.

‘Voltarol’ is a popular pain-relief gel sold in countless chemists, supermarkets, general stores and on-line. I have not checked its formulation as it comes in various types.

Got it ! –it is diclofenac but can be ammonium form as well as sodium gel. That doesnt change the main ingredient I wouldnt let that stuff near me . Just read the side effects and the people who should not take it (allergy sufferers and heart patients/stroke victims and more) and you should notify your doctor . As usual to get the inside info I went to America and government departments who are more open than secret service UK . ROBERT the US says always wash your hands immediately after using it ,dont get it in your mouth,eyes or nose , only use a thin layer rub in gently . Tell your doctor if you are using blood thinner /blood pressure medicine /water pills /steroids aspirin /ibuprofen /lithium . A new US study says it can raise your risk of a heart attack by 40 % it stops your blood vessels dilating which isnt a good thing in HBP and recent evidence suggests it promotes hardening of the arteries . There is a lot more. Americans dont use it as much as Europeans as it is classed as “old medicine “

We don’t have any Voltarol in the house right now but from memory I think there is a full patient information leaflet covering application and possible side-effects inside every pack. It’s not a secret. The UK authorities that license drugs for medicinal purposes are strict on companies providing this information but not everyone reads the leaflet, of course, so complications can occur.

Kenneth, I think the issue here is that the blood circulates the drug to the target and every other part of the body too.

Hence this “cheats” somewhat with its use of the word “targeted”. In shooting competitions, we’d expect a good shot to keep all his (or her) rounds on the target, instead of scattering them all over the target and the surrounding area.

Correction: “I’d like to see any drugs with medical benefits banned”……….. should have read banned from advertising. (like tobacco)

I agree that banning an ad is not enough, but fines would just be treated as a business expense and passed on to customers. We have both questioned the use of fines in the past. Perhaps we could at least explore the practicality of having NEW claims approved before they are used in advertising. Advertising changes, of course, but reusing the same claim need not be checked.

I am always sceptical about products like this, regarding colds as inevitable and we must let then take their natural course. However because mrs r is particularly at risk from chest infections I will take any precautions I can if I show symptoms of a cold, just in case the remedy may help. Individuals will never know of course whether the precautions they have taken have been effective. however I have to say that when Ii have squirted First Defence up my nostrils I feel that there has been an element of success, and all that matters is I have tried.

I note that P&G won’t release trials data to individuals – I think that is fair, although others will disagree – but will (do?) to the regulators and it is to them we should direct our requests. They are no doubt (?) the best people to interpret the data and decide on its efficacy. I’d like to know what they make of the product.

“Helps stop a cold in its tracks” is the claim on the packet according to an advert on the Boots UK website. I would have thought that this would be within the remit of the ASA to adjudicate on. The pack also says “Clinically proven”, so I would expect to see the evidence.

Interestingly Vicks First Defence is said not to be a drug, on the basis that the claimed effect is claimed to be due to pH change rather than chemical interaction – the normal basis of the mode of action of drugs.

As someone who has been expected to publish papers by research councils and other funding bodies during their work, suppressing the dissemination of knowledge is a very alien concept. If a company wants to protect products, surely it will can file patents in the usual way. Once they are in place there should be no problem with publication of information.

I’m sorry to hear about Mrs R because chest infections used to affect me badly and are something I can relate to.

The ingredients of FD are “Aqua, Hydroxypropyl Methylcellulose (based on plant extracts), Succinic Acid, Disodium Succinate, PCA, Phenethyl alcohol, Zinc EDTA, Zinc Acetate, Polysorbate 80, Aroma: (Menthol, Camphor, Eucalyptol), Sodium Saccharin”. I imagine that the bottle would be the expensive part.

There is no microorganism, Duncan. If the gel acts as a physical barrier to the cold virus it could be effective, but I would want to see evidence from clinical trials.

wavechange -it would need to have memory to have the ability to coat (target ) virus cells or if not then its just like spray paint on a car it just covers the whole area therefore it is non-intelligent and not very effective . I suspect that the chemical composition has been genetically modified to target the virus which wouldnt be normally noticeable. The actual detailed info say specifically – TARGETS the virus cells.

I would not agree because the paint on a car is very effective in preventing steel from rusting, simply by preventing water coming into contact with the metal. The ingredients are chemicals and there is nothing to genetically modify.

Well spotted the bit about targeting viruses, Duncan. To quote: “Unlike medicines that help relieve bothersome cold symptoms, First defence nasal spray works at the first signs of a cold by targeting the viruses to help stop the cold in its tracks before the symptoms get worse.”

That looks like an unsubstantiated claim, like Nurofen targeting back pain, migraine or other ailment. I wonder if @jpearl could comment on this.

Interesting wavechange I was only using the paint to illustrate a point . It says it COVERS (encloses ) the virus therefore it isnt a “top layer ” but an intelligent bio-chemical action surrounding and SEPARATING the virus from the human skin –if this is a lie its a whopper and I too would be looking for a honest definition of this information given by P+G and other medical websites. We maybe getting in deep here wavechange but this involves public information and the public being “duped ” IF it is wrong ?

The main component of First Defence is hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, which is a sticky material like wallpaper paste. I presume that (if it works as claimed) it coats the virus particles and thus interferes with them being recognised by human cells in the nasal passages.

I have no idea whether or not the product works but it might be worth raising this with the ASA again. They eventually changed their view on whether Nurofen provided targeted pain relief, but the manufacturer was able to profit from sales of overpriced ibuprofen for four years. Here are the two cases: https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications.aspx?SearchTerms=nurofen#results