Claims by Personal hygiene, healthcare & Pharma and Home Utility Products under the radar
BestMediaInfo Bureau | Delhi | March 6, 2012
During the months of November and December, the Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) ofÂ ASCIÂ upheld complaints made against 17 advertisements, from various sectors like Agricultural products, Deodorants, Personal Hygiene and Home Shopping Networks.Â DuringÂ the same period, theÂ CCC also did not uphold complaints against14 advertisements.
The CCC received a complaint against Bollgard, which made claims of boosting cotton farmersâ income by Rs. 31,500 crore, reducing usage of insecticides, containing in-built plant protection and increasing yields. The CCC concluded that the claims made in the advertisement and cited in the complaint, were not substantiated.Â The advertisement contravened Chapter I.1 of the ASCI Code. The complaint was UPHELD.
As deodorant advertisements are constantly under the radar, Pass Port Deodorantâs advertisement was pulled up by the CCC. The TVC focuses on a womanâs body and lewd expressions on the face of the male actor. It was concluded, that the advertisement was obscene and that, in the light of generally prevailing standards of decency and propriety, the TVC was likely to cause grave or widespread offence.Â The complaint was UPHELD.
Telemart Shopping Network Pvt Ltdâs advertisement of Sandhi Sudha was under the scanner as the TVC made claims of curing arthritis and spondylitis and of a âMoney Back Guaranteeâ if the product was ineffective. The CCC concluded that in the absence of scientific substantiation, the claim, âSandhi Sudha cures the disease of arthritis and spondylitisâ, was not substantiated and was misleading. The complaint regarding âmoney back guaranteeâ was misleading as the terms and conditions for the refund were not mentioned in the TVC and hence the complaint was UPHELD.
Association of Mutual Funds in Indiaâs booklet states that âEvery Mutual Fund is managed by a fund manager, who by using his investment management skills and necessary research work, ensures better returns than what an investor can manage on his ownâ. The objection is to the word âensuresâ as it could be misleading. Hence it was UPHELD.
Dr. Ayurveda Power Prash and Body Growthâs advertisement for âenhancement of sexual powerâ was questioned for its claims stating âincreasing sperm count, helping people suffering from infertility to have kids.â The CCC remarked that these claims were not substantiated. The advertiser should provide clinical data in substantiation of these claims. The CCC concluded that the TVC contravened The Drugs & Magic Remedies Act. Hence, the complaint was UPHELD.
The advertisement of Glen Appliances Pvt. Ltdâs print advertisement states âDo you know cooking in aluminum can be harmful?â while the website states âDo you know aluminum cookware is not safe?â These claims are not truthful, and have not been substantiated by any reputed international organization such as the World Health Organization (WHO) or by any country noted for a high standard of vigilance in consumer protection. The claims are not based on facts, and incapable of reasonable substantiation. It also unfairly denigrates attacks and discredits all aluminum cookware directly. The CCC concluded that the Print Ad claim and the website claim stating that cooking in aluminum is harmful and is not safe, were misleading, hence the complaint was UPHELD.
Vanesa Incâs advertisement of Denver Deodorant contains the tagline âplay it coolâ. However, the brand John Playerâs has been using the same tagline since 2005. Since copying the slogan amounts to plagiarism, the advertisement contravened Chapter IV.3 of the ASCI Code and the complaint was UPHELD.
In the personal hygiene segment, the CCC received a complaint against Stayfree All Night. As per the complaint, the advertisement claims that âStayfree all night has the unique guard five.Â This in comparison to your Ultra is longer, wider, with more body coverage, more absorbent and drier too.âÂ This claim means that the Stayfree all night is better than all the pads in the market which use the word âUltraâ. But in reality this is not the case as has been admitted by the TVC itself in the form of a super which states, âWhen compared only with ultra napkins of 280 mm length and 105 mm back width.â Making comparison against product in different segment certainly is unfair and misleading. As the comparison was not made between products of a similar size, the TVC was considered misleading and the complaint was UPHELD.
Health drink Complanâs advertisement was under the scanner this time around.. The TVC claims that âchildren who drink Complan grow 2 times faster than children who drink other health drinksâ. This claim was substantiated through independent clinical research. This complaint was NOT UPHELD However the comparison in the Chart between Complan and non Complan drinkers is likely to mislead consumers that Complan is superior on the basis of its main ingredient (Milk Solids) Hence, this complaint was UPHELD.
In the education sector, NoesisÂ Education and Management Services was pulled up for their advertisement which made claims of being âBiggest in India, attended by 1200 students at a timeâ, âDo not miss out on being trained by the best subject experts from all over the country,â âHigh quality contents from Bestselling authors, rank holders and subject matter experts.â In the absence of comments from the Advertiser, the CCC concluded that the claims mentioned in the advertisement, and cited in the complaint, were not substantiated and hence the advertisement was UPHELD.
In the healthcare and pharma sector, Pfizerâs advertisement on Gelusil Antacid was questioned. As per the complaint, the TVC shows âa boy running along a parked vehicle and using a sharp article scratching the vehicle, possibly scraping the paint and even denting the bodyâ. The question asked is âDoes this make your Heart burnâ followed by âGelusil be used to avoid heart burn and acidityâ. The CCC concluded that the depiction of the young boy vandalizing a car is likely to encourage minors to emulate such acts, the careless use of which could lead to their suffering cuts or other injury. The complaint was, therefore, UPHELD.
Eureka Forbesâ Aquasure water purifierâs TVC claimed that the product provides Worldâs Safest Water. The TVC does not provide any basis, facts or reference to any study or research work which substantiates this claim. The CCC concluded that, whilst the water emanating from Aquasure water purifier is safe,Â the claim of the âWorldâs safest waterâ, is misleading. The complaint was UPHELD.
The CCC also received a complaint against Eureka Forbesâ Aquasure Xtra water purifierâs leaflet which makes comparisons and propagates false statements about Pureit products, Classic and Compact. The tabular format compares the product features and puts a â?â against Pureit products. The CCC concluded that, while Eureka Forbes has gained trust of the consumers, to say that Pureit products have not, is disparaging. By marking a â?â against the Pureit brand is misleading and creates doubts in the minds of the consumer. It was thus concluded that the leaflet contravened the codeand the complaint was UPHELD.
During these two months, theÂ CCC alsoÂ received complaints against Cadburyâ Bournville, Piramal Healthcare Ltdâs Supractiv Complete, Jockey, MetLife India Insurance Company Ltd, Ad promos of C.I.D., Fast Track watches, Killer Deodorant, Wild Stone Deodorant, TATA Docomo, Colgate Palmolive, [REPEAT] Dulux Paints, and Santoor Soap amongst others. AsÂ these advertisements did not contravene ASCIâs codes or guidelines, they wereÂ NOT UPHELD.