********************************************************************************
Age Technology
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications ... _44082.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ASA Adjudications
Age Technology
Freepost Plus RRHY-ZJJA-CJCU
405 Kings Road
London
SW10 0BB
Number of complaints: 1
Date: 5 March 2008
Media: Mailing
Sector: Health and beauty
Ad
A direct mailing was headed "Boots No7 Protect - The Age Reversing Anti Wrinkle Serum recommended on the BBC ... TO ORDER TIME-DEFY SERUM CALL: 0808 XXX XXXX TODAY." Body copy inside the mailing stated "Time DefyTM Serum is a safe and effective alternative to plastic surgery and injections, it has been proven, in clinical studies, to reduce wrinkles by more than 30% in just the first month of use! ... Hot on the heels of Boots No7 comes Time Defy Serum - it contains the same anti-wrinkle ingredients, available at a fraction of the cost and it's in stock now! ... thanks to the recent BBC2 Horizon programme millions of women in the UK know they can get exactly the same results at a fraction of the price - no wonder these serums have been practically SOLD-OUT!" Body copy on page three of the mailing stated "... Time Defy Serum (has) now been proven effective for reducing wrinkles and smoothing facial skin by up to 60% in just one month while skin thickness increased by over 8% in four months. In vivo testing showed that applications reduced wrinkles around the eyes by as much as 20% after two months and by more than 60% after 4 months. That's a full two-third reduction in lines and wrinkles plus a lot of years off of your face in just 4 months! The mailing showed "before and after" pictures of a woman's eyes and mouth. Body copy underneath stated "Time Defy SerumTM works in 3 ways - 1. First it repairs the matrix and epidermal junction to reduce wrinkle depth by 40%; 2. Natural botanical extracts moisturise and soothe your skin; 3. Anti-oxidants prevent damage by free radicals so help keep your skin looking younger." Page four of the mailing showed "before and after" pictures and testimonials from five customers. Body copy underneath referred to "the incredible rejuvenating effects of Time Defy SerumTM." The mailing contained an order form on the reverse of which was a letter headed "Age Defying Anti Wrinkle Serum recommended on the BBC" beginning "Dear Friend" and signed by Dr Elizabeth Jenkins, Research Director, Age Technology. The letter referred to a product available on the High Street which a BBC programme reported to be as effective as products costing considerably more. The letter stated "Our scientists here at Age Technology believe the secret to its success lies with a few ingredients the peptides, antioxidants, vitamins and natural actives - such as those in Time Defy Serum, which importantly contains exactly the same peptide and pro-retinol as the BBC recommended ... So instead of spending hours in an undignified high street queue, paying 3 or 4 times on the internet - why not order Time Defy Serum today? It's guaranteed to work, making you look years younger, less wrinkled, with reduced lines and creases and smoother, softer skin after just a few weeks regular application ..."
Issue
1. The recipient challenged whether customers would receive the Boots No7 Protect & Perfect product.
The ASA challenged whether the advertisers could substantiate the claims:
2. "it contains the same anti-wrinkle ingredients (as the Boots No7 product)";
3. "it's now been proven effective for reducing wrinkles and smoothing facial skin by up to 60% in just one month";
4. "skin thickness increased by over 8% in four months";
5. "In vivo testing showed that applications reduced wrinkles around the eyes by as much as 20% after two months and by more than 60% after 4 months";
6. "it repairs the matrix and epidermal junction to reduce wrinkle depth by 40%" and
7. "Anti-oxidants prevent damage by free radicals so help keep your skin looking younger".
The ASA also challenged
8. whether the before-and-after photographs were a genuine representation of the effect of the treatment and
9. whether the testimonials were genuine.
The CAP Code:
3.1;7.1;18.4;14.1;50.1;14.2;14.5
Response
1. Age Technology said the ad clearly identified their product as Time Defy Serum, which they said was a trademark, and maintained there had been no intention to imply that any other product was being sold. They believed the ad clearly distinguished Time Defy Serum from Boots No7 Protect & Perfect by describing it as "Hot on the heels of Boots No7;" that pricing details and the order form referred to Time Defy Serum only and that colour photographs of bottles of the product used at three different points in the ad showed it as being visibly different and distinct from Boots No7 Protect & Perfect.
2. Age Technology provided details of the ingredients as listed on the outside of Boots No7 Protect & Perfect and Time Defy Serum. In both cases the lists included Retinyl Palmitate and Palmitoyl Pentapeptide 3.
3. Age Technology supplied evidence which they believed showed that Palmitoyl Pentapeptide 3 and Retinol - two of the ingredients in Time Defy Serum - had been proven to be effective for reducing wrinkles and smoothing facial skin by up to 60% in one month.
4. Age Technology supplied evidence which they believed showed that Palmitoyl Pentapeptide 3 and Retinol - two of the ingredients in Time Defy Serum - had been proven to be effective in improving skin thickness by between 8.6 and 8.7%.
5. Age Technology supplied evidence which they believed showed that Palmitoyl Pentapeptide 3 and Retinol - two of the ingredients in Time Defy Serum - had been proven to be effective in reducing wrinkles around the eyes by 20% in two months and by 60% over four months.
6. Age Technology supplied evidence which they believed showed that Palmitoyl Pentapeptide 3 and Retinol - two of the ingredients in Time Defy Serum - repaired the matrix and epidermal junction to reduce wrinkle depth by 40% in four months.
7. Age Technology said they believed the relationship between free radical skin damage and prevention by anti-oxidant action was widely accepted. They cited a study undertaken in 2007 by the American Archives of Dermatology which they believed provided conclusive evidence of the efficacy of topical retinol (vitamin A) in improving the clinical signs of naturally aged skin.
8. Age Technology stated that they held the original photographs on file.
9. Age Technology stated that they held the original testimonials on file.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted there were several references to the Boots No7 product on the front of the mailing, for example "Boots No7 Protect & Perfect - The Age Reversing Anti Wrinkle Serum recommended on the BBC." However, we also noted that the inside of the mailing contained the wording "Hot on the heels of Boots No7 comes Time Defy Serum" and "Considering Boots No7 Protect & Perfect - then you must read this - TIME DEFY SERUM ... ;" that the order form referred to and showed Time Defy Serum only and that the letter that accompanied the mailing stated "Our scientists here at Age Technology believe the secret to its success lies with a few ingredients ... such as those in Time Defy Serum, which importantly contains exactly the same peptide and pro-retionol as the BBC recommended ..."
On balance, we considered most of the text clearly distinguished between the two products and was unlikely to mislead readers into expecting that they would receive Boots No7 Protect and Perfect.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 18.4 (Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products) but did not find it in breach.
2. Upheld
We noted that the outside of Boots No7 Protect & Perfect and Time Defy Serum both listed Retinyl Palmitate and Palmitoyl Pentapeptide 3 as ingredients and that Age Technology believed they were the key anti-wrinkle ingredients of both products.
We considered the term "anti-wrinkle" implied more than a simply cosmetic effect and would be understood as claiming a physiological action. Because claims relating to such an action had not been found acceptable before, an adequate body of evidence was required to back-up this claim. We noted that the evidence Age Technology supplied referred to human studies; that the studies used what Age Technology considered to be the key active ingredients in Time Defy Serum and compared them against placebos on the facial area and that the volunteers appeared to be from the sector of the population at which the product was targeted. However, we also noted that the evidence only summarised the studies and did not contain full details of their methodology and analysis that we would normally expect to demonstrate that they had been adequately controlled and the validity of the results. We therefore concluded there was not sufficient evidence to support the claim.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health & beauty products and therapies).
3. Upheld
We considered the claim implied more than simply a cosmetic effect and would be understood as claiming a physiological action with a cumulative effect. Because claims relating to such an action had not been found acceptable before, an adequate body of evidence was required to back-up this claim. For the reasons described in point 2 above, we concluded that the evidence Age Technology supplied did not meet that standard and was not sufficient to support the claim.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health & beauty products and therapies).
4. Upheld
We considered the claim implied more than simply a cosmetic effect and would be understood as claiming a physiological action with a cumulative effect. Because claims relating to such an action had not been found acceptable before, an adequate body of evidence was required to back up this claim. For the reasons described in point 2 above, we concluded that the evidence Age Technology supplied did not meet that standard and was not sufficient to support the claim.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health & beauty products and therapies).
5. Upheld
We considered the claim implied more than simply a cosmetic effect and would be understood as claiming a physiological action with a cumulative effect. Because claims relating to such an action had not been found acceptable before, an adequate body of evidence was required to back-up this claim. For the reasons described in point 2 above, we concluded that the evidence Age Technology supplied did not meet that standard and was not sufficient to support the claim.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health & beauty products and therapies).
6. Upheld
We considered the claim implied more than simply a cosmetic effect and would be understood as claiming a physiological action with a cumulative effect. Because claims relating to such an action had not been found acceptable before, an adequate body of evidence was required to back-up this claim. For the reasons described in point 2 above, we concluded that the evidence Age Technology supplied did not meet that standard and was not sufficient to support the claim.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health & beauty products and therapies).
7. Upheld
The ASA and CAP accept that, when taken orally, beta-carotene (vitamin A) and vitamins C and E are effective antioxidants. For products containing them in sufficient quantities, claims that they help protect the body's tissues against the damaging effects of free radicals, for instance, are likely to be acceptable. However, because claims relating to the efficacy of topically-applied antioxidants had not been found acceptable before, an adequate body of evidence was required to back-up claims relating to topical application. We noted that the trial Age Technology cited was carried out on the upper inner arm which we understood was not a good model for facial skin, the area on which Time Defy Serum would be applied. We concluded that the evidence Age Technology supplied was not sufficient to support the claim.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 50.1 (Health & beauty products and therapies).
8. Upheld
Age Technology had not provided signed and dated proof that the photographs were genuine and also that they had not been manipulated. Even if they had done so, however, we did not consider Age Technology had provided a robust body of evidence to substantiate the level of efficacy the photographs implied.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 14.1 (Testimonials and endorsements) and 50.1 (Health & beauty products and therapies).
9. Upheld
Age Technology had not provided signed and dated proof that the testimonials were genuine. Even if they had done so, however, we did not consider Age Technology had provided a robust body of evidence to substantiate the level of efficacy the testimonials claimed.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 14.1, 14.3 and 14.5 (Testimonials and endorsements) and 50.1 (Health & beauty products and therapies).
Action
We told Age Technology to delete the claims that suggested more than a simply cosmetic effect from their ad until they held sufficient substantiation to back them up.
[Captured: 07 March 2008 21:54:01]
###################