You’ve got to give it to them, wimmin have a lot to put up with. The pain of childbirth, the worry that their plastic pots come out of the dishwasher still wet forcing them to dry by hand (see TV commercial for Finish) and the daily choice to use products from the house of Olay, Nivea or Loreal.

Tough world, tough choices, Nutrillium, Boswellox or 15% added Oxygen ?

Surely everyone, men, women, dogs and cats at some time suffer with heartburn, indigestion, constipation or even wet plastic ware yet, it’s women who are being targeted by the ad men for relief to all these irritating and debilitating conditions.

Dulco Ease (stool softener). No blokes in that commercial. Actimel pro biotic daily drink containing either Bifidus Digestivum, El Coli Immunitas and the latest Bifidus Regularis (prize for the most ridiculous made up name). The women in that commercial are complaining about always feeling bloated and un-feminine.

No blokes here either, so what are these women doing to contact these conditions ?

Now, you can buy jars of “soluble” fibre to mix up in water. None of the commercials explain why you would want to do this, just lots of “wimmin” floating about in water looking “relieved”. If only they knew that a slice of brown bread, a jacket potato or a nice bowl of All Bran would have quite the same effect.

Then, the crowning glory of commercials made by men with a sense of humour for women who need relief, we’ve the butch Gaviscon fireman, shooting his white sticky fluid down the distressed damsel’s throat !

What a feeling he quips.

Girls, next time you’re watching an ad break in the middle of your favourite soap. Take a moment to think just how much piss those ad men are taking whilst trying to part you with your money

I do find it frustrating that large organisations are allowed to blatantly lie and make false claims and that there is no legistlation in place to prevent this, and ASA cannot do anything apart from retrospectively and very politely. Often the wording is designed to IMPLY health benefits but very carefully written to JUST fit within the codes. A recent ruling this week from the ASA on a Danone “bloated feeling” yoghurt highlights this:

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_43592.htm

They get away with it through careful wording and implication only.

I find it depressing that large trusted retailers depend and encourage the lie. I find it depressing that most people seem not that bothered by being lied to – it’s only a hand cream/yoghurt – what does it matter?

I was asked by my wife to search something she read in the Daily Mail (..I know…) “Health” section. It was a supposedly impartial article written by a “journalist” about a new miracle cream sold in a tiny pot for £50, which is “selling out everywhere” and as used by “the stars” to replace botox treatments. Athena 7 minute lift is its name. The website is full of the usual carefully written lies in big text, recomendations from doctors (in the employ of the company, of course) and legal disclaimers in tiny writing at the bottom. A little Google research shows that this is yet another carefully marketed con. Why do newspapers allow articles (unannounced advertorials) in their “health” section? Do they/the journalists get a kick-back? Why is this not illegal? Why does Steve McLaren get a two million quid payoff for being fucking useless? Thats another story. The “system” stinks as much as Glade Touch and Fresh.

Keep up the great work on this site.

Steve (miserable-grumpy-old-git-who-needs-to-get-a-life) Heliczer

My favourite part of the evidence provided by Beiersdorf was that it protected your skin thanks to SPF 15 which, if I remember rightly, isn’t mentioned in the advert.

Referring to a previous upheld complaint:
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_42908.htm

It seems that very similar misleading and pseudo-scientific claims are being made for this product. The disclaimer in small writing at the bottom that the “trial of 60% of 27 people tested noticed a visible difference” in the second part of a two part advert should not excuse the implication throughout of “DNA building/healing properties”. A single “trial” showing that approximately 15 people have perceived a benefit to base these claims on should not be allowed.

This kind of advertising is becoming more and more prevalent and it is very frustrating how advertisers are allowed to sail so close to the wind with misleading claims.