I spotted one of the ads on the M1.
Huge get big red letters and everything. I was starting to think that the spammers had found a new bot network which had infected the billboard printers.
ASA indignates prematurely over billboard sex ads
The Advanced Medical Institute has refused to withdraw billboard ads for a nasal spray for "male sexual problems", despite an Advertising Standards Authority edict they must come down since they're punting prescription-only drugs. According to the BBC, the ASA is currently probing over 450 complaints about the ads, which …
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Thursday 8th January 2009 14:33 GMT Richard
What we need is
Pictures so we can judge for ourselves if it is offensive or inappropriate
oh wait... but of course we aren't allowed to use our own judgement are we? It's the nanny state police who make all our decisions for us. oops I forgot, please dont lock me up for being a free thinking radical
-
Thursday 8th January 2009 14:33 GMT Anonymous Coward
Hey Nonny Mouse
They offend me.
Probably for all the "wrong" reasons according to the Daily Knee Jerk. I don't give a monkey's that they are advertising something to do with sex because sex is natural, fun and healthy, and is only offensive in more extreme contexts which are mostly correctly outlawed already. (And boobies make me smile)
But I abhor the advertising of any prescription drugs, because people then go and ask doctors for them specifically, instead of letting the doctor make up their mind what the best treatment is.
The ASA should have yanked these willy ads off already <snerk, cough, ahem>
Paris because, well, um, someone mentioned sex.
-
Thursday 8th January 2009 14:33 GMT Anonymous Coward
Act Now!
Save yourselves! Have you ever been to the United States? That's what happens when advertisements for prescription drugs are permitted. Aside from nuisance, it encourages people to go to their doctors and request prescription medication based on the same level of information they would use to select laundry soap. The only advantage in allowing these advertisements is the comedy potential of fast-speaking voice actors reading long lists that start with "Side-effects may include: ..."
-
Thursday 8th January 2009 14:33 GMT Flugal
You've missed the point
It's nothing to do with it being offensive or otherwise, it's because it is not currently legal to advertise prescription-only products in the UK.
Unless you want to see a situation like the US, where each TV ad slot is packed with prescription-only products urging you to give your ill-informed, marketing-lead suggestion to your GP that you need this or that product, it seems worthwhile keeping prescription-only products away from advertising.
Mine's the one with a medicine cabinet full of hard-on drugs in the pocket.
-
Thursday 8th January 2009 14:33 GMT David Webb
Because...
"We'll save you the trouble: If the ASA has the power to order the ads taken down, why bother with an investigation as to whether they offended the delicate sensibilities of Middle England?"
Because there is a procedure they need to go through for ones that are not obviously against their standards, at least that the most likely explanation. if they just said "ok, take down the advert NOW!" willy nilly, and then had an investigation which proved the adverts did not break the rules, wouldn't they be liable for the costs to the advertiser?
In a case like this, where its obvious they are breaking the rules (advertising presription only medication), the investigation can only possibly go in favour of the ASA so it doesn't matter what they do.
Paris because, hell no, I don't need no stinking medication!
-
Thursday 8th January 2009 14:35 GMT Graham Dresch
Sense of proportion ?
Time the ASA , the BBC, OFCOM etc... got one.
450 complaints out of a population of >50 million ?
The standard response from the ASA etc. should be 'Get a Life' until they reach at least 25% of the population.
They must also be careful to eliminate 'professional complainers' from the total before any action is taken.
-
Thursday 8th January 2009 14:35 GMT John Macintyre
want longer sex?
I kept seeing these ad's, and just thought how they hell they managed to get an ad approved that had the word sex written bigger than a double decker bus.
I can see the issue with the prescription drug thing though. Everyone always complains about the americanisms that we have here like litigation culture and general attitudes, this is another americanism I believe where because they have no nhs, they talk people into asking their gp's for certain drugs instead of letting the gp do their job, thus making more dosh. Whether this is the underhanded intention or not i don't know, personally i never read beyond the 'sex' bit on the ad and didn't know it was a prescription only drug either, nor would I got to a doc and say 'this billboard said i could last longer in bed, give me the drug it advertises'.
oh and another thing: "Censoring ads that prompt men to take action about an important health issue they may be experiencing is a big decision that certainly should not be taken until a full investigation has been completed." The ad says do you want to last longer in bed, that's not an important health issue, it's not showing you a cancer drug, it looks like it's selling viagra!
-
Thursday 8th January 2009 15:04 GMT Francis Vaughan
Been there, done that
Here in Oz we have been through this exact same rigmarole. Same Ads, same product, same arguments. Same boring futility.
The ads don't actually name the drug, so they skirt the letter of the law. The main argument here centered on the word "sex". With some quite silly and contrived complaints. Now the ads are varied, some have a big "censored" laid over the part that said "sex". Actually slightly amusing when you know the history. Others just mention lasting longer in bed.
Personally I found the ads extremely offensive. Any ad writ in huge letters of lurid colours like that is going to offend the sensibilities of a large fraction of the populace. No matter what is says. They are ugly and horrid. Seems a pity that taste doesn't form part of the standards.
-
Thursday 8th January 2009 15:24 GMT Stuart
Health Hazard
Certainly are. I remember when the one on the A4 approaching Earl's Court went up. LONGER LASTING SEX had me hitting the curb, and NASAL TECHNOLOGY had my mind boggling all the way to Chelsea Embankment.
Maybe OK in a lads' magazine but roadside posters is just thoughtless and dangerous. ASA ain't my favourite body but this time my criticism is "what took you so long?". Trust the company which has already been banned from doing this in their own country (hello Earls Court again?) will be hammered for its further attempt to delay removal.
Then I suppose all they want is this free publicity.
-
Thursday 8th January 2009 15:49 GMT Anonymous Coward
Sue them
If the ad does not break the obscene publications act, or does not mislead or seek to deceive or otherwise break the law then it's legal, regardless of what the ASA says.
ASA has no special legal basis, they simply claim to be a regulatory body. If they wrongly try to get your legal advert pulled, then it's tortuous interference in business, and you can extract damages from them.
-
Thursday 8th January 2009 21:37 GMT Anonymous Coward
Plenty of Blame to Go Around
Ads for prescription-only medicine wouldn't be cost-effective if:
(1) People used discretion in evaluating whether they did or did not have a problem; and
(2) Doctors prescribed medicine only for conditions they had diagnosed, and even then, only the medicines their expertise demanded.
The reason there are prescription medicines at all is because we know we can't rely on (1). But: the presumption behind prescription medicines is that even if the public isn't responsible, doctors are. And that seems demonstrably false as well.
-
Friday 9th January 2009 09:56 GMT Anonymous Coward
Nice to see
Nice to see that only about two people bothered to actually read and understand the article before commenting...
If you want a pretty good idea of why not to advertise prescription drugs to un-educated (ie: non-medical doctors) have a quick read of Bad Science by Ben Goldacre,it's probably also covered on his web site too.
-
-
Friday 9th January 2009 12:50 GMT Dave
@Graham Dresch
Actually, judging by the number of complaints usually quoted, that is a hell of a lot. Since these are static adverts, only a fairly small proportion of the population will have seen them. Of those, only a small proportion have any idea how to complain about them, and of those people, only a proportion will have enough free time on their hands to make such a complaint, so by my reckoning this is a massive number.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
