It should go without saying that if you’re in the business of promoting “certain types of products”, you need to be extra careful. Not sure what we mean? Count yourself lucky. We’re referring to any of those consumer or business products which fall under the banner of high risk industries.
High risk industries are those exposed to “more operational, regulatory, and reputational risk” than others. A non-exhaustive list may include:
Pharmaceuticals, adult services, alcohol, bail bonds, CBD, dating services, financial products and services, gambling, tobacco and vaping products, subscription services, health supplements, travel-related Services, weapons.
Though more relaxed than they once were about the advertising of high risk industries, the main platforms have tended to be more restrictive of those sectors than the law requires. When digital advertising was in its infancy it was easier to simply say ‘no’ rather than risk getting into trouble. As pressure from shareholders has increased they’ve opted to relax their own rules. These days they are more likely to say ‘yes’ and look for tech solutions to the inevitably resulting challenges.
These days its more the case that certain terms – inserted within creative, copy text, targeting or account settings – will trigger certain automatic flags. Additional levels of approval are then required before the ads are allowed to go live.
But there’s only so much automation can do.
A non-human actor, in particular, will not be able to tell whether claim made within an ad is actually true. That is when the regulators are more likely to step in.
In the last 12 months the UK’s advertising regulator, the ASA, has made 70 separate rulings over complaints related to paid search or social advertising (58 social, 12 search). 67 of those complaints were subsequently upheld, with 46 of those falling under the category of “misleading.”
Furthermore forty of these judgements were over advertisements related to health products, supplements, cosmetic surgery, supplements, medicines or therapies. Eight of the remaining were in the financial products in services space. That means 69% of the ASA’s rulings over digital advertising covered high risk industries.
Who’s been on the ASA naughty list?
The good news is most of those companies on the ASA’s latest naughty list are ones of which you likely haven’t heard.
Earlier this year a company called ‘Nultqh GB’ advertised on Meta an unlicensed ‘patch’ it stated could “solve the problem of frequent urination and urgency.” The ASA was unable to find a basis for this claim, and was concerned by the apparent lack of any person of physical address behind the company. The ruling was made, but at the time of writing they hadn’t heard back.
Two further almost identical ruling were made against two more highly questionable companies advertising similar-sounding product – both also claiming to relieve prostate symptoms. The platforms in each case was also Meta.
It’s not just dodgy businesses promoting the sorts of shonky products that hopefully most of us would know better than to buy, though. More unsettling than the two previous rulings was one against supplements retailer Aspire Nutrition, which was found to have advertised on Facebook a supplements stating that it provided a remedy for autism. Aspire Nutrition at least offered a response, amounting to “it was an accident, honest,” and promised to make sure no such ads would be shown in the UK again.
What’s the answer?
While products classed as medicine are (rightly) very heavily restricted, supplements are looking like at best a grey area, at worst a massive gaping loophole when it comes to advertising opportunities. Where once they would have merely been found promoted in the back of niche magazines, these days they are found in equivalent digital spaces. That might sound find but in fact makes them more dangerous as it means they’re more likely to fly under the regulators’ radars.
For every Happy Koala Facebook ad for a weight-loss supplement, or Spectrum Awakening claim that one of theirs “could help to prevent, treat or cure developmental language disorder, autism and ADHD” that the ASA catches, how many dodgy ads get missed?
If you’re reading this you’re almost certainly one of the good guys. Nevertheless the fact that these objectionable things are allowed any eyeballs at all is a threat to the industry as a whole. Facebook (and similar) continues to claim to be platform rather than publisher, but at what point do the authorities say ‘enough is enough?’
