Case Study 3 Advertising Examples

Disclosure The speaker has no financial interest in the subject matter of this presentation and is not representing the Ethics Committee of the American Academy of Ophthalmology with this presentation. For questions about the material contained herein or about the Academy’s ethics program in general, please contact the ethics program manager, Mara Pearse Burke at ethics@aao.org.

Code of Ethics Rule 13 Communications to the public No false, deceptive or misleading information No deceptive omissions No appeals to patients’ anxiety Must not create unjustified expectations of results Must disclose risks Must not misrepresent credentials No unsubstantiated claims of superiority When the Code of Ethics was written in the early 80’s felt it was essential to be approved by the FTC Rule 13 was part of the original Code that FTC approved in 1983, The Code was adopted by the Academy in November 18983 Went into effect January 1984. Rule 13 governs advertising by members of the AAO The close parallels to FTC law are obvious (read)

Let’s Investigate Look at the following sample ads. Identify the problematic words and phrases. Can you reword the ads to make them more appropriate? (Sometimes that‘s all it takes…) Are the claims made in the ads: Express General Implied

Practical Advertising Types of Claims (per FTC) Express claims - specifically states support “Studies show” “Clinical research proves.” General claims - non specific global claims “medically proven” Implied Claims - suggests something is true “Throw away your glasses” (or related graphic)

Live Seminar Patient Promotion FOR ALL YOU WHO WANT TO GET RID OF GLASSES AND CONTACTS FOREVER BUT ARE AFRAID OF LASIK OR THINK YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT: FIRST OF ALL, DID YOU KNOW THAT SAFESIGHT IS 10X SAFER THAN LASIK? AND CAN TREAT ALMOST EVERYONE WHO CANNOT HAVE LASIK? AND CAN FIX MOST LASIK COMPLICATIONS? You can get the Newer Safer Noncutting SafeSight procedure for FREE All you have to do is CALL US NOW and be our next LIVE SURGERY SEMINAR PATIENT “SafeSight™ is the most modern way to perform laser vision correction. Because it’s 100% non-cutting and 100% non-invasive, (surface ablation) it’s 10x safer than LASIK. With SafeSight™, none of the feared flap complications that may have kept you from getting LASIK is even possible–because we’re not cutting a flap to begin with!”

Implies 20/20 Vision “Kiss ‘Em Goodbye?” is implied claim

The FTC Act Section 5 - Regulation of Commerce Fairness Substantiation Avoidance of “bait advertising” Avoidance of deception or deceptive pricing Misleading endorsements or testimonials Use of problematic language (e.g. “free”) http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/guides.htm FTC definition of unfairness addresses 3 factors Substantial injury to consumer, otherwise unavoidable Violation of established public policy Constitution, Laws, Judicial decisions Unethical or unscrupulous – allows for some discretion largely duplicative of injury and public policy tests Substantiation Must be able to support claims with objective information FTC may ask for relevant info Avoidance of Bait advertising – meaning relatively intuitive Deception or deceptive pricing – also self-explanatory Testimonials must reflect the honest opinion of endorser must be able to stand alone re above, as if ad copy. Use of problematic language

Advertising Phrases to Avoid Safe Easy Painless Pioneer, Leader, World Famous Bloodless Free Guarantee Safe Completely harmless? Safer than existing technologies? Comparatively safe? (as compared to other Rx.) Free – must define what is free Guarantee – must define conditions lasikguider.com

What Do You Think? Can the claim that one form of treatment is “10X” safer than another form be substantiated? How? Is claiming that surgery is “more fun” in a given location a reasonable approach to patients? Is “Kiss ‘Em Goodbye” and the accompanying graphic potentially misleading to patents? Is it ethical to advertise a “20/20 Guarantee” or use the image of a utility blade in a LASEK vs. LASIK ad?