In 2009, the ERA Europe Self Regulation committee began an independent study as an initiative to take a more active approach to Self Regulation in our industry.

by Nancy Barkan, January 2010.

Over the last few months we have been reviewing a variety of claims from infomercials being run by ERA members in Europe.

The objective was to determine if companies that have signed the ERA Self Regulation declaration, which is part of the 2005 ERA Europe Marketing Guidelines, and is an important condition for membership in ERA Europe, are:

(1) Adhering to the marketing guidelines set by the Association as a commitment to consumer protection, and

(2) Loyal to fair, ethical and responsible marketing practices that will promote consumer confidence in electronic retailing.

Focusing on Claims Substantiation...

Rather than attempt to review adherence to the entire Self-Regulation guidelines, the Self Regulation committee decided to focus on the guideline regarding Claims Substantiation taken from the ERA Self Regulation Declaration. The guideline is as follows:

C. Claims Substantiation

Particular care should be taken to substantiate health or safety claims for products such as dietary supplements; drugs; diet and exercise products and medical devices. All representations regarding the safety or efficacy of such products or services must be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence.

The breakdown of the study...

 

Action	Europe	UK	Total
ERA companies	39	21	60
With relevant business activitya	24	11	35
No claims requiring substantiation	7	9	16
Unable to assessb	3	0	3
Request made for substantiation	14	2	16
Evidence provided	11	-c	11

^a  Companies with available websites and making online claims which required substantiation by competent and reliable scientific evidence.

^b  Companies could not be assessed as websites were in Greek or an Eastern European language or the company website was not functioning.

^c   Information expected in the next few weeks.

Our findings and the new Self-Reg Claims Checklist...

After corresponding with many members, it became clear that there are some common areas that repeatedly cause difficulties for members in adhering to the self-regulatory process, and that a checklist of basic questions was needed by some ERA members.

Together with the Self Regulation committee, I have created a simple ERA SelfReg Checklist which I believe should be used by all ERA members when they approve infomercials for broadcast.

If your infomercial conforms to this checklist (see below), this is not a guarantee that it is in full compliance with either the ERA guidelines or your local regulatory code, but it is much MORE LIKELY to be compliant. 

If it does NOT meet the criteria below, it is almost certainly NOT COMPLIANT. 

As a group, ERA members expressed their full commitment to the ERA Self Regulation programme and acknowledged the real benefit that such a programme can offer to our members. 

I am a firm believer that self regulation is about educating oneself in order to remain loyal to fair, ethical and responsible marketing practices. ERA as a collective association of individual companies has a responsibility to help promote consumer confidence in electronic retailing and through the Self Regulation programme we are striving to meet this challenge.   

I'm eager to work individually with all members to evaluate if the check-list we are proposing is valuable to you and how it could be improved upon to meet your daily needs with regards to self regulation.  I am also very aware that some existing ERA member companies will require additional support and constructive advice in order to fully comply with the ERA Self Regulation guidelines. 

This is an ongoing process which I am very happy, with the full support of the ERA EUROPE Board and Executive Director, to continue on a company by company basis.

Eivind Schackt takes over from John Bramm as Chairman of the committee...

I would also like to express my delight in welcoming Eivind Schackt, CEO of Studio Moderna, as the new Chairman of our Self-Regulation committee. At the same time I would very much like to thank TV Shopping Direct's John Bramm for his expert and diligent contribution as the out-going Chairman of the Committee. It is testament to John's commitment and passion for our industry's Self Regulation that we have been able to be so meticulous in our Self-Reg activities to date.

The Self-Regulation Claims Checklist is written below for you, but it is also available as a print-and-keep single sheet pdf. Just click the link below.

Your Claims Checklist: ERA SelfReg Checklist 

 

Claims Check List

1)   When an efficacy claim is made in a show, whether it explicitly says “scientifically proven” or is just stated, or is even just implied directly, the advertiser needs to be sure that evidence exists to substantiate this claim.  It is the responsibility of the distributor or marketer to get from the product owner or manufacturer the elements supporting this claim.

2)   When you evaluate the evidence provided to support any claims, question if the evidence is:

a.   Relevant to the specific product being sold (ie evidence about this actual product, rather than a similar product).

b.   Based on a meaningful sample of people – enough people to be a worthwhile test.  If you are not sure, have the sample size justified by the organisation providing the testing results. And remember testimonials are not evidence that proves efficacy.

c.   Obtained using fair and unbiased methods – some local regulators insist on double blind trials where neither the consumers testing the product nor the assessors know which test product is which.

     d.     From a reliable and respected source, usually university           or other clinical institution.

3)   For any claim, the evidence should be in support of that specific claim.  For example, a perfectly good study that proves that a skin cream does not irritate the skin is not proof that it reduces wrinkles!  Proof that a product is safe is entirely different from proof that it works.

4)   Before and after photos need to be genuine, not altered or enhanced, and there should be evidence of when, where and how they were taken, including details of the people shown.

5)   If the words “scientifically proven”(or similar) are used, then the advertiser MUST be able to provide scientific evidence that shows the characteristics of a scientific process (such as, but not limited to, scientific credentials of the clinic, their methodology, sample size, details of test subjects, etc )

6)   When a specific component or active ingredient of the product is referred to in the claim, the scientific evidence produced should focus on the very same active ingredient, and not similar or comparable components.

7)   For any claims/evidence you review, there are a few factors that are matters of judgement.  Based on some of the feedback from regulators over the last couple of years, you should bear in mind some basic commonsense questions:

a.   How up-to-date is this evidence? (clearly, the more recent, the better)

b.   Whatever you actually state in the infomercial, what would a viewer take this to mean?

c.   What impression does the infomercial give overall? (This may be slightly different from what the individual statements say)

d.   Do any of the statements need qualifying? (eg if the benefit of a cream is time limited, this should be indicated on screen)

e.   Is there any vital information that is not being given to the viewer that they should be given?

 

 

 

If you would like to add your comment to articles, please log in with your e-mail address or fill in our Subscription form