14 JULY 1967, Page 21

Ad. mission

CONSUMING INTEREST LESLIE ADRIAN

In the beginning was the word, and the %void was 'cure.' Then snake the Proprietary Asso- ciation of Great Britain and the word became 'relieve.' For this relieve no thanks.

The advertising of patent medicines, as they used to be called, continues without diminu- tion, and without their own advertising body's permission to claim cures. But in front of me I have a file full of recent newspaper adver- tisements claiming to cure dandruff, prevent falling hair, relieve piles, settle your nerves. give you 'positive health' with vitamins, relieve rheumatism. Are any of them true? Any more than the Chunky dog food advertisements which brought a prosecution for Quaker Oats a few weeks back? A little truth, plus a lot of inference, and occasionally a downright lie.

The Confederation of British Industry sprang to the defence of advertising last week with a report that refuted 'two of the main criticisms against advertising'—its wastefulness and its power to establish monopoly positions that keep out competition. Neither bogey was well and truly laid. They omitted Lord Lever- hulme's classic comment that half of what he spent on advertising was wasted but he couldn't tell which half. But they found a few Davids, like Wilkinson Sword, who had con- fronted the Goliaths of their industry.

No one in his right mind is going to say that all advertising should stop (though a phar- maceutical scientist said to me last week that he thought television advertising of drugs should be stopped, on the same grounds that cigarette advertising was stopped). But as long as advertisers take advantage of public ignor- ance by making false claims (such as those that the Retail Trading-Standards Association prosecutes continually), by inventing 'secret' ingredients, and by what would be called false pretences in other circumstances, they are begging for the sort of controls that the cm denounced.

Shellstar, an Anglo-American chemical com- pany, has just begun to market an insecticide called Vapona. On television the claim is made that it is 'harmless to everything except flies.' On the packet enclosing the strip of active chemical the following word is printed in bold type: 'Avoid all contact by mouth. Keep out of reach of children and animals. Persons handling the strip frequently, e.g. Pest Control Operators, should wear neoprene gloves. Wash hands after handling. Do not allow strip to come into contact with food, drinking water or cooking utensils.' And much more, but finally: 'Do not use in larders or food cup- boards where unwrapped food is stored.'

If this were said in the television commercials, would it hurt sales? Is it legitimate, instead, to state without qualification that this chemical is harmless to everything except flies?

In its July issue, published today, the Con- sumer Council's magazine Focus criticises the Independent Television Authority for allowing the Lux commercial to show a 'Harley Street specialist' apparently advising a woman with chapped hands to use Lux 'with Dermasil.' Apart from anything else, Dermasil is just our old and universal secret ingredient hexachlora- phene. Focus also refers to 'new Aspro's' new ingredient, a 'special anti-inflammatory pain reliever,' which does not appear to be there at all, unless aspirin may be so described. Several other examples of analgesic advertis- ing are given, including Anadin and Phensic.

A glance through a file of RT-SA bulletins shows that proprietary medicine men are not the only offenders. A bedding manufacturer claimed that a quilt was covered with 'Nylex' (it was rayon). Another sold 'woollen' blankets that were a blend of cotton and rayon. A furrier sold 'fox' collars that turned out to be rabbit (a new version of wolf in sheep's clothing). Brief-cases advertised as 'Genuine English smooth art leather' were plastic. How can the advertising industry and its defenders go on prating about 'free consumer choice' when so much fraud is still practised? Ad- mittedly many of the offenders are not national advertisers, but some are. If the admen cannot discipline themselves and each other it is use- less for the cm to utter portentous statements that its committee (composed of big national advertisers) 'does not recognise the right of any one section of the community to impose its will on the remainder' when that is just what it is obviously trying to do itself.

Incidentally, what guides the Bec in its free advertising? When the unfortunate admiral who posed for Millais's Bubbles was interviewed on Today last January. John Timson said that he was forbidden to mention the soap (Pears) that the painting advertised. Whitbreads was plugged by Sir Francis Chichester. Harrods' Canadian exhibition in January was in a 'large Knights- bridge store.' In one of Kenneth Home's pro- grammes, Trill. Guards and Vidal Sassoon all got puffs. Is there a case for a Royal Commis- sion?