HEALTH PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT to a PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY V JOHNSON & JOHNSON Nicorette Advertisement
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CASE AUTH/2930/1/17 HEALTH PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT TO A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY v JOHNSON & JOHNSON Nicorette advertisement A complaint was received in a private capacity that the implication was that the statement in from a health professional who stated that he/ question related to a feature of Nicorette, that the she worked as a consultant to a pharmaceutical product itself had incredible features and/or that company. health professionals would be doing something incredible by prescribing it. The implication was The complaint concerned an online advertisement misleading and exaggerated and breaches of the for Nicorette (nicotine) issued by Johnson & Code ruled. Johnson published in Pulse. The complainant stated at the time of submitting The complainant provided a screenshot of a the complaint that he/she was a health professional banner advertisement. It included ‘Nicorette. Do who worked as a consultant to Novartis. It had something incredible’. The complainant did not previously been decided, following consideration believe that the word ‘incredible’ was suitable. This by the then Code of Practice Committee and the information did not appear to be balanced and was ABPI Board of Management, that private complaints exaggerated. The claim was taken directly from from pharmaceutical company employees had material aimed at the general public and it appeared to be accepted. To avoid this becoming a means that Johnson & Johnson had not undertaken a of circumventing the normal procedures for sufficiently robust review when translating to intercompany complaints, the employing company promotion aimed at health professionals. would be named in the report. The complainant would be advised that this would happen and be The detailed response from Johnson & Johnson is given an opportunity to withdraw the complaint. given below. This issue came to the fore many years ago when The Panel noted that the banner advertisement an employee of a pharmaceutical research company continuously revolved through four banners, one complained in a private capacity about a journal after the other, over 10 seconds. The statement advertisement issued by GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd at issue ‘Do something incredible’ appeared (Case AUTH/1498/7/03). In Case AUTH/1498/7/03 immediately adjacent to the Nicorette product logo it was decided that the pharmaceutical research on the first, second and fourth banner and in the company would be named in the case report whilst Panel’s view would be read as describing a quality making it clear that the complaint was made in a of the product. The statement was unqualified private capacity. on banners 1 and 4, but appeared adjacent to the product logo and question ‘HOW DO YOU The case preparation manager decided that the EMPOWER THEM TO QUIT FOR GOOD?’ on the principles set out above would apply to consultants. second banner. The third banner read ‘Combination Consultancy status should not be used to circumvent NRT is 43% more effective than patch alone’ which the normal rules for inter-company complaints. Johnson & Johnson stated referred to combination NRT in general, all brands and formulations; The complainant was advised that if he/she wished the Panel considered that some readers might to proceed with the complaint in a private capacity nonetheless not unreasonably associate that claim Novartis would be named in the case report; and with Nicorette given the adjacent prominent picture the respondent company would be informed of his/ of Nicorette product packs and the claim ‘Nothing her professional status and the connection with beats Nicorette dual support’ on that banner. pharmaceutical companies. The complainant so agreed. The Panel did not agree with Johnson & Johnson’s submission that the statement in question ‘Do Novartis stated that it had no knowledge of, or something incredible’ related to the focus of the involvement in, the complaint and did not know the banners ie how do you empower patients to quit complainant’s identity. for good and that the health professional could make an informed opinion of the therapeutic The complaint concerned an online advertisement value of Nicorette in the context of a quit attempt. for Nicorette (nicotine) issued by Johnson & Johnson Johnson & Johnson also submitted that a patient’s Limited and was published in Pulse (ref UK/NI/16- achievement in quitting smoking was incredible 7663). and not the Nicorette brand. The Panel considered that the difficulty smokers had in quitting would be COMPLAINT well understood by the audience and that success would not unreasonably be considered to be an The complainant provided a screenshot of a banner incredible feat. However, whether one considered advertisement. It included ‘Nicorette. Do something the first, second and fourth banners individually or incredible’. The complainant alleged that whilst he the cumulative effect of all four the Panel considered was sure that Nicorette was a useful treatment in Code of Practice Review August 2017 31 smoking cessation, he/she did not believe that the The dictionary defined ‘incredible’ as meaning word ‘incredible’ was suitable. The complainant not just ‘impossible to believe’, but also ‘difficult referred to the definitions ‘impossible to believe’ or to believe; extraordinary’ and synonyms includes ‘difficult to believe/extraordinary’. ‘remarkable’, ‘marvellous’ and ‘wonderful’. The term was used therefore in advertising to highlight This information did not appear to be balanced and that quitting smoking, or facilitating someone to was exaggerated. The claim was taken directly from quit smoking, was actually quite extraordinary and material aimed at the general public (https://www. wonderful. Johnson & Johnson disagreed that the nicorette.co.uk/get-motivated-stop-smoking/do- ‘Nicorette. Do something incredible’ tagline was something-incredible) and it appeared that Johnson unbalanced or exaggerated. & Johnson had not undertaken a sufficiently robust review when translating to promotion aimed at The advertisement should be considered in the health professionals. context of the rolling banners. On the second banner was the question, ‘How do you empower them to When writing to Johnson & Johnson attention was quit for good?’. Given the great difficulties health drawn to the requirements of Clauses 7.2 and 7.10 of professionals faced in helping their patients to quit the Code. and the large numbers of failed quit attempts, in this context the health professional could ‘do something RESPONSE incredible’ by encouraging and helping patients to quit smoking. Equally, those patients who managed Johnson & Johnson stated that the advertisement in to quit for good had achieved something incredible question was a ‘rolling banner’ whereby the reader regardless of how this was achieved; behavioural of the website would see each of four rolling banners support, pharmacological products or willpower which flicked through automatically, one after the alone. other (copy provided). The advertisement should be considered as one piece rather than four individual Furthermore, on banner 3, Johnson & Johnson banners. stated that ‘combination NRT is 43% more effective than patch alone’. This claim referred to combination The tagline ‘Do something incredible’ had been nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in general, all used globally by Johnson & Johnson for several brands and formulations, and this highlighted that it years. The tagline was a ‘call to action’ to encourage was the act of quitting smoking that was incredible smokers to make a quit attempt and highlighted the and not Nicorette brand. incredible journey that quitters go on to overcome their addiction to tobacco products and ultimately It was unfortunate that the complainant did not stop smoking. Previous ‘Do something incredible’ approach the company directly to discuss the campaigns and advertising had focused on advertising, particularly because, as someone who patient stories as a means to motivate smokers to had been working as a consultant to the industry, consider quitting tobacco smoking. The tagline was they were probably well aware of the self-regulation associated with making an attempt to quit smoking process. The company was sure that if it had had the rather than using a product to help the patient do so. opportunity it could have reassured the complainant and reached a mutually satisfactory conclusion to Johnson & Johnson stated that according to the this complaint. World Health Organisation smoking was still one of the most preventable causes of death worldwide; The complainant also included pages from the one out of every 2 smokers would die from their Nicorette website aimed at consumers. Nicorette habit. Quitting smoking was extremely hard, was a general sales list (GSL) product therefore the and research showed that it could take a smoker information from the consumer website was subject several attempts to break free from their addiction. to the Proprietary Association of Great Britain (PAGB) Yet quitting smoking remained one of the most Code and had been fully reviewed and approved by important things a smoker could do for their health; both Johnson & Johnson and the PAGB. and by extension, helping a patient quit could be one of the most effective and cost-effective health Regarding Clause 7.2 Johnson & Johnson submitted interventions a health professional could make. that the tagline ‘Do something incredible’, in context, was balanced, fair and unambiguous. The focus of Johnson & Johnson submitted that the most the rolling banners advertisement