The Advertising Standards Authority have come down hard on Rodial’s Tummy Tuck Sticks adverts that stated the sticks could help ‘beat the bloat at Christmas’. They felt the implication in the both the name of the product and the claim implied that the product can achieve weight loss from specific body areas, but despite being sent data from Rodial, the ASA felt they could find no ‘robust, scientific evidence’ to substantiate the claims, the title should be considered misleading. What this boils down to is that the Rodial ads are found to be misleading on three counts (CAP codes); Misleading Advertising, Substantiation and Food and Nutrition claims.
It’s interesting that the CAP code clearly states that ads should not contain claims that weight or fat can be lost from specific parts of the body and Tummy Tuck Sticks could not be a more blatant breach. Rodial now has to include disclaimers in future ads to make clear that the product has NOT been proved to aid weight loss from the stomach. Which from now on, would make them an obviously pointless purchase if you were hoping to to flatten your tummy.
I’m so glad that the ASA have taken a hard-line on this: losing weight is hard enough without being bamboozled by expensive products that won’t help you in your quest for a washboard stomach. I notice that on their website, despite the ruling, there is no sign of any disclaimer.
I’d love to know what they’d make of Crash Diet Sticks which surely imply that you’ll definitely lose weight if you drink them. It’s all very well giving alluring names to products but if you can’t back them up scientifically you are on a hiding to nothing.
Transparency Disclosure
All products are sent to me as samples from brands and agencies unless otherwise stated. Affiliate links may be used. Posts are not affiliate driven.
13 comments
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t this the company which sends out legal letters to companies to journalists/ doctors who don’t write glowing reports?
As you say it’s hard enough to lose weight without handing over hard earned money on something which isn’t true.
I have had the stick things sitting around for a while as I’ve been on the fence about how I feel potentially writing about them. I won’t go into the whole essay here about why, but I will say that I despise the name – it’s so irresponsible to use ‘crash diet’ as a marketing ploy. But this ASA post is very interesting and will certainly be a reference point in any post I do write.
I find the Crash Diet range utterly, utterly distasteful.
I would never use anything from Rodial – they clearly think women are stupid and will buy anything.
You know, I was just reading about their latest idiotically named product last week and was super annoyed, but decided not to write about it because I don’t think they deserve any press for their obviously intentionally inflammatory names. I’m happy, though, to see them getting press for this. FINALLY someone steps in to slap them on the wrist (and hopefully a bit more).
And, yep, it’s the same brand that uses scare tactics and legal documents to bully scientists and journalists a like.
Not a fan of the brand, what they stand for, their bad science, absurd prices or, frankly any of their products (as I’ve not used one to this day that has done anything it says on the tin).
Given that the ASA now extends itself to the digital space as well, if they haven’t updated their website then they may also get a slap on the hand for that too! I really have to wonder who they are hiring as their legal counsel because they are doing a poor job.
The rodial names are seem tongue in cheek to me! You really hate this brand don’t you?! Your always having a go at them!
Amen. I really look up to your country for having the balls to limit the advertising industry!
Hi Anon: I think quite recently I said that the Glam balm was one of the best things I’d ever used.
I keep seeing blogs about Rodial and was feeling a bit silly for not knowing more about the brand. However, having read about the ASA ruling there is something I can add to this (not feeling so silly anymore!)
Because the sticks are food supplements they fall under the EC food directive. Aside from advertising claims and on pack copy claims, my understanding is that it actually means any brand/product names that are either explicit or implied claims will have to be removed from pack too. Unfortunatley, I don’t think this comes into effect until 2020.
I think it also means that if any of the current food supplement packaging they have was presented to Trading Standards and was seen to be flouting any EFSA rulings (www.efsa.europe.eu) they would have to change them too.
Good.
About time this company is called out on its claims, especially after the way they have used threats of libel action against critics.
“I’d love to know what they’d make of Crash Diet Sticks which surely imply that you’ll definitely lose weight if you drink them.”
I wrote to the ASA to challenge claims made for each of the four products advertised as “supplements” on Rodial’s website – including the Crash Diet Sticks:
http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/rodial-and-the-asa/.
I’ve been told that my complaint has been referred to the ASA’s Compliance team.