Case Summary
In Case AUTH/1797/2/06 online articles featuring interviews with a sporting celebrity were taken up with Bayer by the Director following a query from the editor of a pharmaceutical journal about the appropriateness of celebrity endorsement. The articles had referred favourably to Levitra (vardenafil), Bayer’s product for erectile dysfunction. In accordance with established practice the Director also took up with Bayer a further matter arising from the articles.
The two articles at issue were published on the BBC and Saga Magazine websites respectively and included interviews with the celebrity. Each article discussed the benefits of Levitra in very favourable terms. The Authority was concerned that material briefing either the press or the celebrity might have contravened the Code.
The Panel noted that when interviewed for the BBC and asked about his treatment for erectile dysfunction, the celebrity stated ‘The impotence drug Viagra did not help me and I found an alternative called Cialis did not have very quick results, but a drug called Levitra suited my lifestyle. I took it and within 15 minutes I could be in ‘action’.’ In the article for Saga, the celebrity stated ‘The doctor prescribed Levitra, a new generation of anti-impotence pills, and they have proved to be perfect’.
The Panel acknowledged that the celebrity was expressing his own opinions about his treatment with Levitra but considered that those opinions would have been known to Bayer; the company knew that he took Levitra and by briefing him to talk about his treatment and facilitating his interviews with the BBC and Saga it was responsible for the remarks he made. The Panel considered that Bayer had in effect encouraged the celebrity to make statements encouraging members of the public to ask their doctor to prescribe Levitra. A breach of the Code was ruled. The Panel considered that the online interviews advertised Levitra to the general public and thus ruled a breach of the Code.
AUTH/1798/2/06 - Media/Director v Bayer
Levitra online articles
Online articles featuring interviews with a sporting celebrity were taken up with Bayer by the Director following a query from the editor of a pharmaceutical journal about the appropriateness of celebrity endorsement. The articles had referred favourably to Levitra (vardenafil), Bayer’s product for erectile dysfunction. In accordance with established practice the Director also took up with Bayer a further matter arising from the articles.
The two articles at issue were published on the BBC and Saga Magazine websites respectively and included interviews with the celebrity. Each article discussed the benefits of Levitra in very favourable terms. The Authority was concerned that material briefing either the press or the celebrity might have contravened the Code.
The Panel noted that when interviewed for the BBC and asked about his treatment for erectile dysfunction, the celebrity stated ‘The impotence drug Viagra did not help me and I found an alternative called Cialis did not have very quick results, but a drug called Levitra suited my lifestyle. I took it and within 15 minutes I could be in ‘action’.’ In the article for Saga, the celebrity stated ‘The doctor prescribed Levitra, a new generation of anti-impotence pills, and they have proved to be perfect’.
The Panel acknowledged that the celebrity was expressing his own opinions about his treatment with Levitra but considered that those opinions would have been known to Bayer; the company knew that he took Levitra and by briefing him to talk about his treatment and facilitating his interviews with the BBC and Saga it was responsible for the remarks he made. The Panel considered that Bayer had in effect encouraged the celebrity to make statements encouraging members of the public to ask their doctor to prescribe Levitra. A breach of the Code was ruled. The Panel considered that the online interviews advertised Levitra to the general public and thus ruled a breach of the Code.
In Case AUTH/1797/2/06 online articles featuring interviews with a sporting celebrity were taken up with Bayer plc, Pharmaceutical Division, by the Director following a query from the editor of a pharmaceutical journal about the appropriateness of celebrity endorsement. The articles referred favourably to Levitra (vardenafil), Bayer’s product for erectile dysfunction. In accordance with established practice, the Director also took up with Bayer a further matter arising from the articles.
COMPLAINT
The two articles at issue were on the BBC and Saga the Department of Health and medical professionals alike recognised the wider benefits of disease awareness programmes of this kind.
PANEL RULING
The Panel noted that when interviewed for the BBC and asked about his treatment for erectile dysfunction, the celebrity stated ‘The impotence drug Viagra did not help me and I found an alternative called Cialis did not have very quick results, but a drug called Levitra suited my lifestyle. I took it and within 15 minutes I could be in ‘action’.’ In the article for Saga the celebrity stated ‘The doctor prescribed Levitra, a new generation of anti-impotence pills, and they have proved to be perfect’.
As with all complaints about articles in the press the Panel examined the briefing materials which prompted the articles on the BBC and Saga websites and not the articles per se. The briefing for the celebrity noted that he was a Levitra patient; it was stated that he could respond truthfully, in a factual and descriptive way, to any questions regarding his treatment choice as he felt appropriate. In a section headed ‘Treatment’, in a statement which appeared to have been written by him it was stated that ‘… the winning formula is to be fast and effective, so what I wanted was a treatment that worked fast & I could rely on – a treatment in fact, a bit like me!’. In a briefing from the communications agency it was stated that the celebrity would not be encouraged to endorse or recommend Levitra although it was later stated that he would explain about his personal experience of erectile dysfunction.
The Panel considered that as the celebrity had been briefed to talk about his treatment for, and personal experience of, erectile dysfunction, Bayer was responsible for the remarks that he made to the journalists from the BBC and Saga. The celebrity had been briefed by Bayer and the company had facilitated his interviews with the BBC and Saga. It was therefore not possible for Bayer to dissociate itself from what he had said in the interview; if it were otherwise then the effect would be for companies to use patients as a means of avoiding the restrictions in the Code.
The Panel acknowledged that the celebrity was expressing his own opinions about his treatment with Levitra but considered that those opinions would have been known to Bayer; the company knew that he took Levitra and had encouraged him to talk about his treatment. The Panel considered that Bayer had in effect encouraged the celebrity to make statements encouraging members of the public to ask their doctor to prescribe Levitra. A breach of Clause 20.2 was ruled. The Panel considered that the BBC and Saga interviews advertised Levitra to the general public and thus ruled a breach of Clause 20.1.
Proceedings commenced 16 February 2006
Case completed 3 May 2006
