NAD FINDS CIBA CAN SUPPORT CERTAIN CLAIMS IN ‘POWER OF ONE’ CAMPAIGN, RECOMMENDS ADVERTISER MODIFY, DISCONTINUE CERTAIN CLAIMS

New York, NY – Jan. 18, 2012 -The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business

Bureaus has determined that CIBA Vision Corp. can support certain advertising claims made as part

of the company’s “Power of One” advertising campaign. However, NAD recommended that the

company modify or discontinue certain claims made for CIBA Dailies and CIBA Air Optix Aqua

contact lenses.

The advertising at issue was challenged by Johnson  & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., manufacturer of

Acuvue contact lenses.

• “Facts you can trust.  3 independent research teams in the last eight years agree –

compliance** is higher with one-day and one-month replacement lenses.”

• “An independent study of 1,654 patients confirms that non-compliance is more common

among 1-2 week replacement SiHy lens wearers than monthly replacement SiHy or daily

disposable lens wearers” and “Monthly and daily disposable lens wearers show greater

compliance.”

• “The numbers prove it – greater patient compliance with one-month replacement.  3 studies

at independent research institutions.  8 years.  2,939 patients.”

• “37.  The average number of days patients wear 2-week replacement SiHy lenses.”

• “Patients stretch the 2-week SiHy lens replacement interval an average of 2.6x.  In a

comprehensive study of 500+ silicon hydrogel lens wearers, patients who were prescribed 2-

week replacement lenses stretched the replacement interval an average of 2.6x vs. 1.5x for

monthly replacement lenses.”

In this case, the advertising at issue was part of CIBA Vision’s “Power of One” advertising campaign

and directed to eye-care professionals. The challenger contended the advertising aimed to capitalize

on reported differences in certain studies of patient compliance rates with the Manufacturer

Recommended Replacement Frequency, or MRRF, for daily, two-week and monthly disposable

contact lenses.

(Full text of decision available to media upon request.)

The challenger argued that CIBA relied on selective citation of data from these studies to claim that

compliance rates are dramatically higher for daily and monthly replacement lenses compared to twoweek replacement lenses, and then linked this supposedly better patient compliance to greater

profits for the eye-care professional.

The challenger noted that CIBA’s United States product sales are comprised nearly exclusively of

daily and monthly lenses – in contrast to JJVC, which markets the leading two-week lenses.

In evaluating the challenged claims for truth and accuracy, NAD reviewed the evidence submitted by

the advertiser and concluded that the evidence was sufficiently reliable to provide a reasonable basis

for the advertiser’s claims regarding rates of patient compliance with manufacturer’s recommended

replacement frequency and, further, that the challenger’s criticisms were insufficient to rebut the

advertiser’s evidence.  NAD then turned it attention to the advertiser’s use of data from the supporting studies in bar

graphs – featured in several “Power of One” advertisements – that depicted the results of patient

compliance with manufacturer’s recommended replacement frequency for daily disposable lenses,

1-2 week replacement lenses and monthly replacement lenses.

NAD determined that graphs misleadingly conveyed the magnitude in the differences in compliance

rates between lens types and recommended that the advertiser discontinue the use of such graphs

in any comparative context. NAD recommended that, to the extent the advertiser uses any of the

graphs in future advertising, the advertiser clearly disclose the type of lens material tested.

NAD further determined that the challenged advertisements do not adequately disclose that claims

related to patients “stretching” the replacement interval for contacts are based on MRRF data.  NAD

recommended that advertiser modify its advertising to include qualifying language making clear that

such stretching claims are based on MRRF.

The company, in its advertiser’s statement, said that it “agrees to take the steps recommended by

NAD to clarify and differentiate when and whether the patient compliance rates referred to are based

on MRRF or Adjusted MRRF.”

 

NAD’s inquiry was conducted under NAD/CARU/NARB Procedures for the Voluntary Self-Regulation of National Advertising.  Details of the initial inquiry, NAD’s decision, and the advertiser’s response will be included in the next NAD/CARU Case Report.

About Advertising Industry Self-Regulation: The National Advertising Review Council (NARC) was formed in 1971. NARC establishes the policies and procedures for the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, the CBBB’s Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU), the National Advertising Review Board (NARB) and the Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program (ERSP).

The NARC Board of Directors is composed of representatives of the American Advertising Federation, Inc. (AAF), American Association of Advertising Agencies, Inc., (AAAA),  the Association of National Advertisers, Inc. (ANA), Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. (CBBB), Direct Marketing Association (DMA), Electronic Retailing Association (ERA) and Interactive

Advertising Bureau (IAB).  Its purpose is to foster truth and accuracy in national advertising through voluntary self-regulation.  NAD, CARU and ERSP are the investigative arms of the advertising industry’s voluntary self-regulation  program. Their casework results from competitive challenges from other advertisers, and also from self-monitoring traditional and new media. NARB, the appeals body, is a peer group from which ad-hoc panels are selected to adjudicate NAD/CARU cases that are not resolved at the NAD/CARU level. This unique, self-regulatory system is funded entirely by the business community; CARU is financed by the children’s advertising industry, while NAD/NARC/NARB’s primary source of funding is derived from membership fees paid to the CBBB. ERSP’s funding is derived from membership in the Electronic Retailing Association. For more information about advertising industry self-regulation, please visit www.narcpartners.org.