Back in 2008, pharmaceutical maker Bayer released a series of ads for Yaz, a birth control pill. The ads claimed that Yaz can treat various premenstrual symptoms and help clear up acne on skin.
But oops-they weren't supposed to say that. The FDA said that these ads made claims that it hadn't approved, and they didn't adequately disclose the health risks associated with Yaz.
So the FDA, along with 27 state attorneys general, cracked down on Bayer, requiring the company to spend $20 million on a corrective advertising campaign. The new ad campaign started in late January and is scheduled to end July 26, 2009.
The woman in the corrective ad says that we "might have seen some Yaz ads recently that were not clear" (if by "not clear" you mean "deceptive") and that "the FDA wants us to correct a few points in those ads" (if by "wants" you mean "required"). She goes on to make several corrections and clarifications. So everything's cool, right?
Not quite. To the uninitiated viewer, it may not seem like government-mandated corrective advertising at all. In fact, it might even look like any other contraceptive ad: it's set in a nightclub (with an establishing shot at the beginning!), with blandly hip-sounding music in the background, spoken aloud by a woman who's pretty cute.
So here's my problem: Corrective advertising is supposed to be retributive in addition to reparative. Companies that, either through deliberate deception or an irresponsible lack of diligence, mislead consumers should be embarrassed, and corrective advertising should be embarrassing.
These ads should have the text "This is a corrective advertisement ordered by the FDA because previous Yaz ads were deceptive" emblazoned on the screen, and, to drive home the point, the woman should have said something along the lines of, "We fully acknowledge we misled you in our ads before."
Knowing that you could be forced to run humiliating ads, out of your own pocket, is a pretty inspiring reason to be honest in your ads.
So what do you think? Was it clear these Yaz ads were, in fact, corrective ads? Should corrective advertising be embarrassing, or is that overkill?
