The ASA said the TV campaign appeared in 2011 meaning viewers would assume the celebrity continued to benefit from using Proactiv, when in fact they had used it at least a year ago, and in some instances several years ago.
Should we abolish the ASA? I mean, who thinks that celebrity endorsements in ads are intended to be true? And do we want a regulatory body encouraging this kind of gullibility? I guess it’s no surprise that the advertising industry supports the ASA (although I will say, when I first moved to the US, I was kind of stunned by the level of straightforward lying in the ads here).