We’ve been watching a couple of shows on Peacock, where apparently the only products they advertise are prescription medications. We recently noticed one medicine - for breast cancer I believe, flashes fine print saying something like “Actual patients who have been compensated for their appearance.” We noted that other ads say, “actor portrayals.”
Two questions:
- Why do the advertisers think it will make any difference to potential customers whether the persons portrayed on screen are actual patients (paid or unpaid) vs actors?
- Why would whatever regulatory agency think such information necessary?
Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-255
It’s apparently supposed to impress us that “real patients” love the drug(s) and haven’t been laid low by the long list of side effects the ads tell us about (my current favorite is a prescription med that’s supposed to prevent or mitigate severe allergic reactions to food, only we are warned not to take it if we’re allergic to it) 
.
It probably doesn’t make much difference to the sort of customers who are swayed by testimonials if they come from “real” people or actors.
Note that the FDA has sent warning letters to supplement dealers who use testimonials to make illegal claims of treating or preventing disease - and the industry (at least part of it) has taken notice.
Thanks. I imagine it is covered by some regulation (which, as a lawyer, I should be able to look up myself. Apologies for my laziness.)
I reviewed the linked reg somewhat quickly, and none of it seems to closely resemble the ad I saw. In the ad, there is no apparent testimonial or endorsement - at least as suggested by the numerous examples. None of the women say anything. Instead, they are just shown going about their daily lives as an unseen announcer speaks about the med. Same for the ones that specify “paid actor.”
In order to figure out “why”, I’d have to dig deaper, into the regulatory istory in the federal register. I was hoping someone might be able to save me that effort.
There doesn’t actually need to be. Using a “real” person implies an endorsement, whether spoken or not. If someone (like the Federal Trade Commission) comes snooping around, the advertiser has to be ready to show the person in the ad is simply an actor or an actual user, and if it’s a user, whether or not they were paid for their endorsement.
Here’s an interesting story that shows all the tangles. Comedian/actor Billy Gardell is an actual Ozempic patient and has been featured in commercials, for which he is compensated. He also appeared on a segment of Dr. Oz talking about weight loss in general (and Ozempic specifically). Ozempic paid Dr. OZ to run the interview, but Dr. Oz only referred to Ozempic’s parent company, Novo-Nordisk, as a “trusted partner” with his show.
Do you have a source for that contention?
I note those guidelines, nor the reg they purport to explain, specifically define “endorsement or testimonial.” Such definitions are standard practice in fed regs. When I get a chance/inclination, perhaps I’ll see what I can dig up.
Of the many examples given, only one - video of a pro golfer hitting drives in an ad for golfballs - does NOT involve express statements. I’m not sure how analogous the images of actors or real persons going about their daily lives are to a pro golfer in a golfball ad. Other than - as someone suggested upthread. - evidence that they are still alive.
I’m sure there is some reg somewhere that covers this. Same thing that results in the fine print/fast talk on such ads.
Just strikes me as curious, why some would choose actors, and others real users. And what confusion/persuasion that would cause viewers.
Here’s Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations
And here’s the Federal Trade Commission’s FAQ on endorsements.
Here are a couple of relevant points from the FAQ.
As used in the Guides, an endorsement is an advertising message that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions or beliefs of someone other than the sponsoring advertiser.
Advertisements presenting endorsements by what are represented, expressly or by implication, to be “actual consumers” should utilize actual consumers in both the audio and video, or clearly and conspicuously disclose that the persons in such advertisements are not actual consumers of the advertised product.