An old healthcare marketing ethical dilemma is re-triggered by a three-year-old ad making the rounds on social media and spread by media organizations who are asking too few questions about it.
Since the 1960s advertising boom on Madison Avenue, companies, consumers, the government, and the Don Drapers of the world have been trying to find common ground when it comes to ethics.
Just this month, athletic company Vibram settled a $3.75 million class action lawsuit over false claims that its minimalist Fivefingers running shoes yielded health benefits. The plaintiff alleged that the Vibram used deceptive marketing tactics and falsely advertised that the shoes would strengthen muscles in the feet and legs, among other claims. And though the company denies those allegations, it's paying up.
The Fivefingers case is an example of how the ethical rules governing marketing health benefits and healthcare products and services are still a bit fuzzy, even to top-ranking officials. (You may remember the uproar caused when University of Illinois physicians appeared in a sponsored da Vinci surgical robot ad in the New York Times back in March.)
Recently, an old healthcare marketing ethical dilemma was re-triggered by an ad that keeps popping up in my Twitter newsfeed. A powerful ad released by the University of Mississippi Health Care Children's Cancer Center three years ago periodically resurfaces via social media.
The "My Life is Proof" campaign ad depicts the before and after shots of a young cancer patient named Noah. The ad's arresting graphic image is a split-screen of the patient's face, showing the sick four-year-old Noah on the left, and the healthy seven-year-old Noah on the right. It is visually striking and the juxtaposition of the two halves draws the eye to the text to read more.
Omission Compounded by Lazy Reporting
The problem is what the ad copy doesn't say. Here's what it does say:
"At age four, Noah was diagnosed with AML, a rare and aggressive form of leukemia. He faced a 50/50 chance of survival when his parents brought him to Children's Cancer Center at University of Mississippi Health Care, the only Academic Medical Center in the state. Noah's physician and her team developed an intensive treatment plan that included chemo, a bone marrow transplant and months of hospitalization. His Children's Cancer team never gave up – and neither did Noah. Today, Noah is seven years old, living cancer free and dreaming big."
Beneath the copy, in fine print, the ad reads, "Actual Patient."
And it's true: Noah, now 10 years old, was a Children's Cancer Center patient who battled a rare form of leukemia when he was four. But the ad—both the before and after photos—was created when Noah was seven and cancer-free. Makeup, a bald cap, and Photoshop doctoring were used to create the side of the image depicting him when he was battling cancer.
The trouble is, the ad never implicitly states that the photo was manipulated, and media outlets such as the Huffington Post and the Daily Mail are reporting on the ad as if the left portion of the image is a photo of the four-year-old cancer patient.
"Children's Cancer Center's 'My Life is Proof' ad lives in the grey area of healthcare marketing ethics," Dan Dunlop, principal of Chapel Hill, NC, marketing agency Jennings tells HealthLeaders Media. "It appears to be a case of poor judgment rather than unethical behavior."
A Children's Cancer Center spokesman said the issue comes down to shoddy reporting because many media outlets are not including the copy of the ad that says Noah was four when he had cancer and seven when the ad was created.
The Ends Justifies the Means… But
"I don't know if it's the way they did the before and after of [the ad], but it's touched a lot of people," Christy Mouldy, Noah's mother, told ABC News. "It brought a lot of awareness."
In this case, the ends justify the means—Noah and his family get to share his story and the Cancer Center gets to tout its successes with a striking visual—but, as the old saying goes, honesty would have been the best policy. Had the ad simply stated its use of creative license, its message wouldn't be clouded by confusion and controversy.
"This [incident] seems like an unfortunate oversight," Dunlop says. "It's a misstep that should make us all think about the ways in which we represent patients in marketing communications. When the goal of the advertising is to be emotionally impactful, we need to be particularly sensitive to representations that may appear to be dishonest or unethical."
Marianne Aiello is a contributing writer at HealthLeaders Media.