Here is the fine print:
It’s the only brand clinically tested? A study saying it works better than a placebo without comparing to other brands is not a competitive advantage. Zrytec and every other major allergy medicine obviously have been tested and approved by the FDA. Do they instead mean it’s the only brand that was proven effective in studies? Claritin has the fine print on their website, but do not give any details as to the actual study referenced. Zrytec at least shows this comparison on their website even though their studies are a decade old. Consumers better hope Claritin’s pills clear up their allergies better than their marketing department’s claims.
Unlike the usual medical fine print about side effects that may include blindness, loss of limbs, or possible death, this one is a little different:
It’s pretty cool to have an actual customer be the spokesperson instead of an actor. The classic example of debunking this misleading tactic was the “I’m not only the president, but a client” ad for hair pieces back in the day. The only time you see a disclaimer about the spokesmen nowadays is if the person is giving a “personal” account or pretending to be an “expert” as in this Sharp TV Ad. Since the company would include the disclaimer themselves fearing a lawsuit, the FTC regulation on this disclaimer is murky, and would usually only step in if the viewing public’s safety was at risk over false claims. Therefore Prilosec and David Diehl are safe from any heartburn sufferers who feel they have been lead on. While athletes shilling products they may or may not use is nothing new, how about when they are hocking medicine? Where are the disclaimers when Shaq uses Icy Hot, Nolan Ryan pops some Advil, Troy Polamalu grows thicker hair from Head & Shoulders, or bears try to talk to Ray Lewis since he’s wearing Old Spice. Ugh, I have a closet full of Old Spice and Heads and Shoulders for nothing? Maybe that is why they had to add the disclaimer after Brett Favre pitched Prilosec years earlier.
