Specsavers Hearcare Ltd truly does have something to smile about this week, as the ASA ruled in their favour following two complaints about their promotional leaflet. 

Specsavers distributed leaflets back in August 2021, advertising invisible hearing aids for £495 alongside a picture of the side of a woman's head, with particular focus on her ear. The text read "That's something to smile about". 

Two complainants challenged whether the ad was offensive and irresponsible, arguing the claim "that's something to smile about" while promoting an invisible hearing aid, reinforced a stigma around wearing visible hearing aids.

Specsavers responded arguing the phrase "that's something to smile about" was in reference to the price of the hearing aids, and was a phrase they used in ads for both their optical and hearing products to convey an upbeat message. 

Given the sensitive subject area, the ASA sought advice from the Royal National Institute for Deaf People (RNID), who told the ASA that they couldn't be certain that the phrase in question would cause serious or widespread offence, but did highlight that the perceived stigma of hearing loss and deafness was a real concern for their communities.

With a total of 12 million people in the UK with hearing loss, naturally there are differing opinions on types of hearing devices amongst the population, however, they considered that people had the right to choose whether their hearing aids were visible or not. 

The ASA decided to not to uphold this complaint as it found that the ad did not: 

  1. compare invisible hearing aids favourably against visible hearing aids
  2. suggest that wearing an invisible one was preferable
  3. suggest or imply that hearing difficulties were something to be ashamed of 
  4. suggest or imply that wearing an invisible hearing aid would improve the wearers self esteem. 

This ruling really highlights the need for advertisers to be conscious of differing opinions around such topics; had Specsavers advertised their invisible hearing aid as being a better alternative to visible ones in a more overt way, this ruling may well have had a different outcome.