Last year TGO magazine published an advert for Superfeet which claimed that with Superfeet "you benefit from more stable foot contact; more endurance; better posture and balance; less blisters, hot spots and black toe; less joint muscle and ligament stress; improved shock absorption; less friction inside the shoe; reduced risk of bunions;"

I wrote to Anatom UK, the distributors of Superfeet, and asked them what objective evidence they had to support these claims. They could not produce any.

Accordingly I complained formally to the Advertising Standards Authority that this advert breached the ASA Code, which states that "marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims ... that are capable of objective substantiation".

The ASA agreed with my complaint and Anatom, who did not formally contest the complaint, agreed to withdraw or modify their advert.

More recently another advert for Superfeet was placed in TGO, featuring two images of a human body. One image, "without superfeet" had a big red cross next to it, and most of the major joints highlighted in red, indicating pain, inflammation, misalignment or injury. The other image, "With Superfeet", had a big green tick next to it, and no red joints implying that the use of Superfeet was correct, or corrected the afflictions in the other graphic.

Again I complained to the ASA that this advert breached their code, and again the ASA agreed with my point, and again Anatom UK did not contest this and agreed to withdraw or modify the advert.

And what do you/we gain from this?

"And what do you/we gain from this?"

Honest advertising?

A wee reminder to actually think about stuff you're reading?

;)

way too go Aloves, i bet superfeet love you!
have you asked them for a freeby pair to see if their claims are right?

How about demanding correct grammar?
It's "FEWER blisters", not "less blisters" for crying out loud.


The OM pedant.

Edited for Libel.
Sorry.

What the.........

I've heard it all now Kate !!!

A Welsh chick correcting English grammar

well done als.

shame they don't have to publish an advert which explains all the fallacy of th eoriginal. that would make them think a bit more.


it seems only m&s uses fewer "fewer than 8 items" rather than "less than 8 items"

Maybe we should start a thread on Grammer?Some of us have music turned up and 4 little kids disco dancing saying look at me dad!

First time I saw that sign in M&S I smiled to myself, Waitrose are also using "or fewer".

Well done ALS.

Having complained at sales where prices are dearer than the pre-sales price, I'm surprised you got a result, ALS. Congrats.

I didn't notice the ads as I have a pair of superfeet and wasn't looking to buy new ones.

As to the subtopic - I was asked if I was 18, when buying an 18 certificate dvd in Asda last year. "No", was my reply, and when the lass looked confused, I added with a smile on my face, "I'm older and pedantic".

Wasn't there something about better circulation in the souls of the feet due to a special covering on them? I know it sounded a bit weak when I read it...

I have got a pair of size 8 superfeet, hardly used, if anyone wants to buy a pair?

"Maybe we should start a thread on Grammer?Some of us have music turned up and 4 little kids disco dancing saying look at me dad!"

To deflect attention from spelling, spacing, punctuation and use of capital letters, maybe?

LOL :-)

Good stuff ALS. I do think that the way these (horrendously overpriced, personal opinion!) footbeds are advertised as panacaeas is plain wrong.

But what happens now, do they just keep changing the advert to make the same apparently unsubstantiated claims? At which point someone has to complain again before it can be withdrawn?

If the advert had been in Trail this thread would have over a hundred responses by now.....

You need to get out more.

I'm not sure I'd complain to the ASA but there is a serious point here.

I found Superfeet were very useful in my Scarpa Boots. The adds I saw at the time suggested that they would allow you to walk longer! I found that they were - if anything - a little harder on the feet over a long walk.

I've also seen them promoted for use in trail shoes - the blue inserts. With my Inovs I have found no difference whatsoever.

We should be thinking more before buying products. We can get fleeced as much as anyone else.

Marcus - I agree with you - that's why I complained. A few pence worth of polystyrene and plastic ludicrously over-hyped as being able to fix all known pain and suffering not to mention giving you more endurance. As well! By all means say "these might help your boots fit better" but as the rest of the claims are unproven, they should not be made.

I poked around the Anatom site and found that if you go on a Superfeet Training Course you get taught "How to maximise sales of footwear and accessories" so I suppose as consumers we should be careful. Someone tried to sell me a pair before I'd even laced up the boots I was trying on! Why don't they go on a "How to sell boots that fit right in the first place" course?

I wonder if TGO will mention to their readers that they have been running adverts that break the ASA code of practice?