How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Olivia Cook — Sun, 02 Mar 2025 11:52:12 GMT

I think it's an unavoidable but manageable evil. I'd have less of a problem if the usual conversation wasn't accompanied by a sheaf of printouts from Dr Google that usually bear very little relevance to the case that you see in front of you, and then you have to fit on top of your normal explanations, the explanation of why what they have been researching really isn't appropriate in this case. The information is out there whether we like it or not. I wish there was a way to channel the enthusiasm for research among some clients into a slightly more relevant direction

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sun, 02 Mar 2025 01:38:47 GMT

Arlo, when – or if – you get a reply from VMD to your conciliatory letter, would you please reproduce its contents in this thread for our perusal?

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Judith Joyce — Sat, 01 Mar 2025 17:56:47 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246733#246733"] The MHRA regulates medicines for humans, and the consequences of breaking regulations concerning human medicine are obviously far more serious than breaking regulations concerning animals.[/quote]

VMD probably doesn't see it that way, and with some justification, as much of the legislation is aimed at human food safety. The Cascade was intended to keep drugs out of the human food chain. The Cascade was perceived by many as gold-plating European legislation, although VMD seemed to think AMELIA8 was enabling legislation. I'm not defending their stance on drug journalism but it might give their strength of expression a basis from their point of view

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 28 Feb 2025 09:39:53 GMT

For the record, and for transparency, I wrote this to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate yesterday. Special thanks to Ben Walker for having contributed so much to the thinking that went into it.

Hello everyone,

Further information has come to light about the whole issue of how the VMD deals with journalism, which I think offers useful lessons for both sides in our recent disagreement.

You declined to have a meeting to discuss some of these issues, so I shall raise them here.

For clarity, the following is meant to be constructive, and I hope it will be read in that spirit. Obviously the stuff marked ’SUGGESTION’ is just an opinion.

1. The law concerning veterinary medicines is similar to that concerning human medicines. The MHRA provides guidance for journalists: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6012d8b7d3bf7f05bf0bec2e/Appendix_5.pdf. The VMD does not. If it had, we would not have had this disagreement.

SUGGESTION: Why not produce a guide for journalists concerning the reporting of veterinary medicines?

2. The MHRA DOES distinguish between advertising and journalism. You currently do not make that distinction. Can I politely suggest that you do. Regulation, I would argue, needs to be framed in a way which will be understood by the people being regulated. It is no use calling editorial content or journalism ‘advertising’ because it isn’t. You might as well decide to call a sheep a dog. The MHRA recognises this distinction but gets round it by explaining (reasonably) that it believes journalism may be promotional, and that there is some case law to support that position.

SUGGESTION: Distinguish between advertising and journalism, because they are two different things.

3. Of course the MHRA is only applying its own interpretation of the law too, so whilst it may provide a useful guide, it should itself not be regarded as gospel.

4. The MHRA regulates medicines for humans, and the consequences of breaking regulations concerning human medicine are obviously far more serious than breaking regulations concerning animals.

SUGGESTION: It would be logical to assume that the regulation of information concerning veterinary medicines would be less stringent than that applied by the MHRA for human medicines.

5. The MHRA does not say that brand names should not be used in journalism about human medicines.

SUGGESTION: If you do decide to produce a short guideline for journalists, you might like to consider whether there is any basis in law for advising journalists not to mention brand brand names. I don’t think there is.

6. The criteria used by the MHRA in judging whether journalism is promotional, is whether it is meant to inform and whether it is factual and balanced. I would still argue that the film you objected to was made to inform, not to promote, but I accept that it is subjective and would find it hard to argue that it is balanced. So I have removed the film from being publicly visible on YouTube of my own volition.

SUGGESTION: If you do decide to produce a short guideline for journalists, you might like to be led by the MHRA’s guidelines. They are clear and sensible.

7. The issue of where journalism is published, esp on social media, is slightly more complex and changing. It needs to be considered both together with and independently of the content being shared.

Your own rules regarding this area are (as I have pointed out) inconsistent, varying from ‘only on a closed website’ to ‘only on spaces dedicated to veterinary professionals’ (on which point I would argue that my social media channels, including the one you removed content from, ARE spaces dedicated to veterinary professionals, and in that sense you were wrong to demand the removal of my film).

Social media platforms employ very sophisticated algorithms to make sure that content is presented to people who are most likely to watch it. So the content for channels for veterinary professionals is most likely to be shown to veterinary professionals. Certainly I would say that the majority of people who engage on my channels are veterinary professionals.

Still, the difference between social media channels directed at vet professionals and websites aimed at vet professionals, is that whilst the information may be just as easily accessible to the public on either, it is more likely to be put in front of a member of the public who had not gone searching for it, on social media.

SUGGESTION: If you do decide to produce a short guideline for journalists, you might like to consider whether there is any basis in law for advising journalists not to publish content on social media. I would suggest that the better litmus test should be the same as that used by the MHRA, which is simply whether it is balanced, factual and informative.

Overall, I would also make the point that social media is, as you will know, awash with misinformation, and I would argue that it would be better for the VMD to allow and require accurate, balanced reporting on social media, which will have the beneficial effect of countering some of the misinformation, than to try and stifle all information, even accurate and balanced stuff. That, I would argue, would be a strategy which is much more appropriate to the world we live in today.

For my part, I propose to follow the points I have made above in the future. In other words, to report on veterinary prescription only medicines in a balanced, factual, informative way which I will endeavour to ensure could not be seen as ‘promotional’, but nevertheless may include brand names and will be shared on social media channels which are dedicated to veterinary professionals.

I regret that you were not prepared to enter into a discussion earlier, but I hope this meets with your approval and would be most grateful if you could either confirm that, or pass it to whoever is responsible for the issues I have raised above.

Yours sincerely

Arlo Guthrie
Editor www.vetsurgeon.org and www.vetnurse.co.uk

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Ben Walker — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 13:24:53 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246722#246722"]I feel like we are coming to the close of negotiating a world trade agreement.[/quote]

I think we're seeing eye-to-eye now. It's been useful for me too. I've definitely mellowed over the course of our discussion regarding the content and you have convinced me that the content is independently produced, of which I was initially sceptical. I do accept that your intentions were positive.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246722#246722"]I conclude that the big issue is mainly for films about POMs which are published somewhere they might be more likely to be seen by a member of the public who hasn't gone looking for them, not to have a promotional vibe.[/quote]

You've expressed that perfectly (and better than I managed).

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 10:21:43 GMT

Ben Walker Crikey .... I feel like we are coming to the close of negotiating a world trade agreement.

Been a really interesting discussion on many levels - not least a reminder to me how one's instinctive reaction to being challenged online is to defend one's position, and how hard it is to accept, still less admit publicly if one is wrong.

Anyway, without wanting to be mealy-mouthed, I think I am substantively wrong. As it happens, I think the VMD is too, largely because it hasn't considered journalism separately to advertising, as the MHRA has.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246719#246719"]The MHRA Blue Guide appendix makes it clear that journalistic content may still qualify as advertising.[/quote]

Sorry to be a pedant, but I don't think that is quite right. MHRA does draw a distinction but in that appendix says that journalism can still be regarded as promotional, which is where the courts may have to decide.

It's an important distinction to make, because legislation and its enforcement needs to use the English language as it is commonly understood, or it is difficult for the regulated to understand the rules. Journalism / editorial is not advertising, but yes, it can be promotional, and it is that which can run the wrong side of the law.

Anyway, my film WAS made to inform, not promote, so from my perspective it is within the law. But I accept that the enthusiastic and one-sided nature of my delivery means others have viewed it differently and I would not like to test it in court.

It was ALSO labelled for veterinary professionals on channels directed at veterinary professionals, which is a secondary issue. I think the nature of social media is still evolving, and the picture is still not entirely clear here. The MHRA doesn't actually cover the scenario where journalistic content aimed at professionals is published on channels for professionals on social media.

Weighing everything up, inc the actual law, the MHRA guidelines as a broad path to follow, I conclude that the big issue is mainly for films about POMs which are published somewhere they might be more likely to be seen by a member of the public who hasn't gone looking for them, not to have a promotional vibe. ie not to sit there just talking enthusiastically about the benefits, with strong visuals.

That's my pragmatic view. As you say, I could also make the case that content for professionals on channels for professionals is not caught by these regulations. But I think the pragmatic view; the compromise is just to tone it down!

Risk of course is that films become rather dull, and I have to try and think of a way making them entertaining.

I do not see any reason why I should not mention a brand name, and I also don't see any reason currently why balanced content aimed at professionals shouldn't be published on other channels for professionals.

Thank you again Ben, it's been a very great pleasure and I have learned a lot from this discussion!

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Ben Walker — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 09:20:09 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246718#246718"]Nope, that section deals with advertising, where we are talking about journalism. [/quote]

The MHRA Blue Guide appendix makes it clear that journalistic content may still qualify as advertising.

The first test is whether the content is advertising in nature. You're right that whether your video counts is subjective and a court would be the ultimate arbiter if you wanted to pursue it. But journalism is not the absolute defence you were saying it is.

If it does qualify as advertising then you can still publish, but you would need to be compliant with rules about advertising to the public and to professionals. That's when the question of where you can publish comes in. So 6.3 is absolutely relevant.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246718#246718"]I am not convinced there is a need to replicate it exactly - ie for controls over veterinary medicines to be interpreted as strictly. [/quote]

I get it. You might be right. And a court might place a higher threshold for what constitutes an advert by a journalist for veterinary medicines.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246718#246718"]Either way, if published content appears balanced (ie less promotional) I think it is reasonable to say it can appear anywhere.[/quote]

Yes. We are in agreement on that.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246718#246718"]Also, it DOES delegitimise enforcement if they are trying to enforce something which is not actually covered by the law.[/quote]

I do see your point that "there is nowhere in law that says 'you cannot post content on social media'". I've shown you that the status quo on the human side is that the MHRA is of the same view. Maybe a court would consider your "product briefing for vets and nurses" disclaimer enough to recognise that it is "aimed at" that audience.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246718#246718"]One should also bear in mind that the MHRA guidance may itself not have been tested in law[/quote]

Absolutely true. Following the guidance means a publisher will be compliant, but of course there are cases where content does not comply with the guidelines but is still legal.

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:21:09 GMT

Ben Walker Nope, that section deals with advertising, where we are talking about journalism. The guidance re journalism you shared earlier places no such restrictions (and that is logical, because journalists publish in all sorts of places).

Secondly, whilst I agree with you that the MHRA might seem a reasonable model to follow, I am not convinced there is a need to replicate it exactly - ie for controls over veterinary medicines to be interpreted as strictly.

One should also bear in mind that the MHRA guidance may itself not have been tested in law (although it appears that some of it has).

Either way, if published content appears balanced (ie less promotional) I think it is reasonable to say it can appear anywhere.

VMD guidance for journalists is not limited, it’s non-existent. I’m not sure that can be justified by the size of the dept, because it’s only a page or two of A4! Also, it DOES delegitimise enforcement if they are trying to enforce something which is not actually covered by the law.

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Ben Walker — Thu, 27 Feb 2025 00:23:24 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246714#246714"]Also, the MRHA places no controls on WHERE journalists publish. Nor whether they mention a brand name.[/quote]

Again, I’m sorry but this isn’t the case. Read the Blue Guide in its entirety:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6012d7f2d3bf7f05b92f6cfc/BG_2020_Brexit_Final_version.pdf

6.3 makes it clear that advertising to professionals is only acceptable on websites whose nature and content are directed at professionals. That would rule out YouTube / TikTok.

You make a fair point that VMD guidance is limited, and that’s disappointing. They are much smaller and less well funded than the MHRA, so not surprising. Executive Branches have to be fully self-funding, and veterinary medicines is a much smaller market.

The lack of guidance doesn’t make the enforcement less legitimate. But it makes it harder for publishers to comply. It sounds like they’ve taken a needlessly aggressive approach with you.

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 26 Feb 2025 18:50:12 GMT

Ben Walker Gosh, that's really interesting, thank you very much.

My thoughts:

Clearly you are right, in human medicine, the MHRA (unlike the VMD) has given some thought about how the law applies to journalists, and although it is not apparently required in law, they say that in order not to have to test it in court, journalists need to be balanced and factual.

Two things though.

This is MHRA guidance for journalists writing articles for consumers, whereas my content is aimed at (and labelled for) veterinary professionals.

Also, the MRHA places no controls on WHERE journalists publish. Nor whether they mention a brand name.

What is clear here, and the doc you shared highlights, is that the MRHA has considered journalism, where the VMD has not. So the VMD has overreached itself with rules that are meant to apply to advertising.

If it had an ounce of common sense, it would have realised its rules are not really fit for purpose these days,and said OK, let's put together some fair guidelines for journalists.

Notwithstanding the fact that my content is for veterinary professionals, I could have worked with 'Balance'. I mean it isn't always easy to be balanced when you are just reporting the news that a new product has launched, especially one with no obvious competition. But am sure I could be more balanced than the Bravecto film (!). I would have given them that one.

Actually, I was conciliatory when they first approached me and suggested a meeting to discuss how the rules could be interpreted for journalists. But they were not having any of it. Refused to have a meeting other than to impose their interpretation of the law.

I certainly would NOT have conceded on the issue of where journalism is published, nor whether brand names are included. Even the MHRA doesn't do that, and we're talking about dogs here.

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Ben Walker — Wed, 26 Feb 2025 16:52:56 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246712#246712"]The law applies to people (usually businesses) who create advertising content IN ORDER to promote the supply, sale etc.[/quote]

You keep on saying this and I have conceded you might be right. But it isn’t my interpretation of the legislation, it isn’t the VMD’s, and if you’re curious it isn’t the MHRA’s either (the human version of the VMD). See:

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/.../Appendix_5.pdf

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 26 Feb 2025 16:17:41 GMT

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246708#246708"]I’ve explained why I don’t think informing is as neutral as you do.[/quote]

I don''t quite understand how the neutrality is relevant to the law.

The law applies to people (usually businesses) who create advertising content IN ORDER to promote the supply, sale etc.

I have stated as a matter of FACT that I did not create advertising content, it was editorial, and it was not IN ORDER to promote the supply, sale etc.

These facts established, I am allowed to say whatever I like, because it is not an advert, and therefore the rules which apply to adverts do not apply to my non-advert content.

If I wanted to stand in front of a camera and say" Bravecto is bloody brilliant and all the other flea treatments are crap" that would be fine, because IT IS NOT AN ADVERT!

Also, there is nowhere in law that says 'you cannot post content on social media'. That is the VMD adding something to the law that does not exist.

The law makes no reference to where content is published. It only says that the restrictions do not apply to

price lists, or to advertisements aimed at veterinary surgeons.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246708#246708"]You have to skip the content to avoid seeing it if you aren’t the target audience (opt out).[/quote]

To a degree, perhaps. But the algorithm is very good at only putting content in front of you that you are likely to want to watch. So no, it doesn't necessarily mean skipping content. It's not put in front of you in the first place.

But as I say, the whole thing is rendered slightly daft by the fact that there is so much info already out there.

[quote userid="8991" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246703#246703"]I think what this highlights is significant overreach of the VMD (which I assume are now regretting such a move) which is the height of silliness on several levels, not least because they appear to be unaware of how their own legislation should be interpreted.[/quote]

Pretty much mirrors my own view of the situation, except I don't share your optimism about them having any regret or a change of heart. People on the defence tend to defend. But I am not giving up.

As far as I am concerned, the law prevents manufacturers and suppliers from advertising. The VMD is absolutely right to police that. But it has overreached itself by trying to dictate what a journalist or a member of the public says. It has no right to say where material can be published - the law only relates to what is published. It also has no right to dictate the editorial line taken by any media outlet (or member of the public).

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Clive Ansell — Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:32:24 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246697#246697"]

Michael Woodhouse said:
No. Do you think it's ok to expose children to profanity, nudity and pornography? Should we allow access to bomb making instructions or terrorist training manuals?

I don't think you should conflate information about a flea treatment with terrorist bombs!

[/quote]

Bravecto injection could be the next weapon of mass destruction, and may well in the future be subject to checks at airport security.

Seriously though: I cannot see what all of the fuss is about, I have seen the video and although I am not convinced by the product I see no harm in it. I believe in uncensored free speech (With exception of that which deliberately incites hatred or is intended to be harmful - then I suppose it is not "free" at all - big debate there) so do not object to the video.

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Ben Walker — Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:24:40 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246707#246707"]I made the film in order to inform. [/quote]

I’ve explained why I don’t think informing is as neutral as you do. Are you planning on contesting the Warning/Advisory? It would be interesting to know where a court falls on the issue.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246707#246707"]But it is equally visible to the public on the vet times website as it is on tiktok - arguably MORE so because VT or VetSurgeon will come up in search engine results to anyone looking for info about a drug. The same is not true on social media[/quote]

I’m not so sure. You’d have to search and click through, or visit the site directly to see content on VT / VetSurgeon (opt in). Content appears unprompted on feeds in YouTube / TikTok. You have to skip the content to avoid seeing it if you aren’t the target audience (opt out).

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 26 Feb 2025 14:46:14 GMT

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246705#246705"]

Arlo said the same. But the regulations specifically refer to promote when they define “advertising”:

”the making of a representation in any form in connection with those products in order to promote their supply, distribution, sale, prescription or use”

Section 2(2)

[/quote]

The most important part of that legal text is: "In order to"

I did NOT make the film "in order to" promote their supply, distribution, sale, prescription or use.

I made the film in order to inform.

Therefore, once again, it is categorically NOT an advertisement.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246705#246705"]Once it’s in the hands of TikTok or YouTube you’re sending it out to the general public and hoping their algorithms keep you compliant.[/quote]

But it is equally visible to the public on the vet times website as it is on tiktok - arguably MORE so because VT or VetSurgeon will come up in search engine results to anyone looking for info about a drug. The same is not true on social media.

But you are right re press releases, I used to run the press office for Novartis, and we were very limited in what we could issue to the consumer press, because when issued by a manufacturer (and in direct contrast to the situation with journalists), there is a clear motive / intent to promote etc.

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Ben Walker — Wed, 26 Feb 2025 14:33:28 GMT

[quote userid="8991" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246703#246703"]Promotion has no legal basis. Advertisement is the key word in all this.[/quote]

Arlo said the same. But the regulations specifically refer to promote when they define “advertising”:

”the making of a representation in any form in connection with those products in order to promote their supply, distribution, sale, prescription or use”

Section 2(2)

So, yeah, promote seems to be fairly key to this. And yes, press releases would fall into the same category. As long as it’s to professionals you wouldn’t run afoul of the regs. So VetTimes and VetSurgeon are fine. Once it’s in the hands of TikTok or YouTube you’re sending it out to the general public and hoping their algorithms keep you compliant.

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

David Mills — Wed, 26 Feb 2025 14:10:48 GMT

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246690#246690"]You could. And when it's purely positive and low on detail I think it becomes promotional. [/quote]

The ultimate end point of this, as Arlo says, is that no one is allowed to mention anything without "balance". So no more press releases. No more Vet Times. No more adverts for new meds. It is plainly ridiculous and simply is not what happens in day to day life, or in the vet profession. I think you are constructing a strange argument based on some peculiar rationalist model of the world which is fanciful, at best.

Taking the Bravecto example, are you seriously suggesting that rather than a short communication saying this product needs to be used once a year, might be useful, is a genuinely different product to what's out there, should instead be subject to a "discussion" about its merits. Come on now.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246690#246690"]Discussion instead of promotion.[/quote]

Promotion has no legal basis. Advertisement is the key word in all this. Are you still suggesting that Arlo is advertising Bravecto? Because if you are, then you must include all press releases, comments, mentions etc.

To look at it another way - not sure if you're in clinical practice but say your practice stocks Prinovox not Advocate. Staying consistent with your principles, when dispensing or selling Prinovox do you "discuss" why its better than Advocate, or Simparica, or A.N.Other, giving a balanced opinion piece each time? No. The principle is no different here.

What about upcoming BSAVA? There are people who attend who are neither vets nor nurses - should the exhibitors take down their adverts every time a practice manager walks past??

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246692#246692"]Do you think it's ok to expose children to profanity, nudity and pornography? Should we allow access to bomb making instructions or terrorist training manuals?[/quote]

Slippery slope fallacy.

I think what this highlights is significant overreach of the VMD (which I assume are now regretting such a move) which is the height of silliness on several levels, not least because they appear to be unaware of how their own legislation should be interpreted.

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:42:05 GMT

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246690#246690"]

Arlo Guthrie said:
I suppose you could argue that of anything which expresses positives about anything.

You could. And when it's purely positive and low on detail I think it becomes promotional. The BBC article you put forward is an illustration of solid reporting. It discusses beneficial effects, negative effects, and goes into detail about how semaglutide works. That's a true discussion and I doubt anyone would criticise it.

[/quote]

It's interesting. In all the years I have been writing the news on this site, regularly reporting the release of new products, never once discussing beneficial effects, negative effects etc, not one person has ever complained, still less called the written word promotional. It's only happened when I transferred the same thing to video!

I think our main two areas of disagreement are firstly how you define advertising. I would argue that most people (and indeed dictionaries) would define it as an activity done by companies to promote the sale of their products. I am not advertising.

Secondly, I am not targeting content at the general public. My channels elsewhere are clearly labelled for veterinary professionals, and as I have said already, the great majority of discussion elsewhere comes from precisely that audience. That combined with the knowledge that algorithms are very good at targeting the right people means that my content is being shown to veterinary professionals.

I would say that this: https://www.felpreva.co.uk/ is just as accessible to a member of the public as anything I publish on other social media.

But coming to your specific points

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246690#246690"]And when it's purely positive and low on detail I think it becomes promotional.[/quote]

I do take your point. I don't entirely agree with you, because as I said earlier, the distinction between editorial and advertising is that one is an activity carried out by a manufacturer to promote sales, and the other is not.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246690#246690"]Just some (any) degree of analysis or critique.[/quote]

But journalism isn't defined by those criteria. Reporting is simply that: reporting. Reporting the launch of a new product doesn't mean I have to go and check every other new product or go into all the downsides etc. I get that you might prefer it if that was the case, but it's not a service I have the resources to offer.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246690#246690"]You're cherry-picking products, so it isn't as though you are trying to keep us abreast of new entrants in the market. [/quote]

No I'm not!

VetSurgeon.org is on the distribution list for most of the sources of veterinary news, and I report whatever news / products I hear about. Same as any other disseminator of news.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246690#246690"] What purpose does informing us in that manner serve if not to try and encourage sales?[/quote]

What purpose? Simply to inform you about, for example, the launch of a new product.

Fact is that social media has become massively fragmented and vets now use all sort of different platforms. They dont necessarily visit vet websites for their news. So I need to report the news where vet professionals go.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246690#246690"]But you put forward an argument that it isn't possible for marketing to distort prescribing behaviour among clinicians. I thought it best to step away.[/quote]

No, I categorically did not say that. Of course marketing can distort prescribing behaviour among clinicians!

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246690#246690"]But I think you are overstating what the VMD is asking you to do.[/quote]

But the VMD has no business dictating what journalists write. That's not what the law says.

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246692#246692"]No. Do you think it's ok to expose children to profanity, nudity and pornography? Should we allow access to bomb making instructions or terrorist training manuals?[/quote]

I don't think you should conflate information about a flea treatment with terrorist bombs!

[quote userid="3169" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246692#246692"]Controlling the exposure to material or promotion of controlled items to certain audiences should, legitimately, be limited.[/quote]

Why exactly? Because they might spontaneously combust? What re you trying to save people from? Regardless of anything, you control the prescription.

And do you think this approach makes much sense these days when information is so widely available everywhere. Search tiktok for bravecto and you'll find all sorts of films!

Forget the VMDs interpretation and focus on what the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 (ie the law) actually says:

1. No person may advertise a veterinary medicinal product that is available on veterinary prescription only

My film was not an advert. An advert is something created by a manufacturer or supplier to sell their product. I am neither and I made it to inform, not to sell.

The law then says

Subject to paragraph (4) in the case of POM-V medicines, paragraph (1) does not apply to price lists, or to advertisements aimed at—

(a)veterinary surgeons;

(b)veterinary nurses;

CLEARLY the law was written to prevent companies advertising and I support that.

It is clearly NOT aimed at the public or journalists who do not 'advertise' vet medicines.

But even if my film was an advertisement, which it plainly isn't, it is aimed at vets and nurses in a space for vets and nurses and is therefore within the law.

As I say, algorithms are good at targeting content at the right people. The script is obviously talking to vets.

Ben, your constructive criticism challenges me to do better, and I am certainly not above that. But I take great exception to a government body overreaching itself and imposing its incorrect interpretation of the law in a way that hinders free speech. By the VMD ruling, any member of the public who named a prescription medicine and didnt give a balanced view would face censure, and that is just plain wrong (not to mention, according to a judge I spoke to, not remotely possible to uphold).

You may feel that my film looks too promotional, and I (hate the phrase) take that on board.

But surely you would agree, when you look at the wording of the law, that I am the right side of it. The law simply states that you cannot advertise, and the context of the word 'advertisement' clearly means advertisement in the sense that you or I know it. The print or TV advert (or emailer, or whatever) made by the manufacturer and written by its marketing department to sell product.

Anything else is the VMD overreaching itself.

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Michael Woodhouse — Tue, 25 Feb 2025 22:36:42 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246687#246687"]That aside, if you support the VMD on this, then you are supporting government censorship. Which is fine, but we will have to differ on rights and wrongs of that. [/quote]

No. Do you think it's ok to expose children to profanity, nudity and pornography? Should we allow access to bomb making instructions or terrorist training manuals? Doctors are discouraged from accepting free pens from drug companies these days. Controlling the exposure to material or promotion of controlled items to certain audiences should, legitimately, be limited.

Data sheets freely available to all. Data available either for free or if they contact the company or author.

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Ben Walker — Tue, 25 Feb 2025 22:05:49 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246689#246689"]I suppose you could argue that of anything which expresses positives about anything.[/quote]

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246689#246689"]Would you say that when a newspaper reports (or the TV broadcasts) a report of the launch of a new Tesla, that it is promotional[/quote]

It definitely can be. I would hope that they would go into more depth. The trite "others are available" isn't necessary. Just some (any) degree of analysis or critique. It isn't an offence to promote cars to the general public.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246689#246689"]To inform you. To tell you about it. And if not you (because you already know) then to tell others.[/quote]

But this is where we fall down. You say you are only qualified to inform. But this method of "informing" isn't a neutral act. You're cherry-picking products, so it isn't as though you are trying to keep us abreast of new entrants in the market. You don't discuss negatives, so you aren't trying to educate us on the product. What purpose does informing us in that manner serve if not to try and encourage sales?

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246689#246689"]But in our last exchange, you said:[/quote]

You've quoted that without its proceeding clauses. What I said was:

I like the concept of a product brief, but I wouldn’t subscribe to them without seeing more obvious originality, ideally with a sceptical filter applied to the content.

I don't think that differs from what I've been saying here. Discussion instead of promotion.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246689#246689"]it seemed perfectly friendly, constructive dialogue to me![/quote]

It was. I don't think either of us was uncivil (I hope I wasn't at least!). But you put forward an argument that it isn't possible for marketing to distort prescribing behaviour among clinicians. I thought it best to step away.

My lay reading of the VMR matches the VMD's guidance. I don't mind being wrong. But I think you are overstating what the VMD is asking you to do. Discussing products is fine (à la your linked BBC article). You are trying to defend your ability to promote products for no reimbursement. That seems weird to me when you could make more interesting content that could be widely disseminated without issue.

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 25 Feb 2025 19:47:46 GMT

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246688#246688"]

Arlo Guthrie said:
The fact that I was not paid means I have no vested interest in the sale of the product, and therefore my content was clearly not made 'in order to' promote the supply, sale, etc.

I don't think that is true.

[/quote]

Ben Walker Well, I can assure you it is!

Advertising on the sites is handled by someone else. The full extent to which advertising has any bearing on content I create is limited to the fact that sometimes I will see a company advertising something with us, and think ... I didnt know that, and I'll tell our salesperson to ask them for a press release so I can consider whether it would make a news story.

I'm actually very selective about what I publish, and I judge it one criteria only .... which is whether I think it is interesting. On a very slow news day, I might select something a bit less interesting than normal, just to fill the space.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246688#246688"]But, even if you are truly independent, [/quote]

Yes I am.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246688#246688"]the content is clearly an endorsement of the product[/quote]

I suppose you could argue that of anything which expresses positives about anything. You could say that about this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5pq4y5wpo. The fact is, I am just laying out the benefits of a yearly flea treatment.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246688#246688"]What is the point of it if not to promote its prescription or use? [/quote]

To inform you. To tell you about it. And if not you (because you already know) then to tell others. In a hopefully less turgid and dull way than has been done in the past.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246688#246688"]There's no discussion in a meaningful sense: going into depth or showing a range of views.[/quote]

I am not qualified to do that.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246688#246688"]but the legislation is broader.[/quote]

But Ben, it is not. I have pored over it in detail and discussed it with two solicitors and a judge. They all agreed the law could not be applied to the public and journalists.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246688#246688"]

The information you are disseminating is about the benefits of a single product. I think that is inherently promotional.

[/quote]

I disagree. Would you say that when a newspaper reports (or the TV broadcasts) a report of the launch of a new Tesla, that it is promotional unless they say: "other cars are available from Ford, Kia, BMW, Land Rover, Fiat, Volkswagen, Bentley, Ferrari, etc"

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246688#246688"]Of course I am. The censorship is: Don't promote prescription medication to the general public. I support that.[/quote]

But that's the point. I'm NOT promoting POMs to the general public. The film is clearly titled and aimed at veterinary professionals, on channels that are also labelled so.

More importantly, social media platforms are very good at putting content in front of people who it is relevant to. Of course they are. They want you watching for as long as possible. It is in TikTok's interest to put content made for veterinary professionals in front of veterinary professionals!

My impression is that by far the great majority of my followers on other platforms are indeed veterinary professionals. Certainly a lot of the comments - I think the great majority, appear to be coming from veterinary professionals. The algorithms are doing their job.

Committed pet owners will always find the information they are looking for, and actual adverts for POM medicines are only one click away from TikTok on VetTimes. Do you think the visitors to vet times are all vet professionals? I can assure you there will be a great many who are not.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246688#246688"]I don't like you promoting products to a professional audience.[/quote]

But in our last exchange, you said:

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30970/what-would-you-watch/244902#244902"]I like the concept of a product brief[/quote]

Of course you said a lot else beside that so I am not suggesting you were unreservedly positive or anything!

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246688#246688"]I stepped away from the forums for a few months to cool off after our last exchange on the topic.[/quote]

Oh - I'm quite surprised because when I look back on it, it seemed perfectly friendly, constructive dialogue to me!

In summary, my view is that

Yeah, with hindsight, my presentation was a bit too enthusiastic, but it was one of the first I'd made, and most creative endeavours involve an element of trial and error. I think I will tone it down a bit next time, though the danger is that it then becomes dull.
I do not agree that a news report or product brief requires a balanced opinion. Its not the case in any other field of news reporting. I simply share the news.
Of course I can see that a balanced opinion would be nice for you to have. But I am not qualified to give that. I am only qualified to inform. To report news.
I profoundly disagree that laws designed to prevent manufacturers from promoting veterinary medicines can or should be applied to members of the public or journalists reporting something. So I do not propose to stop sharing content on other social media platforms, because that is where a lot of vets and nurses see it.

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Ben Walker — Tue, 25 Feb 2025 18:04:24 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246687#246687"]The fact that I was not paid means I have no vested interest in the sale of the product, and therefore my content was clearly not made 'in order to' promote the supply, sale, etc.[/quote]

I don't think that is true.

Your business model depends on advertising. The fact that this content wasn't specifically sponsored doesn't mean you are an impartial journalist.

But, even if you are truly independent, the content is clearly an endorsement of the product. What is the point of it if not to promote its prescription or use? There's no discussion in a meaningful sense: going into depth or showing a range of views.

It won't fall under the ASA's remit if you weren't paid, but the legislation is broader.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246687#246687"]As it happens, Ben, that was NOT a repackaged press release[/quote]

I will take you at your word. But that is not apparent from the material. The content references a MSD survey in the video, attributes its environmental claims to an MSD statement, and (naturally) the product information sheet. I couldn't differentiate it from MSD marketing and I think this is part of our disagreement. You know what happens behind the scenes. I can only see the end product.

However, I think you put too much weight on who wrote the script and whether money changed hands. Marketing is usually going to be "informative" in nature so I don't really see how "in order to inform" falls in your favour. The information you are disseminating is about the benefits of a single product. I think that is inherently promotional.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246687#246687"] if you support the VMD on this, then you are supporting government censorship. [/quote]

Of course I am. The censorship is: Don't promote prescription medication to the general public. I support that.

I don't like you promoting products to a professional audience. I stepped away from the forums for a few months to cool off after our last exchange on the topic. However, I know you have a right to do it. It seems to me that the solution would be to either stop disseminating the content via social media, or to start genuinely discussing the products. I'd be much more interested in the latter. You present well and you clearly put a lot of time and effort into your content.

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 25 Feb 2025 13:39:42 GMT

Ben Walker Michael Woodhouse I knew I would face this opposition ... but allow me to explain why I think you completely miss the point.

The point is that the law concerning the promotion of veterinary medicines is to prevent manufacturers advertising. It was not intended to prevent free speech by the public or journalists.

Now you might argue that my film was too enthusiastic, or not how you define journalism. But that is NOT the point.

I could argue that half the stuff I read in the Daily Mail is not journalism, but I would still defend its right to print it.

Similarly, I am entitled to discuss prescription veterinary medicines publicly, and the Veterinary Medicine Directorate is not entitled to prevent me from so doing.

As it happens, Ben, that was NOT a repackaged press release, it was my informed opinion of the salient facts surrounding Bravecto Injectable. I had 20 years experience working in parasite control, so it is a subject I am reasonably well versed in.

[quote userid="25265" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246686#246686"]and the fact that you weren't paid for it doesn't change the nature of the content[/quote]

You are right, it doesn't. The reason it is important is because the law states:

“advertising” means, in relation to veterinary medicinal products, the making of a representation in any form in connection with those products in order to promote their supply, distribution, sale, prescription or use and includes any action taken for this purpose by way of the supply of samples or by means of sponsorship. and “advertise” and “advertisement” are to be construed accordingly.’

The fact that I was not paid means I have no vested interest in the sale of the product, and therefore my content was clearly not made 'in order to' promote the supply, sale, etc.

As a journalist, I make content in order to inform.

Therefore, the nature of the content is total irrelevant. There is no intent to promote. Therefore it is lawful. Therefore it is completely wrong of the VMD to censor it.

That aside, if you support the VMD on this, then you are supporting government censorship. Which is fine, but we will have to differ on rights and wrongs of that.

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Ben Walker — Tue, 25 Feb 2025 13:27:57 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/31138/how-much-does-client-knowledge-of-poms-bother-you/246682#246682"]However, for me there is an important principle at stake here, which is that it is not for some pisspot little government department to trample over free speech, and I am going to fight this one.[/quote]

It won't surprise you that I disagree with you. I raised a concern about your product briefings 8 months ago. Repackaging a press release is not the same as journalism and the fact that you weren't paid for it doesn't change the nature of the content. I too agree with the VMD.

RE: How much does client knowledge of POMs bother you?

Michael Woodhouse — Tue, 25 Feb 2025 12:48:12 GMT

Where was the Bravecto injectable video published? On here, in vet voices, fine. On Facebook and TikTok, I agree with the VMD.