{"id":5510,"date":"2023-07-18T09:17:22","date_gmt":"2023-07-18T09:17:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mysourcefunding.com\/leadership\/womens-health-ads-remain-censored-cij-files-ftc-complaint-in-reply\/"},"modified":"2023-07-18T09:17:23","modified_gmt":"2023-07-18T09:17:23","slug":"womens-health-ads-remain-censored-cij-files-ftc-complaint-in-reply","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mysourcefunding.com\/?p=5510","title":{"rendered":"Women’s Health Ads Remain Censored; CIJ Files FTC Complaint in Reply"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\u201cWhat is VMS?\u201d During the 2023 Super Bowl, Astellas Pharma aired an ad featuring actress actress Carmella Riley asking women that very question. The 30-second spot (which likely cost around seven million dollars) helped educate women about vasomotor symptoms, commonly known as VMS – hot flashes and night sweats that affect women in menopause – and directed them to a website to learn more.<\/p>\n

Over 113 million people watched the 2023 Super Bowl. That an ad for a female-specific, historically-taboo health condition was able to run on that large of a national stage – and reach that large of an audience \u2013 gives the impression that women\u2019s health-centric advertisements are commonplace. But, in truth, women\u2019s health companies have faced an uphill battle in advertising: from social media to subway stations.<\/p>\n

In a report published in January 2022, the Center for Intimacy Justice (CIJ), a non-profit social change organization, found that 60 companies, which focused on healthcare for women and people of diverse genders, had Meta (formerly Facebook and Instagram) reject their ads. The ads in question covered education, products, and services for a range of health conditions and issues, including bladder control, breast pumps, endometriosis, fertility, menopause, pelvic pain, pregnancy, postpartum clothing, sexual consent, sexual pleasure, and urinary tract infections. Even ads that included words such as \u201cvaginal\u201d, \u201cvaginal health\u201d, \u201cmenopause\u201d and \u201cOB\/GYN\u201d were rejected since those ads, according to the tech giant, represented \u201cadult content\u201d or advertised \u201csexual pleasure\u201d. Half of the affected companies also found that Meta locked them out of their accounts.<\/p>\n

In contrast, ads for condoms, erectile dysfunction, and even premature ejaculation were approved and allowed to run. They met Meta\u2019s advertising policy at the time because they focused on \u201cfamily planning\u201d, not on \u201csexual pleasure or sexual enhancement\u201d.<\/p>\n

<\/fbs-ad><\/p>\n

The result is a double standard: addressing men\u2019s necessary health needs is for the good of men\u2019s families but addressing women\u2019s necessary health needs is simply for women\u2019s own pleasure.<\/p>\n

After CIJ\u2019s findings were released and The<\/em> New York Times<\/em> \u2013 among others \u2013 ran corresponding stories, Meta changed its advertising policies in the fall of 2022 to allow \u201cads that promote sexual health, wellness and reproductive products and services\u201d to users over 18.<\/p>\n

On the morning of July 17, 2023, though, the CIJ announced that it had filed a US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) complaint back in April of this year. The complaint alleges that, despite the changed advertising policies, Meta \u201csystematically treats sexual health products and services directed towards women and people of underrepresented genders differently, resulting in the rejection of the ads and the banning of these companies from the platforms\u201d. Since these ads do comply with Meta\u2019s updated and posted policies, their rejection amounts to \u201can unfair and deceptive trade practice\u201d and a violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Democratic lawmakers, including Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts), Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota), Peter Welch (Vermont) and Rep. Adam B. Schiff (California), have added their voices to the cause, asking the FTC to act if it finds that Meta has, in fact, violated federal trade practice laws.<\/p>\n

In a statement, Meta\u2019s spokesperson Ryan Daniels responded, \u201cWe welcome ads for women\u2019s health and sexual wellness products, but we prohibit nudity and have specific rules about how these products can be marketed on our platform.\u201d Meanwhile, Jackie Rotman, Founder and CEO of the Center for Intimacy Justice, said in an interview with The Washington Post <\/em>that this censorship is \u201cdisheartening and sad […] so many of the women\u2019s health entrepreneurs and nonprofits we work with are still facing the exact same barriers.\u201d<\/p>\n

Those \u201cwomen\u2019s health entrepreneurs\u201d include Lyndsey Harper, MD, FACOG, IF, Founder and CEO, Hailey Thompson, Marketing Lead, and the rest of the team at Meet Rosy. About six months after Meta announced its advertising policy changes, this sexual health company submitted an ad about pain during sex, which as many as 75% of women will experience. When the ad was rejected, the company appealed the decision, citing Meta\u2019s revised advertisement policy, which states that sexual pain is a permitted topic. The follow-up worked; the ad was approved and allowed to run.<\/p>\n

Awkward Essentials, another sexual health company, also noticed that the new advertising policy hasn\u2019t necessarily translated to reality. The company has had about 80% of their ads approved and 20% rejected: a split that hasn\u2019t changed with the changed policy. As Frances Tang, Founder and CEO, shared, Awkward Essentials has largely managed to circumvent the algorithm bias against women\u2019s health ads by avoiding \u201ctraditional tropes in advertising\u201d for sexual health, such as silhouettes of bodies or pieces of fruit to represent female reproductive organs. Instead, the company, whose products include a post-sex cleanup wipe and a pee funnel, uses images like cakes and Twinkies in their ads: images that algorithms may not have yet learned are associated with sexual health ads, and, therefore, may not have yet learned to reject. Ms. Tang even made an Instagram Reel sharing some of these advertising workarounds to help other women\u2019s health companies facing the same challenges.<\/p>\n

Kristina Cahojova, Founder and CEO of kegg, took a different approach. Kegg\u2019s product helps with pelvic floor training and cervical fluid tracking, allowing women to maintain their pelvic floor, reduce painful sex, recognize hormonal imbalances, and understand why they might be prone to infections. But kegg\u2019s product, as Ms. Cahojova says, looks like \u201ca sex toy\u201d: a red flag for algorithms that have learned to flag sexual content and products.<\/p>\n

Ms. Cahojova understands that the ideal approach would be to \u201cfix the algorithm\u201d to stop it from flagging women\u2019s health products or imagery typically associated with women\u2019s health (like the aforementioned silhouettes of bodies or pieces of fruit): a result that the Center for Intimacy Justice also wants to achieve through its FTC complaint. Even before CIJ filed its complaint, though, Ms. Cahojova mobilized 100 women\u2019s health company founders to sign a petition against the censorship of women\u2019s health products on Meta and TikTok. In the petition, she wrote, \u201cEducational content or promotion of women’s health products has been systematically miscategorized as \u2018adult products or services\u2019 and banned while truly sexual and explicit content or ads have been allowed by social media companies.\u201d She shared the petition with her personal connections at Google and at Meta: the latter of whom had no idea that type of censorship was even occurring. Since then, Ms. Cahojova has noticed that companies that were part of her petition have been \u201cwhite-listed\u201d, and their ads have been allowed to run. That change, for kegg alone, helped its revenue grow about \u201c10x a month\u201d.<\/p>\n

Despite the attention it is currently receiving, Meta is not the only company censoring women\u2019s health ads and content. Ms. Cahojova said that, ironically, LinkedIn removed her post, which featured a link to her petition to stop women\u2019s health censorship. The post apparently violated LinkedIn\u2019s \u201cProfessional Community Policies\u201d, which include a section on adult content. She also noted that Amazon is \u201ca secret player\u201d in the censorship space. Because kegg\u2019s product looks like a sex toy, Amazon won\u2019t allow it an image of the actual product to be advertised, citing its policies on ad guidelines and acceptance. Subsequently, the product image that the kegg team displays on Amazon is a box with a pregnant woman on it. Ms. Cahojova estimates that kegg could \u201cquadruple or even 10x\u201d its revenue if it could show its product as is, rather than all but disguising it. Ms. Tang of Awkward Essentials had a similar experience with a third-party retailer, this one brick-and-mortar. Awkward Essentials\u2019 post-sex cleanup sponge was removed from its place on a drugstore shelf after customers were offended. The various condoms displayed around the sponge didn\u2019t draw the same ire and were not removed.<\/p>\n

The ban of these ads and the uneven application of advertising standards and guidelines have a negative impact on the companies trying to advertise. As Ms. Cahojova of kegg says, women\u2019s health companies, especially those with female founders, are so underfunded that they have to rely on different sources of capital, such as revenue, to stay in business. Social media, along with visibility in an app store, online retailer, or drugstore, can help these companies build their brand and bring in that revenue \u2013 but only if those ads and that visibility are allowed in the first place. Without them, a company may see fewer sales and less revenue and may be seen as a less attractive prospect to investors than it would have otherwise. This fate, in turn, forces the company to double down on its dependence on other sources of capital, like revenue: a self-perpetuating cycle.<\/p>\n

Consumers are hurt by this censorship as well. A recent UNESCO study found that 29% of the young people surveyed cited the internet as the most common way they access reproductive and sexual health information. Replacing language like \u201cvagina\u201d and \u201cvulva\u201d with terms like \u201clady parts\u201d can gets ads around censors but can hinder consumers\u2019 understanding. On the other hand, ads with straightforward images or language (such as the copy on Ohnut Wearable’s proposed Instagram ad which read \u201cIt takes 3.5 years to sail around the world. It takes 7-10 years to get an endometriosis diagnosis.\u201d) are rejected and are thus unable to reach and educate the women who need them.<\/p>\n

The importance of women\u2019s health companies and of their educational possibilities, products, and even ads to consumers is not lost, however. As the women\u2019s health website FemTech Insider noted, the \u201clegal writing, digital organizing, and Congressional engagement\u201d for the CIJ\u2019s campaign were \u201cled entirely by young women\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n