We have all been there - a careful ‘Supported by’ tagline—halfway down a very long web page, lost in other branding, or buried deep within the campaign’s assets. It’s a classic breach waiting to happen—and lately, it’s far too common. Ok so time to get real about what Clause 10.10 and Clause 5.6 actually require. Let’s break it down, minus the jargon, and see how even ‘doing the right thing’ can go awry in the busy world of pharma communications.
Key takeaway: It’s not just ‘Saying’—It’s ‘Showing’
If readers aren’t crystal-clear about sponsor influence before they engage, it’s non-compliant.
The ABPI Code of Practice 2024 is blunt: under Clause 10.10 and Clause 5.6, sponsorship declarations must be at the outset, sufficiently prominent, and unambiguous about the company’s role and influence. If your audience isn’t clear on sponsor involvement before they interact, you’re at risk of breaching sponsorship declaration compliance and pharma transparency 2025 standards.
Recent PMCPA cases (Roche, 2023–24) show how easy it is to get this wrong:
Declaration hidden below the fold or buried in end credits.
Vague “Supported by…” wording that fails to explain influence.
Branding that implies independence, clashing with the actual sponsor role.
Confusion between HCP and public audiences.
Media partners altering or omitting the declaration on third-party pages.
Multi-asset campaigns where some versions lose the declaration entirely.
Design and UX matter: if your declaration shrinks on mobile, fades in dark mode, or appears after a scroll or tap, it’s not “sufficiently prominent.” In video, it must be visible in the first 3 seconds; in carousels, on the first frame. On PDFs, it belongs on the front cover—never just the back page.
Transparency in sponsorship means leaving no doubt about who’s behind the content, not just who paid for it. — Dr Anzal Qurbain
Bottom line: If your declaration isn’t upfront and brutally clear, it’s non-compliant. These aren’t semantics—PMCPA breaches prove that even minor lapses in placement or clarity can trigger a breach.
Behind the Headlines: How ‘Supported by…’ Turns into a breach (case snapshots)
Recent PMCPA case studies, including Roche (2023), reveal a persistent trend: simply stating “Supported by…” fails ABPI sponsorship declaration standards under Clause 10.10 and Clause 5.6. If the declaration is not at the outset, sufficiently prominent, and unambiguous about the sponsor’s influence, it’s a breach—no matter the team’s intent.
Key Takeaway: If readers aren’t crystal-clear about sponsor influence before they engage, it’s non-compliant.
Common Breaches: Case snapshots
Case 1: Hidden declarations—Declaration placed below the fold or in end credits (Roche, 2023). Audiences miss critical context until too late. “At the outset” means first screen, not after a scroll or click.
Case 2: Vague wording—“Supported by [Company]” omits the extent of involvement. Clause 10.10 demands unambiguous statements of funding, review, and editorial control.
Case 3: Mismatched branding—Asset looks independent, but fine print reveals sponsorship. PMCPA flags this as misleading; branding and declaration must align.
Case 4: Audience ambiguity—HCP vs public: deployment channel changes Code context. Clause 5.6 requires clarity on intended audience.
Case 5: Third-Party risks—Media partners alter placement or wording, stripping declarations from PDFs, reels, or landing pages. Multi-asset campaigns multiply this risk.
You can’t claim independence if the sponsor’s fingerprint is all over the planning and placement. — Dr Anzal Qurbain
2023/24 PMCPA caseload highlights that design and UX pitfalls—like small font, poor contrast, or missing declarations on derivative assets—are frequent causes of breach. Each scenario is preventable with clear, up-front declarations of involvement and robust controls across all content variants.
Words, Placement, and Roles: A Practical Guide to bulletproofing your compliance
Effective Sponsorship Wording Examples
“This article is sponsored by [Company]. [Company] funded and reviewed the content for accuracy and approved the final version.”
“This video is funded by [Company]. Editorial decisions were made by [Publisher]. [Company] did not control content.”
“This webinar is sponsored by [Company]. Speakers selected by [Publisher]. [Company] provided funding and had medical review rights.”
Best Practices: Sponsorship placement & design
Web/Blog: Declaration in hero/first viewport; repeat near CTA.
PDF: Front cover under title; repeat in footer.
Video: On-screen first 0–3s; in description.
Carousel/Reel: Frame 1 overlay; not buried in later frames.
Third-party host: Contractually require above-the-fold placement.
Role clarity sponsorship declarations table:
Role | Compliant Declaration Example |
|---|---|
Funding Only | “Funded by [Company]. No editorial involvement.” |
Editorial Control | “Sponsored and content controlled by [Company].” |
Medical Review | “Reviewed for accuracy by [Company] medical team.” |
Final Sign-off | “Final content approved by [Company].” |
Data Ownership | “Data owned and provided by [Company].” |
Clarity isn’t accidental. You must write your declarations for humans, not just for tick-box exercises
Checklist: Stress-test your declarations before approval
Red Team Checklist: Pharma marketing requirements
Is the declaration seen above the fold—no scroll, tap, or click?
Is it legible on mobile and in dark mode?
Does it explicitly state the sponsor’s role and influence?
Does branding match the declaration (no implied independence)?
Is it present on every asset variant (PDF, video, carousel, landing page)?
Does it survive copy/paste or edits by media partners?
Is it on screen in the first 0–3 seconds of video?
Is it present before any educational or promotional claims?
Are publisher and sponsor roles clearly separated?
Is it fit for the intended audiences—no confusion?
Core Dos & Don’ts
Declare at the start, above the fold, and in every format.
Use clear, specific wording on sponsor role and influence.
Test legibility and placement on all devices and platforms.
Audit every asset for consistency—no exceptions.
Mentorship, not minefields: Future-proof with training and my mentorship programme
Pharma transparency best practices are evolving fast, and the risks of “almost compliant” declarations are only growing as we approach the 2025 regulations. Real-world PMCPA cases show that even well-intentioned teams can stumble—especially when sponsorship declarations are left to chance or outdated templates. That’s why I champion good pharma done right—pragmatic, fast, and compliant. The difference between a costly breach and seamless approval often comes down to ongoing support, not just a one-off training session.
Mentorship bridges the gap between theory and practice. The AskAnzal Mentorship Programme is designed to future-proof teams by delivering model wording, placement templates, live Q&A, and agency-ready guardrails. We don’t just review the rules—we build habits that stick, so your team can navigate event sponsorship guidelines and requirements with confidence. I’ve seen teams save headaches, budget, and goodwill once they tap into structured mentorship.
AskAnzal supports ongoing updates, scenario clinics, and practical templates that keep your declarations clear, compliant, and audit-ready—even as publishing models and audience expectations shift. Good pharma means never settling for ‘almost compliant’. Build habits, not headaches. If you want certainty, join the AskAnzal Mentorship Programme. Investing in team confidence and clarity pays off tenfold. Let’s make “we thought it was fine” a thing of the past, and set the new standard for pharma transparency together.