Advertisment
A paid partnership between Colour Wow and the influencer on Instagram showed the influencer describing Colour Wow’s Money Mist leave-in conditioner spray. The videos on the influencer’s story showed the influencer with her hair before and after drying, with Money Mist being applied to her wet hair and it then being styled.
In the final of three videos posted to her story, the influencer stated that that the product was “The perfect mist for my fine hair!”
Complaint
The complainant considered the advertisement to be misleading on the grounds that the influencer was promoting a hair product, stating it was good for her fine hair, without disclosing that she had hair extensions.
Response
Agency reply:
The agency representing the influencer stated that while she did have hair extensions, she was very open about it on her Instagram page, regularly tagging the salon where she got them done. They stated that she also worked with a hair supplement brand on a monthly basis and disclaimed on all advertisements (for them) that she wore extensions and showed any before and after images of her natural hair without extensions.
The agency confirmed that the influencer did state the product (Money Mist leave-in conditioner spray) was great for fine hair, as she herself had fine hair. They advised however, that while the influencer had extensions in, they were made of real human hair and matched her hair’s natural texture.
The agency expressed that it did not seem relevant for the influencer to disclose she had extensions as they were in during both the before and after shots. They stated that if the influencer had appeared in the before without extensions and after, with, they could understand how it would be an issue. However, considering this was not the case, they stated that there was no attempt to mislead as the product was being demonstrated on human hair.
In conclusion the agency stated that while the influencer was very transparent about her hair extensions, they understood that she made an assumption that her followers would know this and stated that in future perhaps a more formal disclaimer might be made to avoid any confusion.
Advertisers’ reply:
The advertisers stated it was not, in any way, their intention to breach the ASA Code by working with the influencer on the promotion of their Money Mist product and that they did not intend to mislead the public and were not aware that the promotional material risked breaching the Code.
They clarified the nature of the product and stated that it was intended to:
• improve the appearance of hair
• help detangle hair and therefore reduce breakage;
• add moisture to hair;
• protect against heat; and
• support healthy growth.
Regarding the influencer’s use of extensions, the advertisers stated that it was confirmed to them by the influencer that she was wearing hair extensions in the advertisement and that the clip showed her hair before and after drying, with the product being applied to her wet hair.
They advised that the influencer’s extensions were in her hair throughout the advertisement and referred to the agency’s response in stating that the product (efficacy) had not been exaggerated as a result of adding extensions to an ‘after’ shot. They clarified that the product was shown being applied to both the influencer’s natural hair and human hair extensions in both the ‘before’ and ‘after’ shots.
The advertisers stated that with the exception of supporting healthy growth, which would only have applied to the influencer’s own hair, the positive effects of the product, listed above, could apply equally to the influencer’s own hair and the hair extensions.
In the interest of transparency, the advertisers stated that whilst there was no intention to mislead consumers, they appreciated that the complaint could have been avoided had the influencer advised that she was using the product on both her own hair and extensions.
Conclusion
Complaint Not Upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and both the agency’s and advertisers’ responses.
The Committee considered that as the influencer demonstrated the entire process of styling her hair with the product from wet to dry with extensions in, it did not exaggerate the product’s benefits. The Committee considered this because the benefits achieved through product use (not including hair growth which wouldn’t be demonstrable after a single use), would equally have been applied to her hair extensions as they were made of human hair.
In light of this, the Complaints Committee did not consider that the advertisement in this case was misleading on the basis suggested by the complainant.
ACTION REQUIRED:
No further action required.
