Advertisment
Four images were posted to the influencer’s story, each one promoting items from the influencer’s business. Three of the images were marked as “own brand”, one image did not contain any text other than a link to purchase the product photographed.
Complaint
The complainant considered the story posts to be misleading as they said it was not clear to the viewer that these posts were advertisements.
The complainant said that while the tag ‘own brand’ was included in three of the photos, none of the photos contained the ‘#Ad’ disclosure.
They said that the use of the tag ‘own brand’ by itself was not sufficient as, per the Influencer Guidelines, this was a secondary label and should have been used with a primary label.
Response
The influencer thanked the Executive for bringing the posts to her attention and said that despite writing ‘own brand’, she simply forgot to include ‘#Ad’.
The influencer said that the business was linked in her profile for those who follow her and said that she would make sure to include ‘#Ad’ for any similar posts in future.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld.
The Independent Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response. They noted the influencer’s undertaking to ensure compliance for similar advertising in future.
The Council noted the Code requirements that marketing communications should be clear that they are marketing communications (3.31) and should not misrepresent their true purpose such as being presented as user-generated content (3.32). They also noted the joint guidance published by the Advertising Standards Authority and the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) on disclosing advertising content, which provided that advertising content should have one of three primary labels as a disclosure; #AD, a platform provided tool or #Gifted and that this disclosure should be the first word in any text block. They also noted that a secondary label could be used in addition to (and following) the primary label such as #OwnBrand in this case.
The Council noted that the advertising content in this case had not been identified correctly as advertising material. They concluded, therefore, that the lack of disclosure resulted in the advertising being likely to mislead consumers about the nature of the content and considered it to be in breach of sections 3.31, 3.32, 4.01 and 4.04 of the Code
Action Required: The advertisement must not reappear in its current form. The Council reminded all parties of the requirements of the Guidelines in disclosing commercial content.
