Advertisment
Two images were posted to the influencer’s Instagram story, one of which showed a close-up of the dermaplaning products used by her, while the second image featured the influencer smiling at the camera, showing the results of using the dermaplaning products.
Onscreen text on both images stated, “@image_a.d.s ad” and included a link to purchase the product stating, “Shop here 🔗”. The text in the first image was in small, white font on a white background and the second image also featured a pink, onscreen label stating, “30% off”.
Complaint
Two complaint issues were raised:
Issue 1:
that the disclosure did not include a hashtag and was therefore marked incorrectly. The complainant also said that the disclosure wording was barely visible as it was written in small white text on a white background. They considered this to be misleading.
Issue 2:
that the influencer used a filter in the second image demonstrating the results of using the advertisers’ product and that this was misleading.
Response
Advertisers’ Response:
The advertisers confirmed that the stories were a paid collaboration between themselves and the influencer, although they said they did not have a contract in place but that it was done on a pay as you go basis.
They said that they give influencers a brief on different benefits to mention about the advertised products but that all creativity was in the hands of the influencers.
Although the advertisers did not address the issues raised in the complaint, they did express confusion at the complaint raised as they considered that the word “ad” could be seen in each story frame.
Influencer’s Response:
The influencer reverted asking if there was a problem. It was explained to her that the disclosure as used in her Instagram stories was not in conformity with the requirements of the Influencer Guidance and that her comments were sought on this.
The influencer did not respond further and did not address the issues raised in the complaint.
Conclusion
The Independent Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response. They expressed concern at the influencers’ failure to respond to the complaint and reminded them that there is an onus on influencers to ensure that their advertising is in conformity with the ASA Code and Influencer Guidance.
Issue 1 Upheld:
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.
The Council noted that the advertising content in this case had not been identified correctly as advertising material as an incorrect disclosure had been used and that, in one image, the colour of the font used meant that the disclosure was partially obscured by the background colour. They concluded, therefore, that the lack of correct disclosure resulted in the stories not being clear that they were advertising commercial content. They therefore considered the advertising to be in breach of sections 3.10, 3.31, 3.32, 4.01 and 4.04 of the Code.
Issue 2 Upheld:
The Council noted that no evidence had been received showing that a filter had not been used while the products were being applied. In the absence of such evidence, the Council considered there was a potential to mislead and, as such, the content was in breach of the Code at sections 3.10, 4.01, 4.04, 4.09 and 4.10.
Action Required:
The advertisement must not reappear in its current form. The Council reminded all parties of the requirements of the guidance in disclosing commercial content.
