Advertisment
Two social media posts by the influencer on behalf of the advertisers featured the influencer visiting the supermarket.
Post 1:
A post featuring the influencer carrying out their grocery shop in Lidl Ireland included the following wording:
“Did a full stock up at @lidlireland – back to school bits, dinners, snacks and saved almost €30 with the LIDL Plus app.”
At the bottom of the post were various hashtags, including:
“#ad #moreforless ‘LidlIreland #LidlPlus”
Post 2:
A post featured the influencer shopping for children’s toys in Lidl. The post included the following hashtags at the bottom of the post.
“#A D #LidlIreland #MoreToValue #ChristmasToys”
An amended version of the post included the hashtag “AD” at the bottom of the post.
Complaint
A complainant objected to the two posts on the following grounds:
Issue 1:
The complainant, while noting that the posts had been amended, objected to the fact that the disclosure initially used in the posts had a space between the ‘a’ and ‘d’. The complainant noted the same format had been used in numerous posts and considered it was misleading, particularly for those with dyslexia and that it was a way of concealing transparency.
Issue 2:
The Executive, while acknowledging that the posts had been amended to remove the space between the letters, noted that the disclosure had been at the bottom of the posts, as such it was not immediately clear that the posts were a marketing communication.
Response
Advertisers’ Response
Issue 1:
The advertisers said that the content was a pre-approved commercial partnership intended to be fully transparent. They said that the use of “#a d” instead of “#ad” was a typographical error occurring at the point of upload.
Upon being flagged through their customer service, they said that they immediately instructed the agency to have the influencer correct the label and that this correction was made straight away to ensure the post was “instantly recognisable” as advertising.
While they understood the complainant’s concern regarding the “space” in the hashtag, they said that it was an isolated typo rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead or target vulnerable groups. They also said that they recognised that “#Ad” was a required Primary Advertisement Label and that as soon as the error was identified, the post was amended to meet the visibility standards required by the Code.
Issue 2:
The advertisers acknowledged the ASA-Influencer-Guidance required labels to be the first word in a text block and clearly visible.
They said that the agency involved confirmed they were unaware of the incorrect caption until notified by Lidl. They said it was the first time an issue of this nature had occurred with this partner and that they had used the incident to reinforce their briefing protocols, ensuring that influencers verified the technical accuracy of primary labels (e.g., ensuring no spaces break the hashtag functionality) before going live.
Influencer’s response:
Issue 1:
The influencer stated that they took their responsibilities under the Code seriously and were fully committed to ensuring that all paid or gifted content was clearly identifiable as advertising.
They said that, in this instance, the incorrect spacing in the hashtag (“#A D”) occurred solely as a result of their phone’s auto-correct function while they were posting. They said that as soon as they became aware of the error, they corrected the hashtag to #AD immediately and that at no point was there any intention to obscure the commercial nature of the post or to mislead their audience.
They advised that in order to prevent this from happening again, they had adjusted their posting process by drafting sponsored captions separately before publishing and double checking all disclosure hashtags prior to posting.
Issue 2:
No comment was received in regard to the positioning of the disclosure.
Conclusion
The Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
Issue 1 – Complaint Upheld:
The Council noted the Code requirements that marketing communications should be clear that they are marketing communications and also the requirements of the joint guidance published by the Advertising Standards Authority and the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) on disclosing advertising content, which required that advertising content should have one of three primary labels as a disclosure; #AD, a platform provided tool or #Gifted, depending on the content, and that the disclosure should be the first word in any text block. The Council considered that by providing for specific disclosures, consumer recognition that content is advertising would be enhanced.
In this case the Council noted that the inclusion of the space was as a result of an ‘auto correct’ error. While the Council noted that the disclosure had been amended to remove the space, at the time of publication, the primary disclosure used was incorrect and the content had not been identified correctly as advertising material. In the circumstances the Council considered that the post at the time of publication was in breach of Sections 3.31, 3.32, 4.01 and 4.04 of the Code.
Issue 2 – Complaint 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. The Council considered that by providing for specific disclosures, consumer recognition that content is advertising would be enhanced. In addition, they noted that the Joint Guidance provided that advertising disclosures should be at the start of a video and the first word in a text block.
The Council noted that while the disclosure “#ad” had been used, it had been positioned at the end of the post and was not the first word in the post, as such, they considered the post was not immediately identifiable as commercial content. In the circumstances, the Council concluded that the placement of the primary disclosure was in breach of Sections 3.31 and 3.32 of the Code.
Action Required:
The advertising should not appear in its current form again. The Council reminded all parties of the requirements of the ASA Code and the Guidance in regard to disclosing commercial content posted by influencers.
