Advertisment
Various advertising material published on the Influencer’s Instagram account on behalf of the advertisers featured the Influencer wearing different sports clothing from the MyProtein range. The text accompanying the images referred to the following.
Ad 1
“…Just doing @myprotein order and I see the tempo leggings are back in stock …”
“ Click Here AD”
Ad 2
“Big cosy hoodie for July in Dublin @myprotein doing a spend & save sale😊”
“€5 off €50 min spend – with an additional 5% off using code SIOBHAN
€10 off €75 min spend – with an additional5% off using code SIOBHAN
€15 off €100 min spend – with an additional 5% off using code SIOBHAN”
“Ad Shop here”
Ad 3
This advertisement contained the same information as that provided in ad 2 but with a different image and caption.
Complaint
The complainant said that the marketing communication had not been identified correctly. The advertisement identification label had been placed at the bottom of the screen rather than the top and the hashtag (#) identification had been excluded.
Response
Advertisers:
The advertisers said that as per the agreements they put in place when working with influencers, they expected all their influencers to adhere to the following:
• ensure all marketing communications they publish are clearly identifiable as advertisements; and
• ensure all social media posts featuring their products (whether or not such posts are advertisements) include the #ad.
The advertisers said they had spoken with the influencer in question regarding their minor deviation in their use of “#Ad” and reiterated that they expected all posts which promoted or featured their products to:
(i) prominently display #Ad at the start of the post (i.e. the first word in any block text).
(ii) include the hashtag “#” before “Ad”.
The advertisers said that the Influencer had agreed to comply with the rules going forward.
Agency:
The Influencer’s management agency said they wanted to emphasise that both the Influencer, as an online influencer, and their agency took the responsibility of full advertising disclosure very seriously. They considered this commitment was evident in the Influencer’s consistent use of clear ad disclosures across the referenced content. However, they said, they were always open to constructive feedback as the industry involved was an evolving one.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld.
The Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint, and the responses received from the advertisers and the influencer’s agency.
The Complaints 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 noted that the advertising content in this case had not been identified correctly as advertising material as the ‘AD’ had not been positioned correctly at the beginning of the content and the hashtag (#) had not been used.
The Council considered that the omission of the # and the incorrect placement of the word ‘Ad’ was in breach of Sections 3.31 and 3.32 of the Code.
ACTION REQUIRED:
The advertising should not reappear in its current form.
The Council reminded all parties to ensure that commercial content was disclosed correctly.
