Advertisment
A social media post by the influencer featuring 4th Arq clothing included the following wording:
“Stepping into Autum in my new season favourites from @4tharq ‘s Foundation Autumn Collection.”
“Tap to watch how I styled them & head to stories to shop the full looks with a discount code.
(LTK10 for money off!)”
Included at the bottom of the original post were the following hashtags:
“# A D #4th Arq #AW25Foundations”
Included at the bottom of the amended post were the following hashtags:
“#AD #4th Arq #AW25Foundations”
Complaint
A complainant objected to the post on the following grounds.
Issue 1:
The complainant, while noting that the post had been amended, objected to the fact that the disclosure initially used had a space between the ‘a’ and ‘d’. The complainant noted the same format had been used in numerous posts by the influencer 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 post had been amended to remove the space between the letters, noted that the disclosure had been at the bottom of the post, as such it was not immediately clear that the posts were a marketing communication.
Response
Advertisers’ Response:
Issue 1:
The advertisers said that the campaign was managed through a third-party affiliate network. While the contract did not call out ASA guidelines, they said that it had stated that the content creator must comply with all applicable laws.
They said that they had contacted the influencer who acknowledged that it was a genuine mistake on their part and as soon as the influencer noticed the error, it was rectified. The advertisers said that it was never their intention to mislead and that as a brand, it was incredibly important to them to remain transparent throughout all their marketing communications. They apologised that the error was missed when posted and said that they would ensure to be more stringent in their processes going forward, especially when they were not dealing directly with an influencer.
Issue 2:
No comment was received in regard to the positioning of the disclosure.
Influencer 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, the responses from the advertisers and the influencer and the undertakings from both in relation to future postings
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.
The Council also noted the response 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.
