Advertisment
A sketch video that promoted Romayo’s Santry where the influencer visited the Santry store to review their chicken and Pizza.
Complaint
The complainant considered the advertisement to be misleading as there was no disclosure to indicate a sponsorship, collaboration or advertisement.
Response
Advertisers reply:
The advertisers stated that while the influencer did not have a contractual agreement with Romayo’s Diner, they were paid and received food in return for having created a video featuring their Santry store. The advertisers stated that while the intent behind this video was to build awareness of their store, they did not provide any guidance on the concept or content of the video. They further stated that the influencer was a 3rd party content creator who did not work for them and created and shared the content external of their input.
Influencer’s reply:
The influencer did not provide a response to the ASAI’s request for comments.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response and reminded them that there is an onus on advertisers to ensure that their advertising is in conformity with the Code. The Committee also expressed concern at the influencers’ failure to respond to the complaint.
The Committee noted that the social media content was a marketing communication and therefore, should have included a clear disclosure. In the absence of any disclosure that the video was advertising material, the Committee considered it had the potential to mislead and therefore concluded that the content was in breach of Sections 3.31, 3.32, 4.1 and 4.4 of the Code.
Action Required:
The advertisement should not reappear in its current form. The Committee reminded all parties to ensure that commercial social media content included an immediately clear disclosure that it was a marketing communication.
