Advertisment
A post appeared on the influencer’s Instagram story that featured the advertisers’ hair oil product “Voduz R’Oil”.
The story depicted an image of the product alongside the caption “Whilst it’s giving me that sleek back look, it’s also adding moisturise back in to my hair & the antioxidant is repairing my hair”. Above the product, the advertisers’ Instagram handle was tagged in a small font alongside the text “BAAd”.
Complaint
The complainant considered that the use of the text “BAAd” in a small font did not make it immediately clear to everyone that the posts were being identified as advertisements.
Response
Advertisers’ Response:
The advertisers stated that they reviewed the evidence provided by the Executive and did not agree that the advertisement was misleading. They stated that the influencer used a bold pink background and had chosen a white font that clearly stood out against the background, making it visible and easy for the viewer to identify that the post was an advertisement for the brand.
They stated that they had a longstanding working relationship with the influencer as a Brand Ambassador and that she knew the rules that she must follow when posting content for the brand. The advertisers stated they believed she had followed these rules and that the post was fully transparent in stating it was an advertisement.
Influencer’s Response:
In response to the request for comment regarding the complaint, the influencer questioned what they had done, stated that they did not understand why they were being contacted and asked for evidence.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the response from the advertisers and the influencer.
The Committee 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. They also noted that a secondary label could be used in addition to (and following) the primary label such as in this case #brandambassador.
The Committee noted that the advertising content in this case had not been identified correctly as advertising material. They concluded therefore, that the lack of disclosure resulted in advertising that was likely to mislead consumers about the nature of the content and considered it to be in breach of Sections 3.31, 3.32, 4.1, and 4.4 of the Code.”
ACTION REQUIRED:
The advertisement must not reappear in its current form. The Committee reminded all parties to ensure that commercial marketing communications on social media were disclosed correctly.
