Advertisment
Various Instagram stories featuring BPerfect Cosmetics were posted to the influencer’s account.
Story 1:
The story featured the influencer in a car applying makeup. Text on the screen stated: “No makeup make up”
Underneath the text was a further line of text in small font that stated: “using all @bperfectcosmetics ba”
Story 2:
An image from a story featured a screenshot of a bronzer from the BPerfect Cosmetics website together with a link to the product and a notification that the product was a winner of ‘Global Makeup Awards 2023’. On screen text stated: “Was €16.95 now €9.66 with code “TWINSBP””.
Part of the advertiser’s Instagram handle could be seen over the ‘Global Makeup Awards’ logo.
Story 3:
A story featured screenshots of various gift sets from the BPerfect Cosmetics website. Each image included a link to the product. Text on screen stated: “Use code “TWINSBP””. The advertisers’ handle appeared at the top of each image before the word “ad”.
Story 4:
A story featured the influencer applying a Bronze Boost product from BPerfect Cosmetics. Each screenshot included a link to the product featured.
On screen text in image 1 stated ““TWINSBP” for 20% off”
Wording on the top right-hand corner of the image stated “@bperfectcosmetics adba”
On screen text in image 2 included: “Twinsbp will save you 20%”
On the top right-hand corner of the image it stated “@bperfectcosmetics ad”
On screen text in image 3 included: “Twinsbp is code”
On the top right-hand corner of the image, it stated “@bperfectcosmetics ad”
Story 5:
A story featured the influencer sitting in a car applying makeup using products from BPerfect Cosmetics. Each image of the story featured a link to the product with the wording “Twinsbp is discount”.
The story also included the following text on the top of the screen: “@bperfectcosmetics baad”. In two of the images from the story this text was partially covered by the influencer’s handle.
Story 6:
A story featured the influencer applying a ‘Radiant Glow Skin Perfector’ from BPerfect Cosmetics. Large writing in pink font at the top of the story stated “GLOWING!”
In one image, part of the advertisers’ handle, positioned on the top right of the screen was partially covered by the word ‘Glowing’.
The second image featured the words “@bperfectcosmetics adba” in the top right of the screen.
The main text on the image stated: “Discount code isn’t working as there is already 40% discount added to these”. The story included a link to the product featured.
Story 7:
A story featured the influencer applying lip makeup products from BPerfect Cosmetics. One image featured a screenshot of the product from the advertisers’ website with a link to the product onscreen.
On screen text stated: “Shop here. Twinsbp is discount code”
On the top of the image the text “@bperfectcosmetics ba.ad”
The second image featured the influencer using the product and included a link to the product stating “Twinsbp is discount”.
On the top right of the screen it stated “@bperfectcosmetics ba.ad”
Complaint
Eight complaints were received regarding the various content. The complainants raised two issues.
Issue 1:
The complainants considered that the stories had not been disclosed correctly because an incorrect disclosure had been used and, in some cases, the size, location and colour of the font used meant that either the disclosure was partially or fully obscured. In the circumstances they considered that it was not clear that the stories were featuring commercial content.
Issue 2:
The complainants considered that the influencer was using a filter while applying the advertisers’ products on herself and as a filter would affect how the product appears on the skin, they considered it misleading.
Response
Issue 1:
Advertiser – The advertisers did not respond to the complaints.
Influencer – The influencer’s agency, while advising that they were the influencer’s Talent Manager only, stated that from an agency perspective, all content goes through brand approval prior to posting. They said that the videos had been marked as AD in line with standard disclosure practices.
Issue 2:
Advertiser – The advertisers did not response to the complaints.
Influencer – The influencer’s agency stated that no filters had been used.
Conclusion
The Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaints and the influencer’s agency response. The Council expressed concern at the advertisers’ failure to respond to the complaints. They reminded them that there is an onus on advertisers to ensure that their advertising is in conformity with the Code.
Issue 1 – Complaints Upheld:
The Council noted the Code requirements that marketing communications should be clear that they are marketing communications and 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 requires 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 this disclosure should be the first word in any text block. They also noted that in addition to the primary label #AD, there were several secondary advertisement labels that could be used in addition to and following the primary label, including #BrandAmbassador. The Council considered that by providing for specific disclosures, consumer recognition that content is advertising would be enhanced. In additional, 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 considered that it was likely that consumers would regard a brand handle as a text box. In this case, the Council noted that the primary disclosure used did not have the # as required, nor was it the first word in any text block. The Council also noted that the letters ‘ba’ had variously appeared either before or after ‘ad’ in some content, however it was not an approved secondary disclosure The Council also noted that in some cases, the font colour, size and placement of the disclosure minimised its visibility or fully obscured it. They considered therefore, that the content had not been identified correctly as advertising material. In the circumstances, and in the absence of a response from the advertisers, the Council considered that the advertising was likely to mislead consumers about the nature of the content and in breach of Sections 3.10, 3.31, 3.32, 4.01 and 4.04 of the Code.
Issue 2 – Complaints Upheld:
The Complaints Council noted the Code requirement that before offering a marketing communication for publication, advertisers should satisfy themselves that they will be able to provide documentary evidence to substantiate all claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective. They noted that evidence had not been received from either the advertisers or the influencer to demonstrate that a filter had not been used in the advertisements. In the absence of such evidence, the Council considered that the content was in breach of the Code Section 3.10, 4.01, 4.04, 4.09 and 4.10.
Action Required:
The advertising should not reappear in its current form.
The Council reminded all parties to ensure that commercial content was disclosed correctly.
