Household

An Instagram story published on the influencer’s Instagram account featured a picture of a sideboard. The bottom right of the picture featured the superimposed handle of the advertisers, @kingsburyfurniture.

The complainant considered the post to be in breach of the Code as it had not been identified correctly as advertising material given the absence of a primary identification label such as ‘#Ad’.

Advertisers’ Response:
The advertisers said that the influencer was an employee of their family-run business. The advertisers said that she received no payment for the post; nor was there any incentive or obligation for her to post about the product featured or any other product of theirs. The advertisers said that the influencer had consulted with her accountant who advised her that she could ‘tag’ products that happened to come from her place of work that she used in her own home as long as this was done in the context of ‘sharing her personal style’ and done without financial gain or formal commercial arrangement. The advertisers believed that the post was never intended to be viewed as advertising but as personal endorsement and opinion.

Influencers’ Response:
The influencer’s agency apologised for the omission of ‘#AD’ and said that the influencer understood the importance of transparency and the need to comply with ASA Guidelines. They said that as it was a family business, the post should have been marked ‘#AD’. They went on to say that although the influencer’s audience would have been aware that it was a family-business and that there was no intention to mislead, they nonetheless took full responsibility for the error and said that the influencer was committed to upholding the highest standards regarding compliance in future.

Upheld:
The Independent Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ and influencer’s agency’s response.

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 stated that advertising content should have one of three primary labels as a disclosure; #AD, a platform provided tool or #Gifted, and that if one is posting about a brand to which they have personal ties, such as one owned by a family member or friend, then the post should be marked as advertising, regardless of whether a benefit has been provided by the brand or not.

The Council noted that the advertising content had not included a primary identification label and therefore had not been correctly identified as advertising material, and as such, was likely to mislead consumers about the nature of the content. The Council concluded that the advertisements were in breach of Sections 3.31, 3.32, 4.1, and 4.4 of the Code.

Action Required:
The advertising should not reappear in the same format.

The Council reminded all parties of the requirements of the Guidance in disclosing commercial content.