Description:
A video posted on the influencer’s social media page discussed her visit to try the brand’s restaurant and encouraged viewers to do the same. The referenced title on the post was labelled from both the influencer and the brand. The influencer tagged the brand using the @ symbol at the top of the caption and also included two (2) separate hashtags each respectively referencing her marketing agency and the brand which appeared within a list of other hashtags at the bottom of the caption accompanying the video.
Complaint:
The complainant alleged the video does not disclose that it is an advertisement, or the fact and nature of any material connection between the parties.
Response:
Although Ad Standards requested a response, there was no response sent to Council from the brand.
In its response to Council, the influencer advised that she updated the post to include reference to “AD”.
Decision:
Council appreciated the influencer’s response and considered the complaint together with the influencer’s submission.
The majority of Council members found the hashtags included in the post were meaningless to the average consumer and do not differentiate between an organic type post and an actual advertisement. These hashtags were determined to be inadequate and vague. One Council member distinguished the hashtags from “the visual que of “ad” or “sponsored post” which immediately tells consumers that the post has been paid for and that a material connection exists.
Council found given there was no verbal or onscreen disclosure in either the video or the caption accompanying it, other than use of the @ symbol to tag the brand and use of the marketing agency/brand hashtags, which were buried within a list of other hashtags beneath the fold, that the disclosure was insufficient and ambiguous and did not align with the Influencer Marketing Disclosure Guidelines.
Council unanimously held that the post was a disguised advertisement. The majority of Council was of the view that the post omitted relevant information resulting in a deceptive or misleading ad bringing the legitimacy of the testimonial into question.
Infraction:
Clause 1(b), Clause 2, Clause 7
