Description:
The influencer posted a video on her social media platform promoting one of her favourite lunch spots in Toronto, Brasa Peruvian. In the advertisement, the influencer touts her experience and opinion with the restaurant, which she highly recommends for a variety of outlined reasons. The influencer tagged the brand in the post using the “@” symbol in the post itself. No material connection with the brand was disclosed.
Complaint:
The complainant alleged the advertisement did not include the required disclosure that the influencer has a material connection with the brand.
Response:
In its response to Council, the brand advised that they do not have an agreement in place with the influencer, nor do they pay her for posting. The influencer posts about them without obligation because she is a friend. The brand’s founder explained that he has been a guest on the influencer’s podcast for which he did not pay a fee, and that at times, the influencer hosts events to which the brand provides complimentary food and beverage.
Decision:
Council appreciated the advertiser’s response, and considered the complaint together with the advertiser’s submissions.
Council held that the personal/familial relationship between the parties, which also included an exchange of benefits/incentives, such as, free products and services, with or without any conditions attached, was indeed a material connection that needs to be disclosed.
Without understanding the material connection, viewers may very likely see the representation as an organic post, and thus an objective review, giving it more weight and credibility. This also brought the authenticity of the influencer’s testimonial into question in terms of whether or not it reflected her genuine opinion based upon her experience with the product/service.
One Council member also noted that because the influencer had the verified badge symbol on her profile (i.e. the blue checkmark), consumers were likely to find her post more credible and trustworthy, putting a greater onus of compliance on her as an advertiser.
Council unanimously held that the advertisement contravened Clause 1(b), Clause 1(f), Clause 2 and Clause 7 of the Code.
Infraction:
Clause 1(b), Clause 2, Clause 7
