When is #ad not sufficient to provide all relevant information of a commercial transaction?

The ASA controversially ruled last week in two matters concerning nutrition brands, finding that the failure to disclose the commercial relationship with Dragons’ Den star Steve Bartlett was misleading to consumers. 

Steve Bartlett is an investor and a director at each brand.

The ASA agreed all the ads were “obviously identifiable” as marketing communications however it was considered that many consumers would interpret the ads as featuring a testimonial to personally promote the products.

This is of concern for advertisers if they were to use any individuals in ads who may equally have a financial interest in the business due to the ASAs’ acceptance of this being “obviously” a marketing communication.

The nutrition brand Zoe stated that if it was obliged to include a specific disclosure about the nature of Steve Bartlett’s status as an investor it would have a wider impact on other brands and influencers. They believed it undermined the principle that ads on owned media are usually obviously identifiable as advertising and that “#Ad” was sufficient enough to make influencer advertising obviously identifiable as advertising.

Summary: The CAP Code and ASA guidance does not reference providing details of commercial relationships with ambassadors or influencers.  However, it would appear whether the ad may be interpreted as a personal testimonial is pivotal on the ASA’s decision here.    

Nevertheless, whilst the ASA maintain all material information that may influence consumers making an informed decision should be included in any ad, the commercial relationship was made abundantly clear by both brands and this was accepted by the ASA. 

It would seem, as a rule of thumb, if there is a proprietorial or senior position of interest within the business of the influencer or ambassador then this will need to be explicitly spelled out in future ads featuring them.