Print This Post
Product: Employment Opportunities
Advertiser: Maximum Media - Joe.ie
Medium: Internet (Media Website)
ASAI Code 7th Edition: 2.4(c), 3.31, 3.32
Advertising placed on Joe.ie by a recruitment company, featured an image of a young man
standing on the street.
The text at the bottom of the image read “Come On!”
The following text appeared above the image:
“No shortage of fantastic opportunities on these shores [recruitment company #]
The complainant said that the advertisement had not been in keeping with the ASAI’s
guidelines on the Recognisability of Marketing Communications as it had not been
identified as advertising material.
Joe.ie responded and said that and on this occasion, they accepted full responsibility for
the error which had occurred, and which was made completely on their side and not that
of the advertisers. They said it had been a case of human error and a genuine oversight on
their part. They stressed that including #ad or #sponsored in all their relevant marketing
communications was common practice.
They said all of their teams had been issued with guidelines regarding the presentation of
sponsored content on their social channels and in light of what had happened, the teams
would be reminded of the importance of following those guidelines to the letter.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the media’s
response. The Committee noted the explanation that a genuine error had occurred and
welcomed the fact that all teams had been issued with guidelines to prevent similar from
They noted the Code requirement that a marketing communication should be designed and
presented in such a way that it is clear that it is a marketing communication (3.31).
They also noted that while the context and / or content of published posts could indicate
that they were in fact marketing communications, in this case they did not consider that
the context or content clearly flagged that the material was in fact a piece of marketing
communications. In the circumstances, the Committee considered that the post should
have been flagged and clearly identified as advertising and, in the absence of this, the
Committee concluded that the advertisement was in breach of Sections 3.31 and 3.32 of
the Code and upheld the complaint.
As steps had been taken by the media to prevent similar from happening again, no further
action was required in this case.