Print This Post
Product: Health & Beauty
Advertiser: Flormar, Katiekontour
Medium: Online - Social Media
ASAI Code 7th Edition: 2.4(c), 3.31, 3.32
An Instagram video make up tutorial by Katiekontour featured products by Flormar. The text accompanying the video stated:
“Katiekontour Little 1 minute tutorial on the look I posted the other day using all @flormarireland_uk products! I hope you enjoy!! P.s if you have not tried their double radiance primer then you have not LIVED”
The complainant had viewed a post by the blogger Katiekontour which featured an image of the blogger modelling a makeup look she had created using Flormar products. A list of the products used were provided and she also had included the hashtag “sp” to denote it was a marketing communication. Some two days later the complainant noted that the blogger had posted a video tutorial of her creating the makeup look for Flormar whereby the blogger had referred to the previous post. As the follow-up post had not included any hashtag to indicate it was a marketing communication, the complainant considered it was in breach of the Code.
The blogger stated that while she had not included a hashtag on the video post, she had stated in the comments section that it was a tutorial of her previous post and on that previous post she had commented #collab and #sp. She said that she has now rectified the matter and added both hashtags to the video.
The advertisers apologised for the error that was missed. They have given assurance that all of their booked bloggers are provided with a brief which states that hashtags must be included for all paid content. They said that the blogger in this case has worked with them on several pieces of content, all of which had included the required hashtag in the caption, however, in this instance she has advised them that as the video was a follow up to a previous post, she did not realise that the hashtag was required. They noted that she had since amended the caption to include the required hashtag.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and both the advertisers’ and the bloggers’ response. The Committee noted the exclusion of a hashtag in this case had been due to an oversight, had not been intentional and had been rectified. They also noted the steps taken by the advertisers to ensure compliance with the Code.
While the blogger had referred to the previous post in her commentary which had been disclosed as a marketing communication, the Committee considered that it was possible for a viewer to engage with the video in isolation, therefore the post should have included a relevant hashtag. In the circumstances, the Committee considered that video tutorial post was in breach of Sections 3.31 and 3.32 of the Code.
As the post had been amended to include the #sp and #collab, no further action was required in this case.
The Committee reminded all involved in the creation of marketing communications of the importance of ensuring that all marketing communications were recognisable as such.