Advertisment
Three screenshots from the blogger’s story contained the following:
Screenshot 1:
“ohfitness_ie 44m
OHFITNESS10
@thefitclinic
#collab”
Screenshot 2:
“ohfitness_ie 51m
@thefitclinic”
Screenshot 3:
“ohfitness_ie 55m
@thefitclinic”
Complaint
The complainant considered that the OH Fitness advertises The Fit Clinic regularly and does not clearly identify the fact that the posts are marketing communications. She considered that when she does so, it appears at the end of a series of posts.
Response
The Fit Clinic confirmed that OH Fitness was collaborating with The Fit Clinic, and received free service and a monetary commission on each client who signed up with The Fit Clinic using the code specific to the influencer in question.
They said that OH Fitness was one of few influencers who they had ever collaborated with, and that one of the reasons for this was that she was incredibly transparent to her followers about which services and goods she was collaborating with. They said they have yet to encounter an ambiguous or misleading post on OH Fitness’s social media page, and that it was really very unfortunate that this complaint had arisen.
While the advertisers had been aware that the #collab was to be used at some point while talking about an advertised good or service, they said they have not been aware that it needs to be mentioned at the beginning of the advertisement. They thanked the ASAI for making them aware of this and for also enclosing the ASAI Code. They said they have familiarised themselves with the Code and would ensure to emphasise it when doing collaborations with influencers in the future.
OH Fitness did not respond to the complaint.
Conclusion
Complaint upheld.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response. The Committee noted that the influencer had not responded to the complaint.
They noted the advertisers’ undertaking to ensure that future advertising would be disclosed in accordance with the Code.
As the advertising in question had not been disclosed at the start, the Committee considered they were in breach of sections 3.31 and 3.32 of the Code.
