An influencer’s Instagram story about her “life changing” phone charging cable has sparked concern about distinguishable advertising.
The Instagram story was posted to the @sophiecachia_ account and featured a woman holding up a charging cable with the words:
"Found my baby!!!! @cygnett Nobody charges my phone like this cord here. Whenever I lose it, it's devastating (aka Bobby steals it for his iPad) I will neverrrrrrr go back to any other cord. Not spon, just simply life changing when you need your phone constantly & charged SO fast." with a link to Cygnett.com.
The complaint logged to Ad Standards said: “Sophie is obviously getting paid to be an ongoing ambassador for this product/brand (Cygnett) and should clearly display that it is a paid post.”
In response, Cygnett said: “This promotion by Sophie Cachia was created and published without Cygnett having any prior knowledge, nor was it financially supported by Cygnett in anyway.
“Cygnett openly acknowledges the company has an agreement with Sophie Cachia regarding paid Cygnett brand endorsements on social media. All of these posts are planned ahead of schedule with Sophie Cachia and her team. This is the first time to our knowledge that Sophie has ever posted about Cygnett outside her paid agreement.
“I do understand the idea of a ‘grey area’ when a brand such as Cygnett has an ongoing agreement with an influencer like Sophie Cachia.
“I will instruct Sophie’s team to ensure all future Cygnett brand posts call-out her partnership, however in this specific case, the promotion was not supported or paid for by Cygnett, so it cannot be deemed a paid post.
“If an influencer decides to post without permission or knowledge of a brand, why is the brand held responsible?”
The Ad Standards Community Panel considered whether this advertisement breaches the AANA Code of Ethics 2.7.
According to the Distinguishable Advertising Code, “social media advertising which compensates influencers for promoting a product should be clearly distinguishable as an advertisement. Advertising on all platforms should be easily distinguishable as such.”
The Panel considered that the ambiguity created by the inclusion of “not spon”, meaning not sponsored, is confusing to viewers and undermines the viewers’ understanding of the nature of the commercial agreement, such that it is no longer clear whether or not the post is advertising.
The Panel considered that whether intentional or not, the advertisement’s distinguishability is obscured by “not spon” and therefore the Panel determined that the relationship with the advertiser for this post was not clear and the post was not clearly distinguishable as advertising.
The influencer stated that the content was "not spon" however as the focus was solely on the product, the brand was tagged and there was a strong endorsement of the product, the Ad Standards Community Panel found that the content was advertising.
In making their decision to uphold the complaint, the Panel found that the content was advertising but considered that the advertisement was not clearly distinguishable as such.
As a result, the final decision concluded that the advertisement did breach Section 2.7 of the Code and the Panel upheld the complaint.
The advertiser has not provided a response to the Panel's determination. Ad Standards will continue to work with the advertiser and other industry bodies regarding this issue of non-compliance.
This case acts as a reminder to all advertisers to ensure that the influencers they engage with are aware of the rules and are upfront about any advertising content.
Have something to say on this? Share your views in the comments section below. Or if you have a news story or tip-off, drop us a line at adnews@yaffa.com.au
Sign up to the AdNews newsletter, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for breaking stories and campaigns throughout the day.