HomeInsightsGetting tough on native advertising

Native advertising – where marketers and social influencers use a range of social media to discuss brands in a more natural or editorial way than we typically experience in more traditional advertising or celebrity endorsements – is thriving, perhaps as a result of the growth of ad blocking technology or consumers’ increased trust in word of mouth recommendations.

Complaints on the rise

Correspondingly, the Advertising Standards Authority has noticed an increase in the number of complaints it has received about social media content featuring advertising that is not obviously identifiable, in violation of Rule 2.1 of the CAP Code.

In response to a complaint made about a post on AJ Odudu’s Twitter page (in which she promoted an Alpro snack) the ASA clarified that if an influencer promoting an advertiser’s product has received some sort of payment or reciprocal arrangement from an advertiser and the advertiser retains editorial control over the content of the post, the post constitutes advertising and needs to be obviously identifiable as such (for example by using “#Ad”).

What is ‘obviously identifiable’?

The ASA has issued further guidance as to what will satisfy the obligation to be obviously identifiable and confirmed that what constitutes proper notice on one social media platform may not do so on another. For example, on Instagram, the ASA stated that the word “Ad” (or similar) should feature within all posted photos and, on video sharing platforms, an indication that content constitutes advertising must be given before the viewer engages with the content.

It also clarified that marking an advert “#Spon” will not satisfy this obligation as in sponsorship arrangements, influencers retain editorial control of their posted content. Where editorial sign-off lies with the advertiser, this constitutes advertising as opposed to sponsored content and so a more obvious indicator (such as “#Ad”) is required.

Failure to comply

Despite the ASA’s obvious message that native advertising falls squarely within its remit and that action will be taken against advertisers and influencers (jointly responsible for compliance) who violate the CAP Code in publishing such content, it is arguable that the threat of being rapped on the wrist and told not to do it again by a self-regulatory body is not a sufficient deterrent.

However, in the US, 100 influencers who were paid to promote the disastrous Fyre Festival, billed as an exclusive getaway but turning out to be more of a dystopian nightmare, have been sued in a class action under federal trade rules for not disclosing their social media promotions as ads. Perhaps this escalation in the US will alert advertisers and influencers to the possibility of more serious consequences of non-compliance in the UK at some point in the future?