Nothing encapsulates modern influencer culture more than two hyper-trendy wellness brands being caught out by the UK’s advertising watchdog for using ‘misleading’ testimonials in their social media marketing.
The only real twist was that the influencer in question was also part-owner of both brands – hustle bro favourite, Dragon’s Den star and Diary of a CEO host Steven Bartlett.
Both the gut health-focused brand Zoe and meal replacement brand Huel had their knuckles rapped – and ads banned – by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for neglecting to declare the millennial entrepreneur’s commercial stakes in both firms.
The situation was made particularly dicey because the two businesses argued that including #ad next to their testimonial-style advertisements should have been enough to satisfy the regulator. Cue outrage from all sides.
However, the ASA was adamant that not all consumers would be aware of Steven Bartlett’s stake in the firms, which it said interfered with the public’s ability to make an informed choice.
When #ad isn’t enough
Putting aside the fact that it’s hard to open LinkedIn or YouTube without being inundated with the businessman’s most recent Diary of a CEO interviewee or his latest motivational message, it’s a difficult balance to draw.
For the actual consumer it is hard to say whether there really is a difference between someone who is selling a product from a company they have a stake in versus someone shiny who has been paid by the company to sell it.
The real question is: what lessons can brands draw on to keep on the right side of the regulator – and ethics?
JMW associate and media, data and public law specialist Katherine Mills says brands and influencers should view it as a reminder that “even where a promotion is neither specifically planned nor paid for, influencers are advised to err on the side of caution”.
She warns influencers to make their commercial relationship clear even if a genuine testimonial is being given.
“Influencers who repeatedly fail to adhere to the CAP Code will likely face sanctions that publicise their non-compliance, which may deter brands from partnering with them in the future,” she adds.
For Influencer Marketing Trade Body (IMTB) head Scott Guthrie it is important to note that online endorsements can help shoppers make decisions but, he stresses, “those testimonials shouldn’t mislead the consumer by leaving out material information”.
“When an ad reads ‘This is Huel’s best product – Steven Bartlett’, there’s an assumption that Bartlett is being referenced as a third-party, impartial arms-length endorser rather than someone with a material connection – i.e. a director of Huel Limited.”
Subscribe to Marketing Beat for FREE
Sign up here to get the latest marketing news sent straight to your inbox each morning
The fear game: Who influences influencers?
Director of social media-driven publisher Screenshot Media Chris Wakefield believes that while it’s easy to view the regulator as “primarily a disciplinary body”, influencers should look at the opportunities provided by the Bartlett learnings.
“It’s no bad thing to be associated with an influencer-led brand,” he says.
“Consumers have shown no indication that they don’t want to buy from a brand created by these entrepreneurs. What consumers don’t like is being misled by those they trust.”
Wakefield believes the industry is being let down by what he calls a “ripple effect” from a few brands failing to adopt a good level of transparency in their work.
He adds that some influencers fear that they’ll be disadvantaged by “overly labelling their posts”, but believes that, done correctly, labelling can “lead to a greater and deeper relationship with the influencer’s audience and ultimately consumers”.
The Bartlett debacle comes at a time when, as Guthrie points out, influencers are “diversifying their revenue streams” and tapping into other business models such as affiliate marketing, subscriptions, brand sponsorship deals and of course their own businesses.
He adds: “This is good news for progressive brands, creatives and consumers. This ruling reminds brands, influencers and marketers to fully adhere to the ad regulations in each jurisdiction”.
A position of power
Moreover, in an age where influencers are everywhere (athletes, Snoop Dogg, TikTok-ers and brands claiming everything is “demure”), Steven Bartlett is not the first of his kind to have faced the judgement of the ASA.
Direct-to-consumer and wellness entrepreneur Grace Beverley saw six ads promoting clothes from her fashion brand Tala banned in May this year for failing to include #ad.
Although Beverley’s advert received 50 complaints and the influencer was certainly lambasted for it – others came to her defence, saying consumers should think more critically about what they consume.
However, what makes this latest and more stringent ruling different is Bartlett’s position of power within both Huel and Zoe, and his high-profile status which means the public see him as an ostensibly trustworthy businessman and investor rather than an influencer (despite having millions of followers across his various social channels).
Guthrie says it’s a reminder that “for influencer marketers ad regulations mean more than sticking #ad in the captions”.
System Social founder Keith Foggan draws a link with fellow Dragon’s Den brand Fussy, highlighting that its been “loud and proud” about fellow Dragon Deborah Meaden’s status as an investor.
“If Steven Bartlett loves a brand enough to invest in it his fans will still be interested,” Foggan adds.
“As someone whose credibility relies on him being an ‘industry expert’, this move could leave the legitimacy of the brands he’s involved with in question.”
Before Bartlett: the influencer issue
Despite the big name draw of Huel and Zoe, it’s worth noting that the ASA has had more sinister influencer-related problems on its hands lately.
Just two weeks ago, an advert featuring Towie star Gemma Collins was banned for promoting a headset which claimed to treat depression. Surely an influencer appealing directly to people dealing with mental illness to buy a product which claims to alleviate their symptoms (while having no scientific backing whatsoever) is the bigger fish to fry here?
And it didn’t begin with reality TV or the internet. From religious leaders, royals to finely clothed merchants, those in positions of power have always used their influence to sell ideas and products. And it’s always been controversial.
The real message of the ruling against Bartlett’s ads is that it’s time for those with public status to take responsibility for honest messaging, rather than putting the onus on the consumer once again.
