Like many beverage brands – and indeed those across FMCGs – meal replacement brand Huel and health science brand Zoe featured testimonials on their social media sites for the brand.
But the reviews from well-known entrepreneur and TV personality Steven Bartlett failed to clarify his commercial interests in the companies – as a director at Huel and an investor in Zoe.
ASA: 'The rules are clear... brands need to be upfront about commercial relationships when using influencers in their ads'
Steven Bartlett is a well-known entrepreneur, investor, speaker, author, podcast host and television personality. He’s familiar to many from his role as a Dragon on TV series Dragon’s Den – the UK version of Shark Tank.
An ad for Huel’s Daily Greens drink included text that stated “‘This is Huel’s best product’ - Steven Bartlett”.
Zoe – a health science brand that recently launched gut health shots in retailer M&S – featured a quote from Steven Bartlett in a paid-for Facebook ad. “If you haven’t tried ZOE yet, give it a shot. It might just change your life” read the quote.
The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received complaints that said Steven Bartlett’s commercial interest in each company was not disclosed.
Both Huel and Zoe said their ads were clearly identifiable as ads – and that consumers would therefore understand that Steven Bartlett had appeared in the capacity of a commercial relationship.
That – as Huel said in its defense – removed the need to explicitly state the commercial relationship.
But the ASA disagreed: and said that adverts ‘must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information, which was information that the consumer needed to make informed decisions in relation to a product’.
The ASA says the rules are clear: 'brands need to be upfront about commercial relationships when using influencers in their ads' - as it explains in the video below.
The ads, it ruled, breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).
Rules need to be clearer, says ZOE
Like Huel, ZOE said it considered its advert was clearly an advert - and says it would welcome further guidance on using testimonals.
“Our ad was posted from the ZOE Facebook account, with the ‘Sponsored’ label, clearly marking it as an ad," a spokesperson told us. "The ASA acknowledged, in its ruling, that the ad was indeed ‘obviously identifiable’ as a marketing communication.
“Neither the Code nor any of the ASA’s guidance suggests that it is necessary to go into granular detail about the precise nature of an ambassador's commercial relationship with a brand. We believe the ad was compliant with the Cap Code.
“We respect the ASA’s work in upholding transparency in online advertising and have provided a written assurance that it will not appear again in that form. We would welcome further guidance to bring clarity on the effect of this decision, to ensure that all our future advertising complies with the Cap Code.”
Neither Huel nor Steven Bartlett had replied to requests for comment at the time of publication.
ASA CAP Code: Misleading advertising
3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so
3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner. Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means
