Advertisers in breach of Ad Standards again over non-official sponsored Instagram content
SHEIN and Global Ballooning Australia are the latest advertisers to be found in breach of Ad Standards for Instagram posts they claim were not official partnerships.
For Global Ballooning Australia, the case unfolded with familiarity. Instagram influencer, @emmylou_loves was gifted two tickets for a hot air balloon experience by the business, which she used, along with two tickets purchased herself, to take her three children on a hot air balloon ride. Posting a picture of the experience to her Instagram, she captioned the post “My goodness, what a beautiful experience. @globalballooningaustralia #emmylouloves”.
A complaint issued to Ad Standards asserted the post constituted an ‘undeclared advertisement’, and therefore a breach of Section 2.7. of the AANA Code of ethics – Distinguishable advertising, stating: “This is an undeclared advertisement for Global Ballooning Australia. The post today is part of an advertorial collaboration EmmyLou has with the company. She received two free tickets worth about $800 in total in exchange for advertising this company via her Instagram stories, a pinned story, a reel and now a follow up grid photo at the start of school holidays.”
While the business claimed this was not a paid partnership, nor was Emmy Lou held to any expectations over what she should post, the Ad Standards Community panel considered “the advertiser chose to provide Ms. Maccarthy with two free tickets, knowing that she has a large social media presence and is likely to post about the experience” and the post did meeting the definition of advertising outlined in the Code. Thus, given the standalone post was not clearly marked as such, the Panel did find the post to be in breach of Section 2.7 of the Code.
In response, the advertiser and influencer both marked the post as a paid partnership.
View this post on Instagram
While SHEIN was also found in breach of the Code as a result of influencer advertising, the concerns raised surrounded sexuality, looking at Section 2.2 Exploitative or Degrading and 2.4 Sex/sexuality/nudity.
The complaints were directed at a post made by 14 year old influencer @blondiesophtia, who posted a video of herself posing in a cutout black dress with the caption “”Darling I always wear Black it’s such a Happy colour [eyes crossed emoji, black heart emoji, black heart emoji, fire emoji, black heart emoji] Dress @sheinofficial @shein_au Use my special code SSA2333 (Enjoy an extra 15% off any purchase on SHEIN) #blackdress #lbd #blackfriday #reelsinstagram #funny #blondiesophtia”.
One complaint levelled at the post read: “The video is highly sexualised, featuring a young teen dressed in porn-inspired adult wear. She is filmed running her hands up her thighs, front and breasts.”
SHEIN made several responses to the complaints, arguing that it “did not sponsor this post”, nor did it “ask for this post to be created”.
“We do not know the influencer’s age but she does not appear to be 14 years old, as you contend. We also draw your attention to her other posts, all of which appear to be similarly revealing. We trust this resolves the matter. SHEIN reserves all rights and remedies.”
The company added: “I cannot emphasise more on the fact that we don’t have control over the post. Nor did we sponsor the SHEIN product that she was using in the post. Therefore, if the post is an advertisement of our brand, it would be an advertisement that we did not ask for.”
Looking into the complaint, the Panel did note that the post was not shared by the brand, however, SHEIN had failed to provide information as to how the influencer had been provided with a code and what benefit she was getting from sharing it with her followers.
“The Panel considered that while the advertiser may not have had direct control over the individual post, it did have control over the provision of the discount code to the influencer. In this instance, once the advertiser was made aware of the post and the influencer’s age by Ad Standards, under the [User Generated Content guidelines include in the practice note of the Code] it had some control over the post.”
Ultimately, the panel found that SHEIN did have reasonable control over the post, and that the post did contain sex appeal, and given the age of the influencer contradicted the following line in Section 2.2: “Advertising or marketing communications should not employ sexual appeal where images of Minors, or people who appear to be Minors, are used.”
Looking at Section 2.4., the Panel found the post did not “treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience”, given that the sexualised depiction of a minor was not appropriate.
Therefore, SHEIN was found to be in breach of both Section 2.2 and Section 2.4 of the Code.
In response, the fast-fashion retailer said it had asked the influencer to take down the post and had deactivated the code quoted in the post, concluding: “We would like to draw your attention to the fact that SHEIN neither sponsored the post nor the product the influencer used in the post, SHEIN do not have ANY control at all. However, SHEIN cares, and is committed to protecting minors from potential exploitation as always.”
Have your say