Is your social media post actually a political ad?
The Electoral Commission spent yesterday reviewing social posts by Abbie Chatfield to see whether it needed political authorisation. Turns out, it didn't. Fabulate’s Nathan Powell asks if this is a bigger moment in media — where traditional outlets and governments are being forced to come to terms with the rising creator economy?
With Australia full tilt into a federal election campaign, one question keeps arising: Is the election campaign forcing the media and government to come to terms with creators?
As I made the point a few weeks ago, we’ve known this moment is coming for a while – just take a look at the rise of so-called “newsfluencers”. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle when it comes to who holds the influence and, spoiler alert: it’s no longer just the traditional media.
And while the Australian political parties are looking to follow the podcasting model used to great success by the Trump campaign in the US election, the reality is there are very few podcasts that have the scale in Australia to make a difference.
The one thing that has both engagement and scale are influencers in Australia. Creators have been slowly but surely eating into the space once dominated by legacy outlets, and it appears the media is not happy about it – just look at many of the media stories the media headlines generated when a dozen Instagrammers were allowed into the Federal Budget lock-up.
Yesterday’s news that the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is investigating Abbie Chatfield’s political posts on social media is also a sign that it’s not just the media who aren’t sure how to deal with the rising tide of creators. Government and regulatory authorities like the AEC are also grappling with this question (TLDR version: AEC spent yesterday reviewing her posts but realised they weren’t paid advertisements which would require authorisation messages).
Chatfield, who interviewed Prime Minister Anthony Albanese earlier this year, and DJed with Greens leader Adam Bandt, still faced scrutiny in what, if it had gone the other way, could have set a precedent that changed how all creators approach political content moving forward.
@abbiechatfield VOTE 1 GREENS @Adam Bandt @Australian Greens
Now to be clear, anyone that is paid for, or receives payments (flights, access, guest of someone) should clearly declare this in their post, just as traditional media is required to do. The ACCC is very clear on disclosure rules here in Australia for influencers. Under Australian Consumer Law, any sponsored content or material benefit that could influence a creator’s opinion must be clearly and prominently disclosed. This isn’t just a recommendation, it’s rightly a legal requirement.
Failing to disclose a commercial relationship can and should result in significant fines and penalties. This applies to both traditional media and digital creators alike. Disclosure is fundamental for maintaining transparency, whether it’s a sponsored post, a paid collaboration, or receiving perks in exchange for content.
The traditional media follows strict rules on this, and creators should be no different when it comes to paid political content. Disclosure is fundamental for maintaining transparency, whether it’s a sponsored post, a paid collaboration, or receiving perks in exchange for content. Traditional media follows strict rules on this, and creators should be no different when it comes to paid political content.
But there’s a fundamental problem with the AEC’s approach here. Where do we draw the line when it comes to flagging influencer posts as political advertising? Does this mean that every individual expressing political views online could be subject to the same scrutiny?
How do we separate the individual from the creator? There’s also a precedent of journalists and publications endorsing candidates without any AEC disclosures, so why should creators be treated differently? If anything, this highlights the inconsistency in how political opinions are regulated depending on who is sharing them. It also raises an interesting question for someone like Chatfield, who is employed by Southern Cross Austereo for her podcast — is she media or not?
But this situation highlights something bigger than just compliance. It underscores a growing clash between how traditional media and social creators engage audiences.
The reality is, traditional outlets are struggling to cut through to the most important voting segment this election, millennials and Gen Z (where this election will likely be won and lost). This demographic isn’t tuning in to the nightly TV news or picking up the newspaper. Instead, they’re scrolling, swiping, and double-tapping their way through news delivered by creators they trust.
The federal budget this year was a prime example. For the first time, the Albanese government invited creators to join the budget lock-up. The inclusion of influencers wasn’t a gimmick, it was a clear communications strategy to engage audiences that traditional media consistently misses.
Influencers like Molly Benjamin from the Ladies Finance Club, with 63,000 Instagram followers, covered the budget through her lens, highlighting the ‘cool’ and ‘not cool’ elements of the announcements.
Meanwhile, Glen James from the Money Money Money podcast posted clips from his budget discussions with Finance Minister Katy Gallagher.
By bringing creators to Canberra, the government acknowledged a simple truth: traditional media no longer holds the monopoly on setting the agenda. As Natasha Etschmann from Tash Invests put it about creators: ‘It’s meeting this generation where they are: social media.’
This is not to say that journalism doesn’t matter. It does, and many creators are journalists themselves, like Chris Kohler from Channel 9, who has amassed huge followings on TikTok and Instagram while delivering bite-sized business insights. But what we’re seeing is a new ecosystem forming, one where trust and engagement matter more than historical credibility.
@chriskohlernews Probably should’ve bought them. #business #finance #corporate
As the election looms, the real question is whether the media and government can adapt to this new landscape or whether they’ll continue to push back. Trying to regulate creators out of political discourse won’t work in the long term because audiences are choosing creators as their primary sources of information.
There is no turning the rising tide of creators. Traditional media might want to hold onto its dominance, but I fear they are fighting a losing battle. Creators are reshaping how political discourse unfolds in real time. If traditional media doesn’t embrace this new reality, they risk becoming increasingly irrelevant to the very audiences they desperately need to engage.
Nathan Powell is Chief Product and Strategy Officer at Fabulate
Keep up to date with the latest in media and marketing
