Simone Anderson complaints upheld: #Gifted not enough

Wednesday, 1 July 2020

Blogger and social media influencer Simone Anderson has been told by the Advertising Standards Authority that she had not made the commercial nature of the relationship behind recent posts clear enough.

Four complaints about social media influencer Simone Anderson have been upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority.

The authority’s complaints board said the content she posted on Instagram met the definition of advertisements but its commercial nature was not made sufficiently clear to audiences.

Three complainants said a post in which she posed wearing activewear on the beach with the words: “Our little stroll this morning was so gusty!! Crop and tights@aimn.oceania ‘Simone10’' was misleading because it was not made clear that there was a commercial relationship with activewear brand Aim’n.

Another complainant was concerned there was a lack of transparency about posts regarding a weekend trip to Cordis hotel.

* Advertising watchdog partially upholds 5G advertisement claiming wireless tech is harmful

Simone Anderson, left, should have used more than #gifted, the ASA said.

* New #gifted social media trend adds transparency to deceptive platforms

In one, she posted: “Enjoying the new autumn high tea menu at @cordisauckland – always such a treat! If you want to win a little getaway for yourself head to the @corisauckland Instagram for your chance to win.”

When the first complaint was received, Anderson amended the post to include the hashtag #Gifted and explained the “Simone10” was an Aim’n Oceania affiliate code meaning someone using it would get 10 per cent discount and the influencer would receive 5 per cent of sales.

In another response to the authority, Anderson's management said her relationships with both Aim’n Activewear and Cordis Hotels were not controlled or guided by the companies.

The hotel stay was given in exchange for social media content.

In its decision, the complaints board said there was nothing wrong with being paid with gifts, free services and hotel stays to create content – but when this happened there needed to be full disclosure upfront about the commercial arrangement.

It said affiliate codes channelling some of the payment to the influencer were an even more direct form of payment.

It said the original posts had been presented as organic content, without an obvious commercial intent.

The majority of the board said the label #Gifted was not clear enough to signal there was a commercial arrangement between the advertiser and the brand company whose products were being promoted. The majority of the board said the #Gifted label was ambiguous as it could be a one-off give away, or as in this case, an ongoing arrangement.

The same decision was reached with regard to the Cordis post.

The board said that, in the same way a newspaper advertorial would have the words 'advertisement' or “sponsored content” at the top of an item, social media advertising should use hashtags such as #ad, #advertisement, #advertising or #sponsored.

The posts need to be removed or amended.

Anderson said on Instagram that the complaints had been upheld as a 'precedent-setting example' of the hashtags the authority wanted on social media posts.

It’s not the first time that complaints have been laid about influencer content.

In one, an Instagram post from Art Green endorsing Heineken was removed after a complaint that the hashtag #sp was not enough to indicate the influencer was being paid.

In another, an Instagram post for Moet which featured All Blacks Beauden Barrett and Damian McKenzie was removed.