Vloggers and The ASA

ASA

I’m sure there has been a lot written on the recent ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority that vloggers must declare whether video content is paid for already, but thought it might be interesting to spell it out for anyone who hasn’t caught up with the latest news.

I think everyone who watches You Tube videos will appreciate that vloggers and bloggers do now have a commercial arm. As long as I’m not sending out sponsored content too often, I find that readers do tolerate them well, and personally, I don’t take any sponsorship unless I feel I have something useful to say about the product. But, where things get really tricky for vloggers is when the entire video isn’t sponsored, but maybe will feature one product that is – in amongst many than aren’t.

Crucially, a declaration may not be used DURING the video – it must be obvious BEFORE a viewer clicks on the video. So, by using a ‘Sponsored’ or ‘Promoted’ tag, you are making it abundantly clear that there is paid for content within the video.

It’s going to mean that sponsored vlogs are done in an entirely different way, and it will have to be clearly differentiated what is and what isn’t sponsored.

If you’ve been in the blogosphere for a while either as a blogger or as a reader, you’ll probably know those who do sneak in undeclared sponsored content, and those who don’t (and the same for blogs). It’s never all that hard to tell. But it’s a difficult situation for those who want to talk about a multitude of products or topics or who go off topic during their videos. Viewers will always have a little nagging doubt in their minds whether that lollipop (or whatever) that appeared in the middle of a hair video was just random, or paid for.

With a blog, you put that your sponsored content is such at the end of a post, clearly marked. There isn’t that option for vloggers. I think it’s quite a harsh ruling to be honest – if vloggers are happy to say in the middle of their video that a product is sponsored, that would be enough for me.

However, the ASA has to investigate every single complaint, and I worry that there may be a deluge of complaints – this entire ruling has come about from one single BBC journalist making a formal complaint. Anyone can complain or send concerns to the ASA.

So, why would you not declare something as sponsored? That’s complicated. Brands often put pressure in a very competitive environment for vloggers (and bloggers) to just ‘forget’ to mention the sponsorship, although I’ve also heard it the other way around where vloggers have refused to say that something is sponsored and have had to have their contracts re-written by the brands to force the situation.

I think losing trust of readers is something that we all worry about – no matter where your little share of cyberspace is. But feeling that by saying you are being paid, viewers might like your videos less or watch them less or not trust you any more is a legitimate worry. YouTube is still a very new thing with a mainly under age 30 audience – everyone is still learning and it’s a transition phase at the moment. I don’t think anyone should be ashamed of taking sponsored content – the huge vlogs wouldn’t exist in their current formats without it and millions of views say that would be disappointing for many viewers. So, it’s a chicken and egg situation. I will just say though that if declaring had been standard from the beginning, then it would feel entirely normal by now. Blogs were picked up on declaring sponsored content well over two years ago.

But, if fewer people watch a vlog because it’s sponsored, then that’s just a welcome into the world of media – it’s what happens every time we flick past an ad in a mag, go and make a cup of tea in the TV ad breaks or barely look up at billboards. It will create a natural filter. However, that isn’t a bad thing – there might be less viewers but those that are viewing are doing so because they actively want to engage with the brand via the vlogger. An engaged audience is worth its weight in gold.

One word of warning though; there are loopholes on both vlogs and blogs. Contracts can be worded differently so that the vlogs or blogs themselves are not paid for but a ‘consultancy’ fee is. Therefore, if the contract states that the only paid for activity is in-office creative, for example, then the social media content can remain unwritten and a matter of trust between the vlogger/blogger and the brands.

Todays vloggers are pioneering this new form of media – a few bumps along the road are to be expected. If you have ambitions to vlog or are already doing so, it’s worth reading the CAP Code here so you know exactly what you can and can’t do to stay within the law.

It’s also mandatory for blogs/instagrams/tweets to be declared as sponsored if you have received money to talk about a product. At this stage, samples of product don’t count as ‘payment’ but you might want to label things as a PR Sample. I don’t do it yet – I have it clearly stated in the About Me Section instead, but I think as things go along this will also become mandatory.

 


Discover more from British Beauty Blogger

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Have your say

12 responses to “Vloggers and The ASA”

  1. I’m not sure how I feel about this. I’m more than happy for someone to mention that something is sponsored when they talk about it in the video but if people aren’t always declaring sponsorship now, why would they include it in the title? I think adding it in the title could be off-putting for viewers.
    I’d just be happy or people to mention that it’s sponsored when it comes up in a video.

  2. I definitely agree that this is going to be interesting!

    I don’t think it’s fair that vloggers HAVE to use ‘ad’ in the title. When I watch a video I always look through the description to see whether a video has been sponsored and who by, so I don’t know why this wasn’t good enough anymore!

    As you say people are going to start questioning everything, rather than just knowing exactly what the sponsored content is. I can say this because I’m already doing it! In some cases its very obviously what part is sponsored, whilst in others, it’s a more confusing.

    I’ve never had to worry about declaring sponsored content on my blog but it’s always good to be in the loop with important changes! Thanks for sharing!

    Stephanie xx

  3. This was really interesting. One of my biggest issues with non-disclosure is when bloggers/vloggers say something like “my readers trust me and know that I would never recommend a product I didn’t like”, but that works both ways – if you say something is sponsored people aren’t going to immediately assume that you’re lying about liking it. Besides it’s usually easy to spot the things that are sponsored whether or not they’re disclosed. As a viewer I know that it’s a business and to take any blanket coverage of a product with a pinch of salt, however I worry about younger viewers who don’t necessarily realise this. Recently I’ve seen brands sending gift cards to vloggers for them to pick their own items and I suppose this could be a way of getting around the rules which could become more common as a result of the ruling? I’m not actually sure about this though!

    1. Jane

      It’s so tricky – as someone who takes sponsored posts (clearly marked) I do have to turn some down on the grounds that this would never be something I could recommend, paid for or otherwise. And the reader never gets to see what gets turned away – the same applies for vlogs, too. Personally, if I take a sponsored post, I’ll never lie about it – it doesn’t get near my blog unless I have something to say or I feel it’s a good fit. Sometimes you get offers of work that are quite far removed from beauty so either I find a way to put the beauty in it so it has a relevance or if I can’t I have to say no. The conflict is that I know they’ll take their budget and give it to someone else who doesn’t mind about relevance (which is entirely their perogative, I might say). So, sponsored doesn’t mean lying, but it can sometimes mean finding the good in a thing where you otherwise might not have looked for it.

      1. Loes

        I do agree partially with you. Yes I do think a blogger/vlogger should tell if a video/artcle is sponsored in advance. I think readers/watchers can make up their mind more easily. And here is where I disagree…for example vlogger missglamorazzi asks $18000 for a video do you really think that she is going to give a negative review for that amount of money? I’m afraid I already know the answer … So I do feel that money or free products (I do see this as a form of payment) do influence the opinion of a blogger/vlogger and not always with best interest at heart for us readers/viewers (regardless of their disclamers). The only way we can protect and form honest opinions ourselves is to have knowledge. And yes I still watch sponsored videos.

        1. Jane

          I can’t speak for other specific vloggers or bloggers.. I can only give you my view about what I do on my site. For most of us, who don’t get mega bucks but are paid more modestly, I think you’re on safe territory and it comes back to me saying I wish you could see what I turn down because that would then give you a proper insight into why some sponsoreds make it onto my blog. And having AD at the very beginning of a video is going to make things much, much clearer.. so it will be the same as an ad on TV I guess and then it’s up to you whether you watch it. I think the ASA objected to the fact that viewers weren’t clearly informed that they were watching ads and therefore couldn’t make a reasonable choice on whether to stay or go.

          I honestly don’t see product as payment – again, I speak for myself only, but my blog is 7 years old so I get a lot of brands who actively seek to be on it and product just comes. I used to write for print and it’s exactly the same there yet nobody would think lipstick is just payment for a beauty editor! It is assumed that product appraisals, reviews, mentions and pictures are part of their job as a beauty writer, and that’s how I see product on my blog. As a component of my job. Which is not to say that it isn’t lovely – it is, but you cannot pay a bill with gloss. My blog costs around £600 to run per month – including tech support x 2, daily mail outs, accountant, ad costs, domain, server, patent.. it goes on! So it isn’t cheap to run. I’m really proud to earn money from the thing I love doing best, but if I only ever earned lipstick it just wouldn’t exist as it is now. xx

  4. Josie

    Wow really interesting post…. Will be interesting to see if the Vloggers announce sponsorship in the middle of videos!!

    Josie XOXO
    Fashion Mumblr

  5. Hi Jane x I’m just wondering how the law applies to tweets with affiliate links? I’ve noticed quite a few around lately and not one of them has been declared. I’ve always been completely transparent but it surprises me still just how many bloggers and you tubers seem to hide the fact that they’ve been paid or received a product as sample

    1. Jane

      Good question.. and not clear. My site auto tweets each post once and if I don’t have Sponsored in the title of the post, it is not clear on Twitter that the link leads to a sponsored post.. so I would also have a question about that, where the tweet isn’t sponsored, but the post it is mentioning is. So, it’s just really confusing. But if you are paid specifically to Tweet, tweets should be marked #spons and the same for Insta. If I personally tweet an affiliate link it will say #AL at the end. I’m not sure I agree that all samples should be declared (I don’t .. but do very specifically state it in my Terms) – I think if you trust your favourite bloggers, then whether it’s a sample or bought, you should get the same kind of review. I think it’s down to each individual blogger on that one.But if you’ve been paid to talk about a product, that’s a different thing and is misleading if viewers or readers don’t know there is a commercial aspect.

  6. disneyrollergirl

    There’s quite a simple solution which you have touched on already. Just make sure ALL your content is relevant and interesting – including sponsored posts. And be selective in the sponsored posts that you accept. That way, readers will know that on the odd occasion when your post is sponsored, it should still be worth reading/watching. And also, maybe this is the chance for brands to work more closely with blogs/vlogs on unique content, rather than ten blogs all churching out the same sponsored posts. I like to think I’m pretty selective with my sponsored posts and in several instances, people have actually linked to them or retweeted them because the subject matter was still of interest *smug face*. Maybe it will encourage us to be a bit smarter with our paid content…

  7. Olivia

    This is a very interesting ruling. I mean I can see where bloggers/vloggers would be uncomfortable at losing readership or followers but then again life is full of fear and everyone has to face some type of it. If it is in blogging or vlogging form, the person should find a way to keep their readership, followers, or cult; to gain trust no matter if they are sponsored or not.

    I mean look at the celebs, I don’t believe for one minute those big celebs actually use a box of haircolor. Those highlights came from a well-trained haircolorist but people still follow and like the celeb. Those celebs have appeal in a several different ways and a blogger and/or vlogger should think the same way.

    Hmmmm, I wonder if karma will be working soon? (Inside joke.)

  8. Hi – great post Jane. The thing I find interesting about the ruling and will be clarifying with the ASA is that they make multiple references to brands having ‘editorial control’ over paid content which actually isn’t always the case in a sponsorship … so my question to them will be – if a brand sponsors a blogger/vlogger to write/film around a product or service, but doesn’t get editorial sign-off, What then…
    Also shouldn’t unilever’s channel ‘all about hair’ be declared as an ad as it’s from the brand and only pushes their products?
    And finally, on tv shows like made in chelsea, if a brand pays to appear as part of the show (ie sony phones) all the broadcaster/show needs to do us feature a tiny P for ”product placement’ at the start of the programme… So can’t that be the same for vlogs where some products are sponsored to be there?
    Basically my point is their ruling is unclear and doesn’t tally with the way tv is regulated. Vlog content is programming, not ads so I think they need to apply that logic.
    X

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from British Beauty Blogger

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading