Advertising watchdog takes on YouTube vloggers over paid-for videos

Radio 1 DJs Dan and Phil were criticised by Advertising Standards Authority for not sufficiently flagging that a video was an advert

Andrew Griffin
Wednesday 26 November 2014 14:56 GMT
Comments
Dan and Phil, who present a show on Radio 1 on Sundays
Dan and Phil, who present a show on Radio 1 on Sundays (Charlie Forgham-Bailey)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Video bloggers are on the rise. And the British advertising watchdog might just have seriously upset them.

The Advertising Standards Authority said that YouTube vloggers’ must flag more clearly one of their key sources of revenue — paid-for advertising, by mentioning brands in videos.

The ruling particularly concerned an Oreo ‘lick race challenge’, a campaign run by Oreo-owner Mondelēz, which saw vloggers including Radio 1 presenters Dan and Phil try to eat an Oreo cookie as quickly as possible. The ASA said that the videos didn’t clearly indicate there was a commercial relationship between the advertiser and the vloggers.

Because the advert appeared on a format that is usually non-promotional, the advert should have been labelled as such, the ASA said. Dan and Phil updated the video’s description today to show with the note: “This is a paid for advertisement”.

The ASA said: “In this case because the ads were on online video channels that were usually non-promotional, the commercial intent should have been made clear before viewers clicked on the content”.

When an advertiser has paid for and has editorial control over content, the ASA said, it has to be made clear that it is an advert and that the ASA can step in to regulate it. The ruling should be in vloggers’ interest, the ASA said, because vloggers build their fan base on their authenticity and so not telling fans about their commercial relationships could destroy their reputation.

Dan and Phil are one of a number of video bloggers that have conquered YouTube and are looking to broaden their success. Others have launched books and other tie-ins.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in