This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/proctergamble-youtube-beauty-vlog-banned-by-advertising-standards-authority-10278727.html
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Procter&Gamble YouTube beauty vlog banned by Advertising Standards Authority | Procter&Gamble YouTube beauty vlog banned by Advertising Standards Authority |
| (34 minutes later) | |
| A YouTube video showing model vlogger Ruth Crilly giving a make-up tutorial has been banned after an ad watchdog ruled that filmmakers did not make it clear that the clip was an advert for consumer giant Procter and Gamble. | |
| The Advertising Standards Authority ruled on Tuesday that the video was an "advert rather than an impartial review and ruled that the advert should be taken down "in its current form". | The Advertising Standards Authority ruled on Tuesday that the video was an "advert rather than an impartial review and ruled that the advert should be taken down "in its current form". |
| In the video that appeared on the P&G owned YouTube channel Beauty Recommend, Crilly is filmed giving advice on how to use make-up products from the P&G owned Max Factor range, while a link beneath the video gives viewers the opportunity to buy the featured products from the online shop SuperSavvyMe. | In the video that appeared on the P&G owned YouTube channel Beauty Recommend, Crilly is filmed giving advice on how to use make-up products from the P&G owned Max Factor range, while a link beneath the video gives viewers the opportunity to buy the featured products from the online shop SuperSavvyMe. |
| The video was brought to the attention of the ASA after another beauty vlogger contacted the authority to complain that it was not clear to viewers that the video was an advert for Max Factor. | The video was brought to the attention of the ASA after another beauty vlogger contacted the authority to complain that it was not clear to viewers that the video was an advert for Max Factor. |
| After an investigation, ASA agreed that the videos were “marketing communications” and consumers would not necessarily know that the Beauty Recommend brand was owned and controlled by P&G. | After an investigation, ASA agreed that the videos were “marketing communications” and consumers would not necessarily know that the Beauty Recommend brand was owned and controlled by P&G. |
| In its ruling, the ASA said: "We considered that consumers would not be aware that the videos were ads promoting Procter & Gamble, and instead were likely to believe the videos were impartial editorial content. | In its ruling, the ASA said: "We considered that consumers would not be aware that the videos were ads promoting Procter & Gamble, and instead were likely to believe the videos were impartial editorial content. |
| "We concluded, therefore, that the videos within the Beauty Recommended channel, including the Easy Lip tutorial, were not obviously identifiable as marketing communications." | "We concluded, therefore, that the videos within the Beauty Recommended channel, including the Easy Lip tutorial, were not obviously identifiable as marketing communications." |
| It ruled that the advert must not appear again in its current form, and warned P&G that future ads in this medium "must make the commercial intent clear prior to consumer engagement". | It ruled that the advert must not appear again in its current form, and warned P&G that future ads in this medium "must make the commercial intent clear prior to consumer engagement". |
| P&G had earlier argued that its approach to the video meant that it was clear to viewers that the vlog was sponsored. | P&G had earlier argued that its approach to the video meant that it was clear to viewers that the vlog was sponsored. |
| Following the decision, a spokeswoman for P&G said: "We are disappointed following this ruling by the ASA as we believed the vlogs on our Beauty Recommended channel were clearly identifiable as marketing communications and in any event clearer than many of our competitors' channels. | Following the decision, a spokeswoman for P&G said: "We are disappointed following this ruling by the ASA as we believed the vlogs on our Beauty Recommended channel were clearly identifiable as marketing communications and in any event clearer than many of our competitors' channels. |
| "We have however as a result of the ruling made further changes to ensure we are even more transparent going forward and welcome any further guidance from the ASA to ensure there are clear industry standards in place for all in this area." | "We have however as a result of the ruling made further changes to ensure we are even more transparent going forward and welcome any further guidance from the ASA to ensure there are clear industry standards in place for all in this area." |