Food, glorious food. This FMCG subcategory is one of the widest marketed products globally and has inspired some of the most creative advertising ever. As the media landscape and societal discourse continue changing, so do the regulatory considerations brands and their partners have to make when promoting their goods.
When these materials draw complaints from Australia’s general public, it’s up to the Ad Standards Community Panel to decide whether these objections are full-flavoured or weak-stomached. In any case, the following contentious culinary content provides good food for thought.
The Ad: An Australian fitness influencer posted an Instagram carousel depicting a visit to Guzman y Gomez, a Mexican-style fast food restaurant. His captions spoke of the company favourably, saying it was “bit of a go to for me when I’m eating out but want to keep it to a healthy option. The perfect place to treat the family to lunch”.
The Complaint: The post appeared to be an undeclared ad post.
The Advertiser’s Response: GYG stated they had no prior agreement with any influencers about promotional content and that the influencer had made the post without seeking consent or informing the company. They admitted the account was part of their VIP database, a list of people who occasionally received gifts from the brand on a pro bono basis. GYG claimed they did not have a “reasonable degree of control” over it and that the influencer simply made a post out of appreciation for the brand.
The Ad Board’s Decision: Complaint upheld – GYG contacted the influencer to remove the post, which was found to breach AANA Code of Ethics Section 2.7: “Advertising or Marketing Communication shall be clearly distinguishable as such.”
Why the Ad Board Came to that Decision: The Panel considered that in this case tagging the brand was not sufficient to satisfy the Code’s requirements and that the Instagram post was not clearly distinguishable as advertising.
Consider this for your next ad: The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) and Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) have previously expressed concern about influencers inadequately disclosing sponsored content. Failing to declare a partnership or attempting to bury #ad after a long caption is likely to attract complaints.
“This determination is a good reminder for brands to be particularly cognisant of how (and to whom) they are distributing free or discounted goods and services. Importantly, brands need to be mindful of situations where they could be seen to have a reasonable degree of control’ around any content created by recipients of such goods or services."
Emma Tiberi, Marketing Suite Manager at PlexusRead the full report here.
The Ad: Premade meal company Muscle Diets advertised their items with a guarantee stating “Love it, or we’ll refund 110%. Seriously.”
The Complaint: The refund clause is misleading as the company only refunds the value of the first order placed, according to their terms and conditions.
The Advertiser’s Response: Muscle Diets implement this clause as a “reasonable mechanism for protection against abuse of the system as has been attempted by individuals in the past.” They state that their refund guarantee is intended for first-time customers trying their products.
The Ad Board’s Decision: Complaint upheld – the material breached Section 2.1 of the AANA Food and Beverages Advertising Code: “Advertising for Food or Beverage Products must not be misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive.” Muscle Diets removed any reference to the refund guarantee on their website and social media, however it appears to still appear on their website meta description on search engine results pages.
Why the Ad Board Came to that Decision: While first-time consumers could reasonably expect there to be conditions pertaining to the refund guarantee, the fact that Muscle Diets did not state these terms clearly could mislead existing customers.
Consider this for your next ad: It is important that companies include abridged terms (also known as short or abbreviated terms) when promoting offers, as this will minimise the risk of misleading customers.
Read the full report here.
The Ad: A food influencer account posted an Instagram reel extensively detailing a positive experience they had at O Bar and Dining.
The Complaint: The account did not disclose whether their experience was sponsored by the venue.
The Advertiser’s Response: O Bar and Dining said they had invited the influencers to experience a meal at their venue in exchange for a mention on their social media accounts. Furthermore, they said the influencers did not seek final approval from the venue over the content and agreed that disclosure of the arrangement would have clarified the partnership.
The Ad Board’s Decision: Upheld – the post breached AANA Code of Ethics Section 2.7: “Advertising or Marketing Communication shall be clearly distinguishable as such.” O Bar and Dining contacted the influencer to modify the post caption to more clearly identify it as being an advertisement.
Why the Ad Board Came to that Decision: The Panel considered that in this case tagging the brand was not sufficient to satisfy the Code’s requirements and that the Instagram “collaboration” post was not clearly distinguishable as advertising.
Consider this for your next ad: “While the GYG case was arguably not so cut and dried insofar as advertiser control was concerned, this situation was clearly directed and controlled by the advertiser, meaning they should have been more explicit in their directions to the influencers involved,“ says Tiberi.
Read the full report here.
The Ad: Baked goods company Mrs Mac’s aired a radio commercial with the following script, “Yeah, there’s a lot of new tarts on the street, and it’s true, my eyes may have wandered, but I’ll tell you now I have always stayed true to my missus. Yep. Mrs Mac’s pies.”
The Complaint: Complainant/s considered the ad offensive because it contained innuendos degrading women and thus perpetuating toxic masculinity.
The Advertiser’s Response: The ad is specifically about the character expressing his loyalty to Mrs Mac’s products when faced with the temptation of baked goods such as tarts from other brands.
The Ad Board’s Decision: Dismissed
Why the Ad Board Came to that Decision: While the script contained innuendo and double entendres, it was determined that this was an intentional inclusion as it quickly became clear the subject was baked goods and not women. The panel did remark that the ad was vulgar in nature and such marketing methods were outdated in modern society.
Consider this for your next ad: The panel’s remark about the ad being distasteful indicates that innuendo-filled material inevitably attracts complaints, especially in this day and age.
“While brands need to consider potential determinations of the Ad Standards board (and the consequences of having to remove an advertisement from show), it is also crucial to consider consumer sentiment generally. While a complaint may be dismissed by the Ad Standards board, it could still result in reputation damage to the brand more broadly,“ says Tiberi.
Read the full report here.