27 May 2015The Guardian:
“it wasn’t until a viewer had selected and opened the video that text, embedded in the video, referred to “Procter & Gamble,” the ASA said. “We considered that viewers should have been aware of the commercial nature of the content prior to engagement.”
The ASA also said that the use of the phrases “sponsored by” and “brought to you by” did not make it clear that the videos were marketing communications.
UK advertising regulation on YouTube videos is a fascinating area. It all blew up in November, when the ASA ruled that a Oreo sponsorship series did not make it clear that there was paid placement. Since then, YouTubers have generally followed the suggestions laid out in the original complaint by adding ‘Sponsored by’ disclosures to videos.
However, in this latest case on the Procter & Gamble makeup videos, the ASA indicates that such disclosures are not sufficient. In fact, the ASA wants commercial affiliations to be made clear before the video is even played.