Two leading nutrition brands, Zoe and Huel, have had their online advertisements banned due to “misleading” endorsements.
- Steven Bartlett’s high-profile endorsements failed to disclose his financial ties to the brands, leading to the ban.
- The ads appeared on Facebook earlier this year, utilizing quotes from Bartlett to promote the products.
- The Advertising Standards Authority determined these ads could mislead consumers by omitting critical information about Bartlett’s affiliations.
- The ruling underscores the importance of transparency in advertising and Bartlett’s dual role as an investor and company director.
Two prominent nutrition brands, Zoe and Huel, faced a regulatory challenge when their online advertisements were banned. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) intervened after determining that endorsements from Steven Bartlett, a notable entrepreneur, were misleading. His endorsements, featured in Facebook ads, praised the products without disclosing his financial stakes in both companies.
The advertising blitz, which ran in February and March, included Bartlett’s praises. A Huel advertisement boasted a quote from Bartlett calling their product “Huel’s best,” sparking interest while hiding his directorial role at the company. The ASA was firm in their stance, noting, “We considered that Bartlett’s directorship was material to consumers’ understanding of the ads, and so relevant for them in making an informed decision about the advertised product.”
Zoe’s advertisement equally attracted scrutiny. Featuring a quote from Bartlett encouraging consumers to try the product, it failed to outline his status as an investor. The ASA concluded that these omissions could mislead consumers who might perceive his endorsements as impartial. Despite Bartlett’s high profile lending credence to the products, the lack of transparency regarding his financial interests was key in the ASA’s decision.
The ASA ruled against one ad for Zoe and two for Huel, citing the likelihood of consumers being misled. Each advert omitted significant information regarding Bartlett’s commercial relationships, potentially swaying consumer opinions based on an assumption of unbiased endorsements. Zoe acknowledged the ruling, maintaining that precise details on ambassadors’ relationships were unnecessary, but expressed respect for the ASA’s decision and a willingness to comply to maintain transparency.
This case highlights the ongoing necessity for advertisers to fully disclose financial and commercial relationships that could affect consumer perceptions. With Steven Bartlett’s prominent status, the omission of his financial ties to the featured brands was deemed significantly misleading, ultimately prompting ASA’s intervention.
The ASA’s ruling emphasizes the critical need for transparency in advertising endorsements to avoid consumer misinformation.
