It was announced last week that The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) has released a new set of guidelines governing working relationships between brands and vloggers, and when video content should be marked as an advertisement.
This announcement follows a ruling from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) last year in which a number of vlogger channels were found to be misleading consumers by not making it clear that their content contained sponsored messages.
There have already been similar guidelines released for bloggers working with brands, but what does this mean for PRs and marketers, and what exactly constitutes content that should be disclosed as advertising?
The new guidelines outline 8 different scenarios and how vloggers should deal with each one.
Online marketing by a brand
This scenario covers instances where a brand has collaborated with a vlogger to produce a video, and has then shared the video on its own brand channels. This usually does not need disclosure as it hs been shared by the brand and is obviously their content.
“Advertorial” vlogs
This scenario is when the whole vlog is in the usually style of the vlogger, but is being controlled and paid for (not necessarily with money) by a brand. This needs to be labelled as an advert, and viewers need to see this label before the content is shown.
Commercial breaks within vlogs
If showing an advertisement during normal vlog content, it needs to be clearly marked when the sponsored content begins.
Product placement
When a brand’s products are used as a prop by a vlogger during a video, along with any message from the brand, then the commercial intent must be made clear.
Vlogger’s video about their own product
If the sole content of the vlog is to promote the vlogger’s own product, then the commercial message will have to be made clear, and this will have to be added to the title of the video.
Editorial video referring to vlogger’s products
If a vlogger features a product which they have released, then marking up as advertising is often not required, as the commercial intent will usually be clear in the message.
Sponsorship
If a brand sponsors a vlogger, but has no input on the content, then this does not need to be disclosed as advertising (but the sponsor will be mentioned in the video somewhere, otherwise there would be no point in sponsoring the vlogger!)
Free items
If a vlogger is sent an item in the hopes that they might review it then this does not need to be disclosed. However, if items are supplied with the understanding that the vloggers will definitely review it, then this will need to be disclosed as such.
At its core, the release stipulates that paid-for content should be marked as such.
These rulings benefit not only bloggers/vloggers, but agencies and brands. Disregarding the guidelines could have serious consequences for vloggers, while consumers can expect more trustworthy reviews. Influencers now have clear-cut rules to follow, disposing of the need to navigate the ‘grey-area’ that surrounded the issue previously.
The ASA intends to distribute to advertising as well as PR trade bodies, to demonstrate the importance of this ruling and to also to ensure clarity. By distributing in this way, it has been made clear that any agencies/brands getting this wrong will be breaking the rules, and potentially the law.
What does this mean for SEO?
For SEOs already doing their job properly, these guidelines should have little to no impact. Google’s Webamster Guidelines have long stated time that paid-for content should be disclosed as such (and any links to be marked up rel=”nofollow” in the html of the page). Digital PR and content marketing will continue to be core components the SEO mix, with Vlogging an important part of any integrated campaign.
By creating engaging, quality content which is easily shareable, content marketers will generate natural buzz and brand mentions without having to pay or bribe influencers.