Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Geordie Shore star Marnie Simpson Snapchat posts banned

Reality TV personality reprimanded by Advertising Standards Authority for failing to make clear social media updates were paid for

Josie Clarke
Wednesday 25 October 2017 08:07 EDT
Comments
Two Snapchat posts by former Geordie Shore star Marnie Simpson have been banned for failing to clearly indicate that they were ads
Two Snapchat posts by former Geordie Shore star Marnie Simpson have been banned for failing to clearly indicate that they were ads (ASA/PA)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Two Snapchat posts by former Geordie Shore star Marnie Simpson have been banned for failing to clearly indicate that they were ads.

The posts, both on 20 June, showed Simpson holding a Diamond Whites tooth polish product close to her face with the text “50% off everything from Diamond Whites” and an image of her wearing grey contact lenses.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received complaints about both snaps challenging whether they were obviously identifiable as ads.

Diamond Whites said Simpson had been the face of their brand for nearly two years and they therefore believed that her followers were aware of the relationship.

Given the length of the relationship, Diamond Whites said it did not feel that the posts required hashtags but would “look to put those in place in the future”.

Unleashed PR, trading as I Spy Eyes, said Simpson did not explicitly refer to lenses or mention I Spy Eyes or the website, and therefore did not believe the snap was misleading to the consumer as the product was not available to buy.

It said Simpson had posted the snap “in excitement that she had a new colour lens coming out”.

Advertising guidelines say that a post becomes an ad when the brand has control over the content of the post and rewards the “influencer” with a payment, free gift or other perk.

If the commercial aim is not clear from the overall context of the communication, it should be labelled as an ad so as not to break the rules and mislead the influencer's audience.

The ASA said it was the responsibility of I Spy Eyes and Diamond Whites to ensure that promotional activity conducted on their behalf was compliant with the rules.

It found that neither snap was obviously identifiable as a marketing communication, and both breached the Code, but welcomed their “willingness to ensure they would use '£ad' in future”.

PA

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in