Advertising Ombudsman Copyright Panel shed a post on Isabella “Blondinbella” Löwengrip Spångbergs blog where she markets her own brand Flattered. According to the committee would post have advertising selected because it is not immediately apparent that it is advertising.
Today I got a message that the Advertising Ombudsman Copyright Panel shed a post on “Blondinbella’s” blog where she markets its own brand Flattered.
An individual reported post where Löwengrip Spångberg writes that it is possible to pre-order shoes from her own brand Flattered, with links to Flattereds webshop. The notifier argues that this should be marked as advertising and readers are entitled to know that it is about advertising although it is embodied in a regular blog.
Isabella Löwengrip Spångberg argue that the blog is rather to be seen as a platform the blogger’s various companies, like a company website, and that it is therefore natural that posts about blog mixer companies.
the Board notes that the site consists of blog post from the blogger as a private person. The site is considered to be a private person blog. In the notified blog post mentioned the shoes in positive terms and the reader is encouraged to pre-order the shoes by clicking on a link that leads to a website where shoes can be purchased.
According to the Board this blog post, to promote sales of shoes. It therefore has a commercial purpose and on commercial conditions.
The Board writes that blog post is in no way advertising highlighted or provided with other transmission indication than the blogger’s. It is therefore not easy for the average consumer to understand that it is all about advertising. The Board therefore finds that advertising is contrary to Article 9 of the ICC rules.
No comments:
Post a Comment