No, because we aren't paying anyone to review products, we are paying people to use products.
The ASA's logic is that if we haven't asked people to be positive, or asked them not to be negative, then we aren't using them to "promote" the product, all we're doing is getting them to use the product.
Regarding other elements which are more obviously advertisements (e.g. the 5 second clip I mentioned, or the tracked link) these are considered standard and obvious advertising, treated the same way banner adverts are.
> how do you control the content of the company sponsored statements
I don't pay them to make statements, other than that they are using a certain product. They could say in the video "I'm using product X and it's incredibly shit" without breaching any contract with me. The only sponsored statements we ever work with are on content websites, where we require (and most publishers would insist even if we didn't) that such content be marked as an "advertorial".
> or for example being direct advertising to children (also unlawful)
I'm no expert in this area as I've never represented a brand that was purposefully targeting children. My target audience is usually 18-35yo men. That said, I believe you are incorrect in saying it would be unlawful - apart from anything, you've surely seen adverts directly aimed at children (toys, etc.), these clearly couldn't be shown if they were illegal.
In the UK there are lots of regulations on how you an advertise to children, mostly around ensuring their safety but also making sure advertisers don't take advantage of their under-developed minds. You can read the CAP (Committee of Advertising Practice - sister organisation to the ASA) rules at http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Non-broadcast-HTML/S...
There are also products that have stricter rules, for example alcohol - you cannot in the UK advertise on a medium where 25% of more of the audience is under 18 (for example teen magazines, children's TV). I remember once having a client who was advertising spirits across gaming websites, and the solution here was to only show adverts after a self-imposed watershed of 9pm, as this ensured that during the times at which the adverts were shown, the sites had a low percentage of under-18 visitors.
>then we aren't using them to "promote" the product //
Which budget are you paying them from, advertising. What profession are you in, marketing. What are you hoping to gain from this project, increased sales.
You are using them to promote the product. They're paid endorsements.
Not according to the people who enforce advertising rules. Sure, in terms of logical thinking that's why we're doing it. But I care about two things, legality and morality. I was careful to ensure we were being legal (see what I said about discussion with the ASA), and I don't consider this product placement to be misleading, yet alone immoral. When I said we don't use them to "promote" products I put it in inverted commas to indicate that I'm going by the authority's definition, not just talking in prose.
OK. So, if your aim is to be moral then why not have your advertisers include a note that they've been paid for their endorsement? Surely it's because you aim to deceive the viewer that the endorsement is organic rather than motivated by your client/employer - is that moral?
Take a look at the first 60 seconds of this video [1], I don't believe it's possible to watch this video without knowing that it's a sponsorship deal he has.
I view it the same way that nobody would look at a football (soccer) team's shirts and think "wow, those players must love that company!" despite there not being a "this is an advertisement" text on the shirts.
If I wanted to deceive viewers then I would change the terms of the deal to not show the 5 second clip or the floating 3D laptop, and to not have a link in the description of the video (or at least not one that can be seen to go through an adserver URL), then I would get him to make his comments about the laptop more subtle, but more frequent across all his videos. This would still be completely legal, despite having much more potential to mislead viewers, but certainly arguably less ethical.
Here [2] is an example of (non-YouTube) another thing I've done for a brand, to show that when it isn't already imminently obvious we do make sure that the paid nature is explicitly stated.
So: do you disagree with my judgement that there is no need for a specific note on such an obvious piece of activity? I would hope and assume you will once you see it, but if not then I'll certainly go get a few more opinions to see if I should change mine.
>Take a look at the first 60 seconds of this video [1], I don't believe it's possible to watch this video without knowing that it's a sponsorship deal he has. //
I'd certainly suspect it - but it's presented as "oh look, I'm your fried, I just found this deal online". Certainly those less jaded by life, than I, I think wouldn't realise.
You of course would know because you know that companies are doing this sort of marketing - I suspect many people don't realise such endorsements are paid. Those more savvy would assume that the link below the vid is an affiliate link but probably not that the presenter was paid for the actual placement.
No, because we aren't paying anyone to review products, we are paying people to use products.
The ASA's logic is that if we haven't asked people to be positive, or asked them not to be negative, then we aren't using them to "promote" the product, all we're doing is getting them to use the product.
Regarding other elements which are more obviously advertisements (e.g. the 5 second clip I mentioned, or the tracked link) these are considered standard and obvious advertising, treated the same way banner adverts are.
> how do you control the content of the company sponsored statements
I don't pay them to make statements, other than that they are using a certain product. They could say in the video "I'm using product X and it's incredibly shit" without breaching any contract with me. The only sponsored statements we ever work with are on content websites, where we require (and most publishers would insist even if we didn't) that such content be marked as an "advertorial".
> or for example being direct advertising to children (also unlawful)
I'm no expert in this area as I've never represented a brand that was purposefully targeting children. My target audience is usually 18-35yo men. That said, I believe you are incorrect in saying it would be unlawful - apart from anything, you've surely seen adverts directly aimed at children (toys, etc.), these clearly couldn't be shown if they were illegal.
In the UK there are lots of regulations on how you an advertise to children, mostly around ensuring their safety but also making sure advertisers don't take advantage of their under-developed minds. You can read the CAP (Committee of Advertising Practice - sister organisation to the ASA) rules at http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Non-broadcast-HTML/S...
There are also products that have stricter rules, for example alcohol - you cannot in the UK advertise on a medium where 25% of more of the audience is under 18 (for example teen magazines, children's TV). I remember once having a client who was advertising spirits across gaming websites, and the solution here was to only show adverts after a self-imposed watershed of 9pm, as this ensured that during the times at which the adverts were shown, the sites had a low percentage of under-18 visitors.