Steven Bartlett, a well-known entrepreneur and TV personality, has been called out by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for two misleading adverts involving companies he is financially involved with.
The controversial ads, promoting products from healthcare company Zoe and nutrition brand Huel, were flagged for not disclosing his financial interests, potentially misleading consumers.
Misleading Adverts for Zoe
The ASA took issue with an advert for healthcare company Zoe, which did not disclose Bartlett’s status as an investor. This omission was deemed critical for consumers to make an informed decision about the product.
The ASA stated that Bartlett’s investment in Zoe was material information that should have been revealed. Without this disclosure, the advert was considered misleading.
Huel Advertisements Under Scrutiny
In addition, two Facebook ads for Huel featured Bartlett claiming, ‘This is Huel’s best product’. The ASA argued that many consumers were unlikely to know about his financial involvement with the company.
Bartlett’s role as a director at Huel was not mentioned in these ads. This was crucial information, and its omission led the ASA to conclude that the adverts were likely to mislead the audience.
Huel defended the ads by highlighting Bartlett’s celebrity status and his public association with their products.
Defence and Celebrity Status
Huel argued that Bartlett is widely recognised as an entrepreneur and investor, known for his appearances on Dragon’s Den and a significant following on social media.
With 3.5 million Instagram followers, a popular podcast, and a bestselling book, Huel claimed that Bartlett’s public profile made his financial interest obvious.
However, the ASA maintained that explicit disclosure in the adverts was necessary.
Regulatory Implications
The watchdog’s decision underscores the importance of transparency in advertising, particularly when a promoter has financial stakes in the products they endorse.
The ruling serves as a reminder to businesses about the significance of providing material information upfront to avoid misleading consumers.
Both Zoe and Huel have been instructed not to show these adverts again in their current form.
Impact on Steven Bartlett’s Reputation
This incident could impact Bartlett’s reputation as a trusted voice in entrepreneurship. Transparency and honesty are key values for public figures, especially when promoting products.
Bartlett built his career on entrepreneurship and social media influence. Therefore, this ruling might affect how his audience perceives his endorsements.
Maintaining a transparent approach in future adverts will be essential for Bartlett to retain his credibility.
Lessons for Businesses
Businesses must learn from this episode and ensure clear communication about any financial interests involved in their endorsements.
Transparency is crucial for consumer trust. Without it, even well-meaning adverts can mislead and cause damage to a brand’s reputation.
Future Advertising Practices
In light of this ruling, businesses might need to revisit their advertising strategies, particularly when involving well-known personalities.
Clear and upfront disclosure of any financial interests can prevent regulatory issues and maintain consumer trust.
Conclusion to the Ruling
The ASA’s decision against Bartlett’s adverts for Zoe and Huel serves as a critical reminder for transparency in marketing practices.
Key Takeaways
The necessity for clear disclosure in advertising, especially when financial interests are involved, cannot be overstated.
The ASA ruling highlights the need for transparency in advertising, regardless of a promoter’s public profile.
For Bartlett, maintaining credibility with his audience will require adherence to these standards in future campaigns.