'You're out'! Steve Bartlett firms rocked by ad watchdog

Budding entrepreneurs might hang on his every word but it seems Dragons’ Den star Steve Bartlett still has much to learn when it comes to advertising, after being slated for not one, not two but three Facebook ads in the same week for failing to disclose his commercial involvement.

The first issue concerned two ads for Huel’s Daily Greens drink. One featured an image of the drink with a quote from Bartlett that stated: “This is Huel’s best product.” The post’s caption read: “Ever wondered what Steven Bartlett actually thinks of Huel’s Daily Greens?”

The second ad, showed two videos side-by-side; one showed Bartlett and the other showed a person looking at their mobile phone.

Superimposed text between the videos stated “Is Huel actually nice?”. Bartlett stated, “This is the best product that Huel have released.”

The ad then cut to a video of the person looking at the phone, who stated, “I keep seeing this guy all over the internet talking about Huel” while superimposed text stated “Responding to Steven Bartlett”. They then said, “So let’s give it a try” and a packet of Huel’s Daily Greens powder entered the shot.

They were then shown preparing and drinking Huel’s Daily Greens, and stated, “Fair play, Steven, I see your point.” The caption stated “Steven Bartlett said it first […]”.

However, seven complainants, who understood Bartlett was a director at Huel, challenged whether the omission of his commercial interest in the company from the ads was misleading.

In its defence, Huel put up a rather lame argument that as Bartlett was a well-known celebrity, entrepreneur, and investor it had been well publicised in the media that he had invested in the firm because he liked its products.

It added that when celebrities endorsed products, consumers generally understood they did so in the context of a commercial relationship with the company behind the product. Consumers had no doubt about the existence of such commercial relationships when they saw the endorsement within a paid-for ad taken out by a company.

Huel maintained that this expectation then removed the need for the commercial relationship to be explicitly stated, and that this was the case regardless of the exact nature of the relationship.

However, the ASA was not impressed. It said that many consumers were unlikely to understand from the ads that Bartlett had a financial interest in Huel’s performance. It considered that Bartlett’s directorship was material to consumers’ understanding of the ads, and so relevant for them in making an informed decision about the advertised product.

And because the ads omitted material information about Bartlett’s position, the ASA concluded they were likely to mislead and banned them from running again in their current form.

Meanwhile, an ad for healthcare brand Zoe featured an image of Bartlett with a quote which read: “If you haven’t tried Zoe yet, give it a shot. It might just change your life.”

This time two complainants, who understood Bartlett was an investor in Zoe, challenged whether the omission of his commercial interest in the company from the ad was misleading.

In response to the ASA enquiry, Zoe peddled out a similar defence to Huel, claiming that as Bartlett is a well-known investor and public figure, viewers would therefore assume that there was a commercial relationship between the Dragon’s Den star and Zoe, and “did not need to know the exact nature of that relationship”.

The brand said that the post was “obviously identifiable as an ad” and it was “unclear exactly how the average customer was misled” Zoe went on to insist that the obligation to include Bartlett’s specific relationship with the brand would impact the wider influencer community.

It believed it “undermined the principle that ads on owned media are usually obviously identifiable as advertising and that ‘#Ad’ was sufficient enough to make influencer advertising obviously identifiable as advertising”.

Once again, the ASA was unconvinced.

In its ruling, the watchdog issued another ban, stating: “Steven Bartlett was an investor in Zoe, which we considered was material to consumers’ understanding of the ad and relevant in making an informed decision about the product. Because the ad omitted material information about Steven Bartlett being an investor in Zoe, we concluded that it was misleading.”