An important blow to influencer Sophie Cachia, as the advertising watchdog rules her publication sponsored by a “life-changing product” breaching standards, and the company blames her for things.
By Jo Scrimshire for Daily Mail Australia
Posted: 23:20, 7 July 2022 | Updated: 11:36 PM, July 7, 2022
Influencer Sophie Cachia broke advertising standards with an Instagram post sponsored by a phone charging cable that she described as “life-changing.”
Ms. Cachia did not make it clear that her post was a paid ad for tech accessory company Cygnett and even told her story that “it was not sponsored.”
However, the Advertising Standards Community Panel decided that it was in fact advertising, and noted that Ms. Cachia is a Cygnett ambassador.
In an unexpected twist, Cygnett threw Mrs Cachia under the bus in her response to the Panel, revealing that the surviving Australian star hung the post without “prior approval” and that the brand should not be held responsible of his things.
Influencer Sophie Cachia broke advertising standards with an Instagram post sponsored for a phone charging cable that she described as “life-changing.”
The watchdog accepted a complaint from a member of the public in its June 8 decision, finding that Ms. Cachia’s publication “violated section 2.7” of the AANA Code of Ethics, which specifically requires advertisers ensure that any branded content or native advertising is “clearly distinguishable to the relevant audience.
Mrs Cachia’s post on Instagram Stories showed her holding a charging cable with the text: “I found my baby !!! @cygnett No one charges my phone like this cable here.
“Whenever I lose it, it’s devastating (also known as Bobby steals it for his iPad) I’ll never go back to any other cable. It doesn’t sponge, it just changes your life when you need your phone constantly and charged SO fast.
He added a link to Cygnett’s website.
Ms. Cachia did not make it clear that her post was a paid ad for tech accessory company Cygnett and even told her story that “it was not sponsored.” However, the Advertising Standards Community Panel ruled that it was in fact advertising, noting that Ms. Cachia is a Cygnett ambassador.
A member of the public later complained to Ad Standards: “Obviously, Sophie is getting paid to be a permanent ambassador for this product / brand and should clearly show that this is a paid post.”
In response to the watchdog, Cygnett acknowledged that he “has an agreement with Sophie Cachia regarding endorsement of paid markup on social media,” but said that this particular post was posted without “prior knowledge.” of the company.
Cygnett explained that the post was hung “outside.” [Ms Cachia’s] payment agreement “with the brand and” was not included in the content calendar, “nor was it” requested or supported in any way by Cygnett. “
A member of the public complained to Ad Standards: “Obviously, Sophie is being paid to be a permanent ambassador for this brand and should clearly show that this is a paid publication.” (Pictured: One of Ms. Cachia’s sponsored posts for Cygnett that was not the subject of a complaint)
Cygnett acknowledged his obligations to have all sponsored publications labeled as such and shifted the blame to his ambassador, adding, “If an influencer decides to publish without permission or knowledge of a brand, why the brand is is he responsible? “
The Advertising Standards Community Panel accepted the complaint, accepting that the publication was an advertisement, but that Ms. Cachia did not clearly distinguish it as such.
The Panel noted that her post had many badges of sponsored content that Ms. Cachia’s followers would easily recognize, including the link to Cygnett’s website, the positioning of the product in her hand, and the brilliant endorsement.
However, Ms Cachia created ambiguity by saying that “it was not sponsored” and therefore the Panel decided that “the publication could not be clearly distinguished as advertising”.
Cygnett said in his response to the panel that Ms Cachia (seen in Australian Survivor) shared the post without “prior approval” and that the brand should not be held responsible for her belongings.