Online advertisements for Huel and Zoe have been prohibited due to “misleading” endorsements by entrepreneur Steven Bartlett.
- The Advertising Standards Authority found the ads omitted crucial information about Bartlett’s roles with the brands.
- Bartlett, linked financially as an investor in Zoe and a director at Huel, influenced consumer perceptions.
- Ads presented Bartlett’s endorsements without revealing his vested interests, leading to misleading impressions.
- Affected ads included Facebook promotions in February and March that are now barred from reappearing.
Online advertisements for the nutrition brands Huel and Zoe have been banned following endorsements by the well-known entrepreneur, Steven Bartlett. These prohibitions were initiated by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which pointed out that the ads failed to disclose Bartlett’s financial ties to the companies in question, specifically his roles as an investor in Zoe and a director at Huel.
The ASA’s scrutiny came in response to a series of Facebook promotions that aired in February and March, where Bartlett praised the brand’s products. One particular Huel advertisement depicted their Daily Green drink accompanied by Bartlett’s quote, ‘This is Huel’s best product,’ and further invited consumers to contemplate, ‘Ever wondered what Steven Bartlett actually thinks of Huel’s Daily Greens? Well there you have it…’
Huel argued that consumers generally understand celebrity endorsements to occur within a commercial framework. However, the ASA noted that Bartlett’s executive position significantly influenced consumer interpretation of the adverts. They deemed that omitting Bartlett’s directorship was a failure to provide consumers with essential information necessary for making informed purchasing decisions.
Similarly, a Zoe advertisement featured Bartlett recommending their products, stating, ‘If you haven’t tried Zoe yet, give it a shot. It might just change your life.’ Despite Zoe’s defence that consumers recognise the commercial context of such endorsements, the regulator found that excluding Bartlett’s investment role misled consumers into perceiving his endorsement as unbiased.
The ASA concluded that many consumers would not be aware of Bartlett’s commercial interest in Huel and Zoe based solely on the advertisements, misleading them to believe his endorsements were impartial. Consequently, the regulatory body ruled that one Zoe advertisement and two Huel advertisements were misleading and should consequently be removed. A spokesperson from Zoe acknowledged the ASA’s decision, expressing respect for its role in promoting transparency and extending a willingness to engage in further dialogue on the matter.
The ASA’s action underscores the importance of transparency in advertising, particularly concerning celebrity endorsements with undisclosed financial interests.
