Enzo visits the farm – how will that shape up?

Enzo Knol uploaded a vlog about Boerderij Chips on his Youtube account: Enzo drives to Boerderij Chips in his (pink) Lamborghini, helps loading potatoes, drives the tractor and loses his car keys in a pile of potatoes. Enzo follows the production process from potato to chips, finds back his car keys (although, spare keys), unboxes a box of "Boerderij chips" at home and metions www.boerderijchips.nl

A complaint was lodged with the Advertising Code Committee (RCC) which is upheld: under the Advertising Code Social Media & Influencer Marketing 2019 ('RSM'), it should have been clear that this was a paid collaboration. The defence that this would not be advertising does not hold: in the vlog, the brand Boederij Chips is often mentioned. This is simply advertising for Boerderij Chips. Second defence: there is no Relevant Relation (promoting advertisements on social media through by payment). But that doesn't hold either, an agreement shows that Enzo received compensation for his vlog regarding Boerderij Chips.

Thus, there is (i) advertising for Boerderij Chips and (ii) a Relevant Relation. In that case, advertising must be clearly recognisable as advertising. Article 3(b) RSM states: "If a Distributor receives compensation in cash or in kind from the Advertiser, this must be expressly stated in the expression." According to Enzo and Hoeksche Hoeve it was clear that Enzo had received a compensation: he got four boxes of chips for free, didn't he? The RCC reads Article 3(b) RSM more strictly: Enzo also received money for his vlog and that should have been mentioned explicitly.

I think the RCC explains the RSM too harshly. It follows from the text of Article 3(b) RSM that the expression must state that the expression was made in return for payment. In my opinion, the RSM does not obligate to disclose what that fee consists of. That would also not fit in the RSM system. According to article 3(c) RSM, the nature and content of the Relevant Relation is clearly recognizable if (at least) the suggestions accompanying the article are followed, including: "This video was made possible by [advertiser]". This disclosure also does not show exactly what the remuneration consists of, but it is sufficient according to the RSM.

Not entirely surprising Enzo now reports under his vlog "This video was made possible by Boerderijchips van Hoeksche Hoeve B.V.".

Daniel Haije