Justine Ezarik, more commonly known as iJustine on the Internet, has over 2.3 million subscribers on YouTube. As is the case with the majority of YouTubers, her viewers fall within the 13-18 age range. One of her latest videos, titled ‘STAR WARS COFFEE-MATE BLINDFOLD TASTE TEST!’ sees her sitting in front of a range of limited edition Star Wars branded Coffee-Mate drinks, with her telling her viewers that she had to go to several different stores to get her hands on them due to people being “so freaking excited” that they were all “sold out.” The video essentially plays out as a 5-minute advertisement for the products, though Justine never explicitly tells her viewers that this is the case. In fact, she does the complete opposite – she explains how, if her fans hadn’t tweeted her about the coffee drinks, she wouldn’t have even known that they existed.
But the description beneath the video tells a different tale. It reads: “Go out and collect all 5 and let me know your favorite using #starwars, #epicbottles, @Coffee_Mate & @iJustine!” Tucked away at the very bottom of said description is the only clarification that the video was an ad: “This video was made in collaboration with CoffeeMate. It’s seriously sooooo good!” It can be assumed that if Justine isn’t actively lying to her viewers, then it’s one tremendous coincidence that she was approached by Coffee-Mate in order to produce a sponsored video after having only just learned of their products’ existence.
The Internet is, of course, powered by ads. Websites typically seek much of their funding through the placement of banner ads, with companies cutting deals with account executives in order to have their product emblazoned on the homepage. Outlets run sponsored posts paid for by companies, though they’re legally obliged to be transparent in regards to the company they’re working in partnership with in the post itself. However, the ads posted by YouTubers in their videos occupy murky territory. For instance, Justine’s video does feature the aforementioned reference to her collaboration with Coffee-Mate, though the actual content of the video is anything but forthright with its intention. It’s deliberately vague, and not only does it advertise the product, but the video sees Justine encouraging her viewers to go out and find bottles of the Star Wars Coffee-Mate, take photos of them and tweet them to her with the accompanying hashtag “#EpicBottles.”
iJustine isn’t the only YouTuber guilty of doing this, though. In 2014, the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) made a landmark ruling when it judged that a campaign that saw YouTubers taking part in a series of videos promoting Oreos had been in breach of the region’s Advertising Code. The campaign, which saw British YouTubers such as AmazingPhil and TomSka taking part in the “Oreo Lick Race,” actually featured the YouTubers referencing how the videos had been sponsored by Oreos in the videos themselves. However, the ASA ruled that the videos had been created in the style of the YouTubers’ regular content, and that their admissions that the campaign was sponsored was not sufficient enough to make it distinguishable from their typical output.
Also See: Meet the YouTube “Prank Artists” Who are Making a Living by Being Awful People
This distinction is important – YouTubers gain their popularity by building a relationship with their audience, cultivating their following using their own personality (or at least a version of it that their viewers see online). The reason why this appeals to advertisers is also the reason why we should seriously reconsider just how freely YouTubers are allowed to deliver sponsored posts, as companies are utilizing them due to their viewers liking and trusting them. This can therefore be viewed as YouTubers taking advantage of their young audience, effectively tricking them into becoming interested in a product by way of them being likable public figures.
But all advertising is basically trickery, right? Well, yeah. You’ll regularly see celebrities advertising various fragrances and the like, and you’d be right to be suspicious of whether or not they’ve actually even tried out what it is they’re shilling. A prime example of this would be the 2014 Audi commercial starring Ricky Gervais, with the comedian admitting prior to the airing of the ad that he doesn’t even know how to drive. Ads exist in their own fictional bubble, intended to pique the interest of their audience despite us knowing full well that they naturally exaggerate and, in many cases, mislead us in regards to what it is they’re selling.
The UK made a landmark ruling in regards to vloggers and advertising after a controversial Oreo campaign on YouTube.
However, we’re always aware that what we’re viewing is an ad. We see the banners on the top of websites advertising a blu-ray or a video game, and know that the contents of the ad aren’t necessarily representative of the opinions of the outlet hosting it. We see Johnny Depp strumming a guitar in that awful Dior Sauvage commercial, but we know that he has been paid to represent the company. Many YouTubers offer no such distinction, instead inserting sponsored videos in the middle of their regular posting schedule with no clear differentiation between their usual videos outside of a throwaway comment or two in the description box.
While the UK published official advertising guidance for vloggers following the Oreo debacle, YouTube as a platform has done little to ensure that its audience isn’t being misled by promotional deals orchestrated by its content creators. YouTube states that it doesn’t want this to be the case on its support page, though essentially leaves it up to its users to check their local advertising guidelines, which inevitably means that many promotional videos that openly mislead viewers such as iJustine’s Coffee-Mate video continue to fall through the cracks.
Addressing whether or not YouTubers need to notify anyone else (i.e. their viewers) of any commercial relationships connected to their videos, YouTube’s official response is “maybe.” The company continues: Different jurisdictions have various requirements for creators and marketers involved in paid product placements and endorsements. For example, paid product placement may not be allowed in certain types of content or may not be allowed for certain types of products or services. Where your content does include paid product placements or endorsements we don’t want viewers to feel misled and that means being upfront and honest about any commercial relationship that might have influenced or contributed to your content – be that editorially or financially. So, be sure to check your local rules and use our tools to help you comply with your legal and regulatory requirements.”
Outside of the UK ASA’s 2014 ruling, the only major backlash against YouTubers’ advertising practices was made against the gaming network Machinima, when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) discovered that they had paid their video creators up to $30,000 to say positive things about Microsoft’s Xbox One, with each YouTuber who had agreed to this being asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement in which they were informed that they weren’t allowed to say anything negative about the console, and that they were also prohibited from discussing the deal. Jessica Rich, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, criticized this deal, saying: “When people see a product touted online, they have a right to know whether they’re looking at an authentic opinion or a paid marketing pitch. That’s true whether the endorsement appears in a video or any other media.”
But the Machinima controversy was a very clear-cut example of false advertising, whereas many other YouTubers continue to walk a tightrope across the line of decency when it comes to sponsored videos, with YouTube itself arguably not doing enough to prevent this from happening. While the site is well-known for giving the go-ahead to unjustified copyright strikes against its video creators in order to protect its own back from the draconian business practices of other companies, when it comes to protecting their own audience from misleading ads, they essentially give their creators free reign to do as they please and allow YouTubers to decide what they believe is/isn’t acceptable.
With so many of those among YouTube’s audience being young and therefore highly impressionable when it comes to advertising, there should be a stricter eye watching over YouTubers to ensure that they’re not taking advantage of their fanbase. Unfortunately, that’s not the case, and YouTubers such as iJustine are freely allowed to force brands and products down their viewers’ throats with few hurdles in their way.
