What do the rules say if someone posts about using their discount code to buy something, in this case dog treats, and then lists the code number?
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
That's an ad, you are promoting something or persuading someone to buy something with a personalised discount. It's an ad. Very simple.
My pet peeve is when influencers give a discount code like they're doing you a huge favour, and not because they get a bonus when you use it. Not really DLAM specific but I had to get it out there.
I thought so. There’s a dog expert called Anna Webb who postsstuff like that. She often posts pictures too of her dogs wearing new collars from different companies which I presume were gifted although she doesn’t say so. She’s a cohort of the Middle Aged Minx woman who is now signed to Gleam and in her own words is a big fan of the Saccone Jolys.
No #ad on her haircut and colour , unless it’s hidden and I’m being a dope.
Why does DLAM always have a gaping mouth?
ASA decided she broke the rules, no action other than a warning but still doesn't look good.
ASA Ruling on The Footwear & Accessories Collective Ltd t/a Dress Like A Mum (DLAM)
Ad description
An Instagram post from @dresslikeamum, seen on 28 February 2018, featured an image of two multi-coloured trainers and two lines of the caption stated “Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the ‘big feet / small feet’ chat a few posts back More…”. Once the caption was clicked on, additional text stated “some very interesting points, tips and issues raised And thanks to everyone who has joined the waiting list for these bad boys here are way more names on the list than shoes... (Link to waiting list on @dlam_by_zdp) (Shoes launch early May) #mumshoes #airandgrace #dlambyzdpxairandgrace #dlambyzdp #dresslikeamum”.
Issue
The complainant, who understood that the post advertised @dresslikeamum’s shoe range, challenged whether the ad was obviously identifiable as a marketing communication.
Response
Zoe de Pass stated that she had a licensing agreement with Air & Grace and designed and developed a shoe with them. The contract for their agreement did not set out a number of social deliverables; images of the shoes were posted by her own choice. Air & Grace did not have any creative input or control over the posts. Additionally in the particular post complained of, she had linked through to @dlam_by_zdp which was the merchandising page for all of her designs and the hashtags demonstrated that this was a shoe that she had designed with Air & Grace.
Air & Grace stated that they had a design collaboration with Zoe de Pass and the Instagram post referred to the latest range of products from the collaboration. They said that Zoe de Pass had suggested the hashtag in question and was used for all of their marketing activity in order to identify the collaboration. They said that the activity was part of a collaboration and was not an ad. They provided an unsigned copy of a draft licensing agreement which set out the arrangement between both parties in relation to a previous collaboration. They clarified that there was a design royalty associated with the collaboration but there was no editorial control from the brand throughout the process. They said that the first two lines of the post did not market the shoes because it was organic content created by Zoe de Pass with no editorial control from Air and Grace. They did not believe, therefore, that it required the use of #ad in the first two lines of the post.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA first assessed whether the post was a marketing communication and whether it fell within the remit of the CAP Code. Zoe de Pass had collaborated with Air and Grace to design a line of footwear, which was available to buy on their website. The post on Zoe de Pass’ Instagram page included an image of the products that were part of that collaboration. It also referenced a link to the waiting list which consumers could be added to in order to purchase them. Because the content of the post was promoting the shoe collaboration and thus directly connected to the supply of goods, we concluded the post was a marketing communication which fell within the ASA's remit.
We next considered whether the post was obviously identifiable as a marketing communication. We considered that consumers needed to be aware that they were viewing marketing content prior to any engagement with it, meaning that they should know that the post was an ad before clicking to view the full caption. When the post was displayed in a user’s feed on Instagram, the image of the shoes and the first two lines of the caption which stated “Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the ‘big feet / small feet’ chat a few posts back” was displayed. Consumers would have to click on the “more” button to see the full text caption. We considered that based on what the consumer could see prior to engagement with the post, it would not be sufficiently clear to those viewing the post that it was an ad for the shoe collaboration. We therefore concluded that the post was not obviously identifiable as a marketing communication.
Upheld
The ASA first assessed whether the post was a marketing communication and whether it fell within the remit of the CAP Code. Zoe de Pass had collaborated with Air and Grace to design a line of footwear, which was available to buy on their website. The post on Zoe de Pass’ Instagram page included an image of the products that were part of that collaboration. It also referenced a link to the waiting list which consumers could be added to in order to purchase them. Because the content of the post was promoting the shoe collaboration and thus directly connected to the supply of goods, we concluded the post was a marketing communication which fell within the ASA's remit.
We next considered whether the post was obviously identifiable as a marketing communication. We considered that consumers needed to be aware that they were viewing marketing content prior to any engagement with it, meaning that they should know that the post was an ad before clicking to view the full caption. When the post was displayed in a user’s feed on Instagram, the image of the shoes and the first two lines of the caption which stated “Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the ‘big feet / small feet’ chat a few posts back” was displayed. Consumers would have to click on the “more” button to see the full text caption. We considered that based on what the consumer could see prior to engagement with the post, it would not be sufficiently clear to those viewing the post that it was an ad for the shoe collaboration. We therefore concluded that the post was not obviously identifiable as a marketing communication.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 2.1 (Recognition of marketing communications).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Zoe de Pass to ensure that her ads were obviously identifiable as marketing communications prior to engagement.
www.asa.org.uk
ASA Ruling on The Footwear & Accessories Collective Ltd t/a Dress Like A Mum (DLAM)
Ad description
An Instagram post from @dresslikeamum, seen on 28 February 2018, featured an image of two multi-coloured trainers and two lines of the caption stated “Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the ‘big feet / small feet’ chat a few posts back More…”. Once the caption was clicked on, additional text stated “some very interesting points, tips and issues raised And thanks to everyone who has joined the waiting list for these bad boys here are way more names on the list than shoes... (Link to waiting list on @dlam_by_zdp) (Shoes launch early May) #mumshoes #airandgrace #dlambyzdpxairandgrace #dlambyzdp #dresslikeamum”.
Issue
The complainant, who understood that the post advertised @dresslikeamum’s shoe range, challenged whether the ad was obviously identifiable as a marketing communication.
Response
Zoe de Pass stated that she had a licensing agreement with Air & Grace and designed and developed a shoe with them. The contract for their agreement did not set out a number of social deliverables; images of the shoes were posted by her own choice. Air & Grace did not have any creative input or control over the posts. Additionally in the particular post complained of, she had linked through to @dlam_by_zdp which was the merchandising page for all of her designs and the hashtags demonstrated that this was a shoe that she had designed with Air & Grace.
Air & Grace stated that they had a design collaboration with Zoe de Pass and the Instagram post referred to the latest range of products from the collaboration. They said that Zoe de Pass had suggested the hashtag in question and was used for all of their marketing activity in order to identify the collaboration. They said that the activity was part of a collaboration and was not an ad. They provided an unsigned copy of a draft licensing agreement which set out the arrangement between both parties in relation to a previous collaboration. They clarified that there was a design royalty associated with the collaboration but there was no editorial control from the brand throughout the process. They said that the first two lines of the post did not market the shoes because it was organic content created by Zoe de Pass with no editorial control from Air and Grace. They did not believe, therefore, that it required the use of #ad in the first two lines of the post.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA first assessed whether the post was a marketing communication and whether it fell within the remit of the CAP Code. Zoe de Pass had collaborated with Air and Grace to design a line of footwear, which was available to buy on their website. The post on Zoe de Pass’ Instagram page included an image of the products that were part of that collaboration. It also referenced a link to the waiting list which consumers could be added to in order to purchase them. Because the content of the post was promoting the shoe collaboration and thus directly connected to the supply of goods, we concluded the post was a marketing communication which fell within the ASA's remit.
We next considered whether the post was obviously identifiable as a marketing communication. We considered that consumers needed to be aware that they were viewing marketing content prior to any engagement with it, meaning that they should know that the post was an ad before clicking to view the full caption. When the post was displayed in a user’s feed on Instagram, the image of the shoes and the first two lines of the caption which stated “Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the ‘big feet / small feet’ chat a few posts back” was displayed. Consumers would have to click on the “more” button to see the full text caption. We considered that based on what the consumer could see prior to engagement with the post, it would not be sufficiently clear to those viewing the post that it was an ad for the shoe collaboration. We therefore concluded that the post was not obviously identifiable as a marketing communication.
Upheld
The ASA first assessed whether the post was a marketing communication and whether it fell within the remit of the CAP Code. Zoe de Pass had collaborated with Air and Grace to design a line of footwear, which was available to buy on their website. The post on Zoe de Pass’ Instagram page included an image of the products that were part of that collaboration. It also referenced a link to the waiting list which consumers could be added to in order to purchase them. Because the content of the post was promoting the shoe collaboration and thus directly connected to the supply of goods, we concluded the post was a marketing communication which fell within the ASA's remit.
We next considered whether the post was obviously identifiable as a marketing communication. We considered that consumers needed to be aware that they were viewing marketing content prior to any engagement with it, meaning that they should know that the post was an ad before clicking to view the full caption. When the post was displayed in a user’s feed on Instagram, the image of the shoes and the first two lines of the caption which stated “Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the ‘big feet / small feet’ chat a few posts back” was displayed. Consumers would have to click on the “more” button to see the full text caption. We considered that based on what the consumer could see prior to engagement with the post, it would not be sufficiently clear to those viewing the post that it was an ad for the shoe collaboration. We therefore concluded that the post was not obviously identifiable as a marketing communication.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 2.1 (Recognition of marketing communications).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Zoe de Pass to ensure that her ads were obviously identifiable as marketing communications prior to engagement.
The Footwear & Accessories Collective Ltd
www.asa.org.uk
FinallyASA decided she broke the rules, no action other than a warning but still doesn't look good.
ASA Ruling on The Footwear & Accessories Collective Ltd t/a Dress Like A Mum (DLAM)
Ad description
An Instagram post from @dresslikeamum, seen on 28 February 2018, featured an image of two multi-coloured trainers and two lines of the caption stated “Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the ‘big feet / small feet’ chat a few posts back More…”. Once the caption was clicked on, additional text stated “some very interesting points, tips and issues raised And thanks to everyone who has joined the waiting list for these bad boys here are way more names on the list than shoes... (Link to waiting list on @dlam_by_zdp) (Shoes launch early May) #mumshoes #airandgrace #dlambyzdpxairandgrace #dlambyzdp #dresslikeamum”.
Issue
The complainant, who understood that the post advertised @dresslikeamum’s shoe range, challenged whether the ad was obviously identifiable as a marketing communication.
Response
Zoe de Pass stated that she had a licensing agreement with Air & Grace and designed and developed a shoe with them. The contract for their agreement did not set out a number of social deliverables; images of the shoes were posted by her own choice. Air & Grace did not have any creative input or control over the posts. Additionally in the particular post complained of, she had linked through to @dlam_by_zdp which was the merchandising page for all of her designs and the hashtags demonstrated that this was a shoe that she had designed with Air & Grace.
Air & Grace stated that they had a design collaboration with Zoe de Pass and the Instagram post referred to the latest range of products from the collaboration. They said that Zoe de Pass had suggested the hashtag in question and was used for all of their marketing activity in order to identify the collaboration. They said that the activity was part of a collaboration and was not an ad. They provided an unsigned copy of a draft licensing agreement which set out the arrangement between both parties in relation to a previous collaboration. They clarified that there was a design royalty associated with the collaboration but there was no editorial control from the brand throughout the process. They said that the first two lines of the post did not market the shoes because it was organic content created by Zoe de Pass with no editorial control from Air and Grace. They did not believe, therefore, that it required the use of #ad in the first two lines of the post.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA first assessed whether the post was a marketing communication and whether it fell within the remit of the CAP Code. Zoe de Pass had collaborated with Air and Grace to design a line of footwear, which was available to buy on their website. The post on Zoe de Pass’ Instagram page included an image of the products that were part of that collaboration. It also referenced a link to the waiting list which consumers could be added to in order to purchase them. Because the content of the post was promoting the shoe collaboration and thus directly connected to the supply of goods, we concluded the post was a marketing communication which fell within the ASA's remit.
We next considered whether the post was obviously identifiable as a marketing communication. We considered that consumers needed to be aware that they were viewing marketing content prior to any engagement with it, meaning that they should know that the post was an ad before clicking to view the full caption. When the post was displayed in a user’s feed on Instagram, the image of the shoes and the first two lines of the caption which stated “Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the ‘big feet / small feet’ chat a few posts back” was displayed. Consumers would have to click on the “more” button to see the full text caption. We considered that based on what the consumer could see prior to engagement with the post, it would not be sufficiently clear to those viewing the post that it was an ad for the shoe collaboration. We therefore concluded that the post was not obviously identifiable as a marketing communication.
Upheld
The ASA first assessed whether the post was a marketing communication and whether it fell within the remit of the CAP Code. Zoe de Pass had collaborated with Air and Grace to design a line of footwear, which was available to buy on their website. The post on Zoe de Pass’ Instagram page included an image of the products that were part of that collaboration. It also referenced a link to the waiting list which consumers could be added to in order to purchase them. Because the content of the post was promoting the shoe collaboration and thus directly connected to the supply of goods, we concluded the post was a marketing communication which fell within the ASA's remit.
We next considered whether the post was obviously identifiable as a marketing communication. We considered that consumers needed to be aware that they were viewing marketing content prior to any engagement with it, meaning that they should know that the post was an ad before clicking to view the full caption. When the post was displayed in a user’s feed on Instagram, the image of the shoes and the first two lines of the caption which stated “Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the ‘big feet / small feet’ chat a few posts back” was displayed. Consumers would have to click on the “more” button to see the full text caption. We considered that based on what the consumer could see prior to engagement with the post, it would not be sufficiently clear to those viewing the post that it was an ad for the shoe collaboration. We therefore concluded that the post was not obviously identifiable as a marketing communication.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 2.1 (Recognition of marketing communications).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Zoe de Pass to ensure that her ads were obviously identifiable as marketing communications prior to engagement.
The Footwear & Accessories Collective Ltd
Doesn’t she always tell her followers she always follows the rules too? Lol
Yep, countless times.Finally
The ASA are so toothless, I wish as well as a slapped wrist they forced them to post an apology or acknowledgement
It still must be quite humiliating for influencers who would like everyone, including their peers, to believe their Instagram account is an ‘organic snapshot of a privileged life’, rather than well paid, negotiated and contracted sales work.
So it’s well worthwhile to Report Like A Mum:
Comments in DLAM’s recent “let me tell you about me...” post.....
Also... are these people real??? Do they not realise they are being sold to?!.....
Also... are these people real??? Do they not realise they are being sold to?!.....
Last edited:
Omg, that arse licky first comment on that post DLAM ain’t ever gonna be your friend, unless you have something that you can #kindlygift to her. ‘Girl tribe’ indeed.
DLAM ain’t ever gonna be your friend, unless you have something that you can #kindlygift to her. ‘Girl tribe’ indeed.
I don’t actually follow this thread nor do I know anything about her. However, I can’t get to sleep so I’m just going through ASA rulings, as you do.... and I came across this and recognised her Instagram name from other threads. Apologies if this is something previously mentioned, as I said, I don’t follow the thread 
..there is a lot more information on the site + the claim against her was upheld
..there is a lot more information on the site + the claim against her was upheldAttachments
My mum used to wear a similar pink boiler suit in the 80’s, should have got her to keep it! 
Boiler suit, blunt edgy fringe, chunky loafers, pseudo posh Surrey accent.......social media influencer clones starter packMy mum used to wear a similar pink boiler suit in the 80’s, should have got her to keep it!
it’s about time the influencer culture imploded.First time poster, but I couldn't believe it when this popped up in my news feed today. I'm glad there are a few comments explaining to Zoe that parents who rely on foodbanks can't dress / feed their kids "with good vibes" only, as she clearly missed the memo that election results do matter!
Attachments
Wow tone death much?? What an absolute cretin she is
She must have deleted those comments as I can't see anything like that.
Yep, and she's edited her caption. god she's awful. she shouldn't write anything, just stick to pictures of the spangly dressing up box clothes and the white middle class QVC shilling if she must.
Good comment just up from noandroblog though.
Good comment just up from noandroblog though.