Social media has created new channels through which retailers can, intentionally or not, reach younger audiences. The ASA's monitoring capabilities have expanded - not least using AI at scale to target advertising it considers has the potential to be harmful. A social media ban for under 16s may be on the horizon but in the meantime advertisers need to ensure advertising is targeted appropriately online.

Children: Harmful online content

Labelled 'digital natives', Ofcom data shows that children today are getting in front of screens younger than ever. Children aged 8–14 spend an average of one day a week online and this rises to two days a week for 15 to 17-year-olds. With more significant portions of our life taking place on screen, there is no indication these figures will be slowing down.

Something recently making headlines is concern around 'Cosmetorexia'; the unhealthy obsession with achieving 'flawless', leading to obsessive use of cosmetic products and adopting habits such as multi-step skin care routines particularly amongst young people. This is exacerbated by using young influencers whose content brings knowledge and new product recommendations to a younger audience. 

Regulators around the world are starting to react. In Italy, concern around children’s use of beauty products has already prompted the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) to examine whether some brands:

1. failed to make it clear that their products are not intended for children, and
2. encourage the purchase of cosmetics through "covert marketing strategies involving young micro-influencers".

In the UK, there are no specific laws or advertising rules around encouraging children to purchase cosmetics. However the Ad Codes have clear rules on advertising to children generally which need to be taken into account when creating any kind of marketing communications. 

CAP Code rules on advertising to children

Rule 5 of the CAP Code sets out a series of rules on marketing communications targeted to/featuring children, such ads must not: 

• Contain anything that is likely to result in a child’s physical, mental or moral harm.
• Children must not be encouraged to copy practices that might be unsafe for a child.

Ads which are targeted at children must not:

• Exploit children’s credulity, loyalty, vulnerability or lack of experience.
• Make children feel inferior or unpopular for not buying the advertised product.
• Exaggerate what is attainable by an ordinary child using the product being marketed.
• Must not include a direct appeal to children to buy an advertised product or persuade adults to buy an advertised product for them.

As you would expect, most businesses take care to ensure that these rules are not breached, but occasionally advertisers fall foul of the rules. An ad featuring two girls hanging upside down from a football goal post chatting, followed by one of them eating the advertised product whilst upside down was found to breach the CAP Code because it appeared to encourage and condone younger children eating whilst hanging upside down, which was an unsafe practice with a potentially a high risk of choking.

Similarly, promoting cosmetics to children may be considered harmful if those products are designed for adult skin. The presentation of a product intended for children could be challenged on the basis of exploiting children’s insecurities and vulnerabilities in a digital environment that is all about appearance optimisation and promoting a perfect image. 

Irresponsible behaviour and social responsibility

Rule 1.3 of the CAP Code provides that marketing communications should be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and society. This is a rule with the potential to be interpreted broadly interpretation so it’s always worth considering the wider societal impact of an approach. 

The ASA has upheld complaints about social responsibility against a range of different marketing communications such as an ad promoting a youthful body image and focused on reversing the natural aging process. The ASA considered that the ad exploited consumers’ insecurities (particularly older women/those anxious about getting older) by encouraging them to focus on concerns about their bodies as a reason for cosmetic surgery.

It is not difficult to see how similar reasoning could apply to marketing that exploits the vulnerabilities of younger viewers. Especially as the ASA has taken a broad approach on these issues; for example its ruling against a social media app. The ASA considered that Popjam’s ad encouraged users to "get likes and followers to level up" which could be detrimental to children's mental health and affect their self-esteem, and was therefore socially irresponsible. The ASA's particular concern was that the ad could cause children to develop an unhealthy perception that popularity on social media was inherently valuable which was likely to be detrimental to their mental health and self-esteem. 

Unfair commercial practices under the DMCCA

The DMCCA considers children 'vulnerable consumers' and requires businesses to assess whether marketing (or a commercial practice more broadly) targets or disproportionately impacts a vulnerable group. This will be taken into account when deciding if a business is engaging in an unfair commercial practice (UCP) by misleading consumers. UCPs include misleading actions which include presenting factually correct information in a way that deceives the average consumer. 

In the context of cosmetics marketing, this is particularly relevant: claims which would be factually when targeted at adults may be considered deceptive, if targeted at a younger audience i.e., where it leads children whose skin may not be suited for all ingredients to believe that these are cosmetic products they need to maintain healthy skin.

Also relevant here are the DMCCA’s 'banned practices', in particular banned practice no. 30: Including in an advertisement a direct appeal to children to buy advertised products or persuade their parents or other adults to buy advertised products for them.

Previous ASA rulings under the CAP Code which reflects this banned practice, indicate that the threshold to finding a marketing communication constitutes a direct appeal to children is quite low. 

The ASA has upheld complaints about a mobile game that instructed users to “Join now for Exclusive Member Benefits” phrased as a command. The ASA considered this wording, alongside phrases insinuating that players’ membership is needed and that they would miss out on becoming popular if membership was not obtained, put pressure on young players to purchase the subscription. 

While marketing cosmetics generally might not include a direct appeal to children, it is not difficult to see how marketing cosmetics through specific channels, e.g. young influencers, may be interpreted as directly appealing to children to buy the product. 

How to get it right

When assessing what could be considered harmful to children, it’s worth thinking about the wider themes that arise with respect to online content which could be inappropriate for children. In the context of cosmetics, some questions to ask are:

• Is the proposed marketing promoting the idea of a 'perfect image'? 
• Is there a risk content is promoting obsessive behaviour or taking advantage of insecurities?
• Is your influencer choice right in terms of targeting an appropriate audience?

The good news is that companies have more control than they think. Although platforms and the algorithms they run on dictate a lot of what is fed to an online audience, companies can take active decisions to ensure that their ads do not contain harmful or exploitative messaging and are targeted at the intended audience.