Huel's Podcast Ad Ban Is a Cautionary Tale About Host-Read Promotions

You know the drill. You're listening to your favorite podcast and a transition sound chimes before the host takes a deep breath and starts speaking about a product or service in a slightly different tone, marking the start of an ad. Host-read podcast ads are on the rise. According to Nielsen this more organic approach pays off for brands and creators, producing an average of 50% increase in purchase and recommendation intent among listeners when compared against non-host-read ads. However, meal replacement brand Huel has discovered the hard way that these need to be clearly signposted for listeners. The brand has just been cautioned by the U.K.'s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for a promotion that appeared in a recent episode of the Diary of a CEO podcast Steven Bartlett, known for founding agency Social Chain and appearing as a judge on reality TV show Dragon's Den. The commercial appeared in a March episode of the show titled World’s Leading Psychologist: How To Detach From Overthinking and Anxiety: Dr Julie Smith E122. The show was sponsored by Huel, but there was no mention of this in the audio, only at the bottom of the corresponding description. Around 30 minutes in a sound effect of a page being turned was played, before Bartlett started talking at length about the brand's shakes. The entrepreneur, who invested $24 million in Huel back in 2018, discussed the various flavors available, saying he was "hooked" and implored listeners to "check it out." The podcast also included a link in the description that allowed consumers to purchase products directly from the company's website. Huel told the ASA that it took its responsibilities under the CAP Code very seriously and—according to the watchdog—"believed the podcast did not include an ad because they had no editorial control over its content". Bartlett told the watchdog that, while Huel sponsored the podcast it had no editorial control, saying he believed the ad was compliant with regulations because the it differed tonally from the editorial. He said he started the segment with a sound and the phrase "quick one," then ended it with "back to the podcast," which he felt made this clear. Elsewhere, Huel said that, despite its financial agreement with Bartlett, the host received no benefits via affiliate links. Following one complaint from the public—and an investigation from the ASA—the podcast in its original form has been banned. "We considered that it should be obvious that any advertising feature was an ad and that information was delivered in a timely fashion," said the regulator. The section has since been updated to better reflect Huel's sponsorship, while the partnership is also now flagged at the start of the show's text description. Editorial distinction With eMarketer and Insider Intelligence expecting podcast listeners to hit 42.2 million in 2022 and grow to 504 million by 2024, it's little wonder brands are turning to the trust and community cultivated by hosts to drive sales. From direct-to-consumer businesses, including Hello Fresh, food startups like Oatly and global media giants such as Disney, advertisers are now weaving themselves into the editorial fabric of podcasts with ease. As brands fine-tune their audio strategies, networks are launching their own propositions to scale this intimate form of branded content. In March, Headgum launched Gumball, a self-serve marketplace that lets podcasters and marketers buy and sell host-read advertisements, streamlining an often weeks-long process of back-and-forth communication. Spotify Revolutionized Podcasting. Can It Do the Same for Podcast Ads? However, the U.K. watchdog ruling shows the regulatory perils that can befall brands and creators that fail to disclose commercial relationships in an audio setting. In the U.S. too, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently issued its own warning to brands, media owners and podcasters who "deceive" consumers with endorsements that blur the lines between commercial and editorial. Those who break the rules face a steep fine of $43,792 per violation. “Fake reviews and other forms of deceptive endorsements cheat consumers and undercut honest businesses,” said Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, in a statement at the time. “Advertisers will pay a price if they engage in these deceptive practices." How Agencies Pick the Perfect Song for Their Ads