Anyone who expected a culturally pessimistic, nosy verdict on the agile self-marketers on Instagram from Karlsruhe should be pleasantly surprised. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) leaves The influencers, who recommend fashion and make-up on their channels in a private, conversational tone, have a lot of freedom. They are allowed to show what they think is great, they are allowed to name brand names without showing a thick “caution advertising” bar – as long as they are not paid for it. This will be about Cathy Hummels and Leonie Hanne, who defended their concept at the BGH, can live.
Influencer marketing is a comparatively new phenomenon that is primarily intended to reach those who no longer watch TV or leaf through magazines. It is correct that the BGH advocates a generous line here. At least as important, however, is that it has drawn a few borders. Anyone who gets paid to advertise products must also communicate this. Paid advertising is just paid advertising.
The relationship with the followers is very intense
Anyone who considers such labeling requirements to be old-fashioned, because the user of the 21st century has long known that these channels are also used for advertising, fails to recognize the peculiarities of influencers. It’s just not about the commercials from the old days of TV that you could switch off. Influencers, who also exist, talk about their lives, about what moves them. As communication science puts it, they enter into an intensive social relationship with their followers. And as if by the way, they hold a handbag or a sports shirt in front of the camera. The apparently so confidential treatment of the followers is artfully mixed with commercial purposes. That is not objectionable. But if the spontaneous recommendation is in truth paid advertising, then this must be explicitly disclosed – otherwise commerce and privacy become blurred. Because the BGH leaves no doubt about one point: The operation of an influencer channel, however cheerful it may appear, is a “business act”.