Matthew Davies-Binge (Food Review Club) describes himself as the “ Top Food Review of the United Kingdom ” with about a million followers
A food critic that shares online videos by itself the sampling of food in various places and restaurants, some of which here in Bristol, aroused indignation in Cornwall after having published criticism without disclosing if it was paid to do them.
Matthew Davies-Binge, the “Top Food Review” self-proclaimed from the United Kingdom, as a food review club, was accused of having flouted advertising laws and not declaring in his publications on social networks, whether or not to receive free food or to be paid up to four figures to make “deceptive” criticism.
Residents of Bristol can recognize it, as among the places he visited to examine in the city in the past are low and slow tastes, The Jolly Hog, Ouwee Diner and the recently open Gurt wings.
However, Cornwalllive reports that the 38 -year -old man visited a number of popular places in Cornwall, including Herd and Thomas Daniell in Truro, and Cluck N Chuck in St Austell.
In his report, Cornwalllive revealed that the reviewer, who goes through Matt, was reported to the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA), who confirmed to journalists that, according to his framework and what is known as CAP, a set of rules in the United Kingdom which regulates non-Brroadcast advertising, sales promotions and that you must share on them.
The food revision club, managed by Zodiac Global, a talent management agency based in Dubai and London, is also required to declare a position is an advertisement if it shares on its own product.
Matt, also the founder of his own brand of sauce which he promotes regularly, did not reveal if one of his visits to Cornwall had been paid for advertisements.
The report continues by saying that his management company had sent an email to Cornwall companies throughout his stay, offering his paid services for £ 750 and £ 1,250 (reduced from a standard rate of £ 1,500, he said) in email seen by Cornwalllive. Those who refused the offer did not have a visit.
This led to indignation with a business owner accusing him of being “dishonest” and “bogus”.
Lisa Bennett, 45, who directs Mega Shakes – the alternative dessert store in Truro, said he was in the Tiktok region, where he closes on a million followers and attractive recommendations to the place to visit.
He didn’t say anything about advertisements, so she suggested that he visit his dessert shop in the region.
She was shocked to receive an email from her management saying that a visit would cost her £ 750, a apparently reduced rate since Matt was in the region and refused it. Others reported offers in advance in the area of £ 1,250.
“It is the pure arrogance of his arrival and acting as if he was just a member of the public,” she said. “He makes heard that he visits these places on his back as a surprise and does not make money, but that is not the case.”
A first email sent to Lisa de Zodiac Global said that he could offer “highly reduced prices” of £ 750 more VAT for “filming” with shared content on Instagram, Tiktok and Facebook.
When she refused the offer, the company followed a few days later to ask her if she had changed her mind.
E-mail also explained that normal costs are £ 1,500 more VAT, but said “as Matt is in the region”, he made the discount possible. He also declared that the costs were “to help cover Matt travel costs, publishing costs, etc.”.
“It seems that there is a huge injustice and it is an appropriate insult,” she said. “I think the guy is a false false and it is a quote from me that does not swear.
“It’s so misleading and if it is paid, it should be disclosed. The advertisements paid are good and the promotions are great, but this guy makes him if falsified.”
She said that she had nothing against the companies who pay for advertising, but she thinks that customers should be careful with regard to influencers to promote food companies and know that there could be a financial incentive behind their positive criticisms.
“You should be able to know what you are going in and this guy just doesn’t suit me.”
Loey Buikool, owner of Wing Yard in Prow Park in Newquay, also spoke out against the feeder of the power supply.
She said her first experience with him was last year during his first visit to Cornwall when she had a chance to visit her business for about £ 1,200.
She did not go forward and tried to highlight her publications on social networks for which visits have been paid since, but have been blocked by the food revision club.
“I didn’t say anything wrong and many people he will see are my friends and other business owners and it’s nothing against them,” she said.
She added that she was initially ready to go ahead with an exam but did not think it was well morally and could not go ahead.
“It is simply difficult to see and I continue to comment on things, a little bitter, just say that these are paid advertisements. I could not morally do it because I knew it would not be real and it did not suit me.”
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), a government regulator, declares that if you induce clients induced by hidden advertisements, you may be in violation of the Consumer Protection Act.
He says: “If you have been encouraged in any way whatsoever to promote a brand or a product in your content on social networks, for example in photos, including carousels, videos, coils or stories, podcasts or other online articles, it is important that all this content is clearly identifiable as an ad (or advertising).”
This includes where someone was paid to publish content, received a gift or published content on their own business. This can also mean that they could break the rules of industry on advertising.
None of the ten messages from the food revision club concerning its time in Cornwall mentioned in the legend of the post or the content itself on the content paid in any way.
At least one of the companies visited has published a video in advance to confirm that it was a pre-Planified visit, but did not explain if it had been paid.
An ASA spokesperson, a non-statutory organization that cannot apply the legislation, confirmed that it had previously received four complaints concerning the food examination club, all concerning advertising disclosure.
He told Cornwalllive: “One of these cases was closed because the complaint was outside our trial.
“The other three were closed without an additional investigation (which means that we evaluated an ad and decided that there was no case to investigate it further) because we evaluated them in relation to our priority principles and made the decision that they were not a priority for us to examine at the time.”
The principles of hierarchy include the consideration of the damage or damage that took place or may arise, the balance of the risk of acting in relation to the inaction, the probable impact of the intervention and the resource proportionate to the problem to be resolved.
The spokesperson also explained that if a brand gives an influencer an or any other incentive (requested or not requested), or if an influencer is connected personally or commercially to the brand, any content presenting or referring to the brand is an advertisement and must obviously be identifiable as advertising.
ASA has also recently spoken to the BBC problems related to food influencers and the disclosure of advertising. Ed Senior, director of compliance with Advertising Standards Agency, told BBC News or that it was “exceptionally important” that when something was advertising, he is disclosed as such.
“For us, this is why it is exceptionally important that, in fact, during advertising, it is absolutely clear that this is disclosed as such,” he said.
He explained that if a brand asks a designer to make content and pays them with money or with a free or reduced price, he must be classified as advertising. He said that once something is disclosed as advertising, he must also respect certain regulations, especially if it is “exact and just”.
The CMA also declares: “The hidden announcements are illegal and harmful because they can persuade people to buy things that they generally could not buy if they knew that the content was not an opinion, a review or an undeveloped recommendation.”
The food revision club and Zodiac Global did not respond to Cornwalllive comments.
