What This Means in Plain English
Commercial pressure and editorial independence have always been in tension. The problem is not that publications take commercial revenue — without it, most journalism would not exist. The problem arises when commercial relationships influence what is published, how it is framed, or whether critical coverage appears at all, without readers being told.
An advertorial is perfectly ethical — provided it is clearly labelled so readers can adjust their trust accordingly. Undisclosed sponsored content is a different matter: it misleads readers into treating paid-for material as independent editorial, which is both an ethical breach and potentially unlawful under ASA CAP Code rules and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
The same principle applies to less obvious commercial arrangements: press trips, affiliate links, gifted products, and “brand content studio” partnerships. Each is potentially legitimate; each requires transparent disclosure.
When This Matters Most
Native advertising online
Content designed to look like editorial but paid for by a brand. Must be clearly labelled before the reader clicks.
Print advertorials
Long-established in UK press. Must carry a clear "advertisement" or "advertorial" label, not easily confused with the editorial design.
Press trips
Travel, food, and lifestyle journalism often relies on sponsored travel. Disclosure in resulting coverage is both ethical and legally required.
Affiliate links in reviews
Product reviews that contain commission-earning links must disclose this. The ASA has pursued enforcement against undisclosed affiliate arrangements.
Brand content studios
Publications like the Guardian (Guardian Labs) operate separate commercial content operations. Work produced there must not appear to be independent editorial.
Influencer marketing crossover
Journalists who also operate personal social media followings may be subject to influencer marketing rules even when their publication has editorial independence.
Red Flags
- !Content paid for by a brand carries no visible label distinguishing it from editorial
- !The commercial team has approved or reviewed an editorial story before publication
- !A journalist has accepted a press trip on condition of positive coverage
- !Affiliate links appear in product recommendations with no disclosure in the text or a clearly visible header
- !The publication has guaranteed the advertiser a minimum number of editorial mentions
- !A "review" is written about a product supplied free but this is not disclosed
- !Social posts about a product are not labelled #ad or #spon despite payment in kind
- !An editorial story repeats advertising claims verbatim without independent verification
- !A negative story about an advertiser is spiked under commercial pressure
- !A "sponsored" label is placed at the foot of a long piece, after the reader has consumed the content
Pre-Publication Checklist
- Is this content wholly commercially funded? If so, is it clearly labelled as "Advertisement", "Advertorial", "Sponsored content" or "In partnership with [Brand]" before the reader engages with it?
- Has the brand reviewed or approved any editorial text? If yes, the piece is commercial content regardless of how it is labelled.
- Does the piece contain affiliate links? Have you added a clearly visible disclosure at the top of the content?
- Was travel, accommodation, or hospitality provided by the subject of coverage? If so, is this disclosed?
- Were any products reviewed provided free of charge? Is this disclosed?
- Has any commercial agreement affected the framing, angle or conclusions of this story?
- Does the visual design of commercial content clearly distinguish it from editorial pages on the same site?
- If publishing social media posts about a commercial relationship, have you used #ad or equivalent as required by ASA guidance?
- Have you checked whether your publication has a declared gifts and hospitality policy that applies here?
- Is the editorial firewall intact: has the commercial team had no influence over what is written?
Disclosing AI or commercial involvement in content
If your sponsored content involves AI-generated material, our AI Disclosure Checklist helps you decide whether and how to disclose this alongside your commercial content label — meeting both ASA and emerging editorial standards.
Open AI Disclosure Checklist →Common Mistakes
- ›"In association with" is not a sufficient disclosure label under ASA CAP rules — it is ambiguous about whether money changed hands.
- ›Placing a disclosure label at the bottom of long content does not comply with ASA requirements; it must appear before the reader engages.
- ›Press-trip disclosure is required in print as well as online — "the journalist travelled as a guest of X" is standard.
- ›Affiliate commissions are a commercial relationship even if they are small — there is no de minimis threshold.
- ›Journalists who accept hospitality and then write nothing about it are not off the hook ethically — the potential conflict still existed and should be documented.
- ›Brand content studio work is subject to the NUJ Code even if produced outside the main newsroom.
- ›CMA guidance on endorsements covers journalists with large social followings in exactly the same way as "influencers" — the professional label does not create an exemption.
Related Guides
Primary Sources
- NUJ Code of Conduct (Clauses 9 & 10 — No commercial endorsements; No bribes)
- IPSO Editors' Code — Editorial Responsibility provisions
- ASA CAP Code (Non-Broadcast) — Identification of advertising
- ASA Guidance — Affiliate Marketing Disclosure
- CMA Guidance on Endorsements and Social Media
- IMPRESS Standards Code