Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Advertisements in podcasts and other audio or visual streaming media are covered by the Non-broadcast Code (CAP Code), rather than the rules that apply to TV and radio ads (the BCAP Code). This means that when ads appear during audio or video podcasts, they are subject to the same rules as ads on social media and video-sharing services. Though there are differences between audio and visual media, the requirements in Section 2 (Recognition of marketing communications) apply to both and mean that ads need to be obviously identifiable and not confused with editorial content.
To ensure that they don't break the rules, podcast advertisers and publishers should ask the following questions before creating an ad:
When does something constitute an ‘ad’ in a podcast?
Whenever a brand gives a podcast publisher any kind of ‘payment’, whether in the form of money or payment-in-kind like free gifts or trips, any segments in the podcast that refer to the brand should make this clear, for example by making a prominent announcement (see If it’s not clear from context, what sort of label should be used? below). More advice on what counts as payment can be found here.
When a brand has editorial control over the content of a podcast segment, the CAP Code will also apply to this content.
If there is some form of payment but no editorial control over any part of the podcast, it is likely the CAP Code would not apply. However, it will still be subject to consumer protection law enforced by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and, in either case, ‘paid for’ content need to be obviously identifiable as advertising.
In many cases, the commercial nature of paid-for content might be obvious from its context. However, in other cases, for example when it is placed adjacent to editorial content and shares many common characteristics with it – social media, a newspaper or magazine – then additional steps are needed to ensure consumers recognize it as advertising. This is true within the medium of podcasting, where it is very common for the hosts of a show to also lend their voices to paid-for ads during breaks in the programming, and in these types of scenarios it is more likely a specific label or identifier will be required.
CAP’s Advertising Guidance on Disclosure of host-read ads in podcasts goes into more detail on this point.
Publishers and advertisers can have various types of relationships, not all of which are in the ASA’s remit. For example, a brand may sponsor a podcast without having any editorial control over what it contains. Where there’s no editorial control over references to a sponsor, this material is unlikely to be considered advertising by the ASA (See also ‘Recognising ads: Social media and influencer marketing’).
What types of ads can podcasts include?
If space is reserved for pre-recorded advertisements, and this space is sold to advertisers, this would be considered advertising that appears in ‘paid-for space’. If ads resemble the editorial part of the podcast, e.g. if they’re read out by the presenters, but a brand has paid for them and has some editorial control over the content, these ads would fit the ‘advertorial’ definition. And if the podcast publishers have entered an affiliate agreement with a brand so that, for example, the podcast contains an affiliate discount code, or refers to a product for which there is an affiliate link in accompanying text, this material is also likely to be considered advertising under the ‘affiliate’ definition.
Though there are differences between these types of advertising, they are all subject to the CAP Code, and all need to be obviously identifiable as ads.
Is it obvious from the context?
Podcasters and platforms may choose to place their ads in different parts of each episode, so the distinction between ‘editorial’ and advertising material may not always be obvious from the placement alone.
Obvious changes in sound effects, tone and subject matter, or the use of different voices, may all help consumers distinguish these commercial breaks from the rest of the podcast. However, the Code requires that ads should make it “obvious” that they’re ads, so it’s likely to breach the rules if consumers have to figure it out, or only find out in retrospect.
If it’s not clear from context, what sort of label should be used?
Code rule 2.3 requires that the “commercial intent” of ads should be clear to consumers. This means that it’s not enough for consumers to recognise that an ad is distinct from the main editorial segment of the podcast. It needs to be clear, specifically, that it is an ad.
Research undertaken and published by CAP in 2024 suggested that the most effective way to highlight which part of a podcast is an ad is to state this unambiguously, for example “this is a paid ad/advertisement for…” or “this is an ad for…” Other terms such as “sponsored by…” and “our sponsor is…” were also found to be appropriate indicators denoting advertising in a podcast. While these terms are more likely to comply than others, the ASA will always consider such issues on a case-by-case basis, and take into account context and presentation.
In 2022, the ASA ruled that a podcast ad for Huel was not obviously identifiable, because it was only differentiated from the editorial content by the sound of a page turning and the presenter stating “Quick one” at the start and “Back to the podcast” at the end. The ASA considered that the page-turning sound effect and the statement “Quick one” were not sufficient to make it obvious that it was a segue to advertising material (Huel Ltd, 10 August 2022).
Is the disclosure timely?
As in other media, the most reliable way of ensuring that an ad is obviously identifiable is with an explicit disclosure at the beginning, equivalent to the headers at the top of advertorials in print media, or labels placed at the start of influencer ads on social media.
Consumers shouldn’t find out in retrospect that they’re listening to an ad. This should be clear from the outset, so the disclosure (in whatever form it takes) should appear before an ad appears or as it starts, rather than half-way through or at the end.
Who is responsible for ensuring that ads are identifiable?
When assessing complaints about podcast advertising, the ASA is likely to hold the advertisers (i.e. the brand) and the creator of the podcast (i.e. the publishers) jointly responsible. Depending on the extent of their involvement, the podcast platform may also be considered partly responsible. If so, all of them would be named in ASA rulings that result from the investigation.
See also:
Advertising Guidance on disclosure of host-read ads in podcasts
Recognising ads: Advertisement features
Recognising ads: Social media and influencer marketing
Recognising ads: Brand-owned and paid social media
Recognition of advertising: online marketing to children under 12
Influencers’ guide to making clear that ads are ads