ASCI Disclosure Guide for Paid Creator Clips in India

ASCI’s influencer guidelines use material connection as a key disclosure criterion. The connection can involve benefits beyond a direct cash payment. A clipper or publisher should therefore assess the actual campaign relationship, not assume that a performance reward or gifted product makes the post ordinary editorial content.

Ask the campaign owner to identify the relationship and the responsible approver before the first draft. Keep that decision in the brief. This article explains an editorial review workflow and links to the primary guidance; it does not replace a campaign-specific legal or compliance assessment. Sensitive categories and unusual formats should be routed to the person qualified to review them.

Source: ASCI: current code and influencer guidelines

The current ASCI code lists labels such as Ad, Sponsored and Affiliate and calls for a prominent, understandable disclosure. It should not be hidden among unrelated hashtags or depend on expanding the post. Check the current guideline and tool for the actual relationship and format rather than treating every suggested label as interchangeable.

In production, make the label part of the layout. It should remain readable at phone size and contrast with the scene. Avoid placing it beneath platform controls or hiding it in a rapidly moving graphic. A fluent language reviewer can check whether the audience will understand the wording. Keep disclosure clarity separate from the creative hook so the hook does not obscure the relationship.

Source: ASCI: current code and influencer guidelines

ASCI’s current code specifies disclosure timing for particular video formats: at least three seconds for videos up to 15 seconds, one-third of the duration for videos over 15 seconds and under two minutes, and the promoted section for videos of two minutes or longer. Read the surrounding guidance for the exact application, including caption and format context.

Calculate timing from the final export, not an earlier draft. A clip that changes length can need a new review. For an illustrative 45-second cut in the applicable category, one-third is 15 seconds; this is arithmetic demonstrating the rule, not approval of a particular post. Inspect the whole composition and the accompanying caption before publication.

Source: ASCI: current code and influencer guidelines

The platform’s branded-content or paid-promotion process is another part of the review. YouTube’s current help page describes its paid-promotion setting for commercial relationships. Check the current destination requirements and do not assume a platform label resolves every applicable local disclosure obligation.

Assign someone to confirm the setting on the actual published post when publication is included in the brief. An approved video file may still be posted with the wrong caption or without a required platform setting. Store the final link and review note. If a participant republishes to another platform, apply that destination’s current process rather than copying the original approval blindly.

Source: YouTube: paid promotions

A visible disclosure tells viewers about the relationship; it does not make an unsupported claim acceptable. Review product capabilities, prices, deadlines, testimonials and any health or financial statements against the approved source and evidence. Preserve limitations in the edit and caption.

For a hypothetical coaching clip, a true anecdote about one student should not become a promise that every viewer will achieve the same result. Keep the speaker’s condition and the relevant context. Route specialist claims to the assigned approver. A clear review record should identify both the commercial relationship and the factual basis of the message.

Put the relationship, approved wording, placement, timing and platform check into the brief. Give an example that shows the label at actual viewing size. Review the final video and caption together, then confirm the publication matches that approval. Keep revisions connected to the original record.

If the post changes after approval, assess what the change affects. A different caption, shorter cut or new product reference can require a new review. Do not rely on an old checklist tick for a materially different asset. Participants should know where to ask questions and how to correct a missing or unreadable disclosure promptly.

Retain the current brief, final asset or link, disclosure decision, reviewer and timestamp. Restrict private commercial or identity details to the people who need them. The record should explain what was approved without pretending it is a universal compliance certificate.

Use recurring defects to improve the next brief: unreadable placement, missing caption wording, unapproved product claims or confusion about publication settings. Link participants to the official guidance and ask the responsible reviewer to resolve unusual cases. A consistent handoff makes the disclosure visible to viewers and the decision understandable to the team.

Continue with Apply a day-to-day disclosure checklist or Review the complete final post.

Identify the publisher, commercial relationship, intended platform and final format. Record the current primary guidance used and the person authorised to decide the treatment. Keep the approved wording, placement and timing with the brief, rather than asking each editor to invent a label.

The record should distinguish a proposed treatment from a reviewed decision. If the relationship or format is unclear, mark the dependency and obtain the appropriate campaign-specific review. A generic template cannot settle every advertising situation. The detailed timing reference above remains a source check; the worksheet below organises how the team applies a decision to the actual package.

Export the draft and watch it on a phone. Check whether the label is readable against the scene, appears for the reviewed duration and remains clear beside captions or platform controls. A label can exist in the editing project while becoming difficult to understand in the final viewing context.

Ask a reviewer from the intended language audience to explain what the label communicates. Inspect the accompanying caption and any relevant platform setting too. The purpose is to implement the actual reviewed treatment, not to invent a new rule from a visual preference. If the composition fails, adjust it and repeat the affected check on the export.

A changed duration, crop, caption or account can affect the approved disclosure package. Identify what changed and route the affected part for review. Do not carry an earlier approval across a materially different post without checking its basis.

For a fictional production exercise, a longer explanatory file is shortened and its label moves outside the visible crop. The correction is to review the final format and restore the approved treatment, not simply keep the old checklist tick. This is a hypothetical layout problem, not a published compliance incident. Keep original and corrected versions connected so the decision remains inspectable.

Supply the current accepted video, approved caption, relevant platform instruction and the disclosure decision record. Name who checks the actual publication. If the publisher changes the package, use the agreed correction process and retain the final post reference where publication is included.

At close, review recurring layout or communication problems and improve the next brief. Keep records proportionate and private commercial information restricted. The result should explain which treatment was reviewed for which asset, not present a universal certificate or claim that disclosure makes every factual statement acceptable.

Continue with Carry the decision through production or Review claims independently or a sponsored-content approval and reuse worksheet.

Questions about ASCI Disclosure Guide for Paid Creator Clips in India