This is the category where the legal framework cannot be worked around. It defines what may be commissioned, and the rest of the discussion follows from that.
What the framework changes, in practice
Three immediate consequences.
The creator's role shifts: they are no longer a recommender, they become an explainer. You are not buying a recommendation, you are buying an explanation.
Responsibility is shared between the brand and the person publishing, which makes the contract more important than in any other category.
And approval becomes a process, not a formality: script written, reviewed, approved, archived with its date.
What a brand can still commission
Four formats, all useful and all compatible with serious approval.
The explanation
How a mechanism works, with no recommendation and no promise: what an excess is, how to read a statement, what a guarantee is for. That content is searched for all year and does not date.
The app demonstration
Opening the app, finding a function, carrying out a simple operation, understanding a screen. It is the format customer service departments ask for most, because it reduces calls.
The situations
A move, a birth, a first job, a property purchase: showing the life moment without advising the product. The brand appears as a tool, not as an answer.
The mistake videos
What happens when a form is filled in badly, when a document is missing, when a deadline is forgotten. That format protects customers and gets shared a lot.
The lines that count
Five points to write into every order.
What may be said, word for word, supplied by the brand.
What may never be said: promise of return, performance comparison, direct incitement, minimising of risk.
The mandatory disclosures, their form and their placement on screen.
The identification of the commercial nature, which comes on top of the sector's disclosures.
And the withdrawal procedure: who can ask for a post to be taken down, within what timescale, and what happens then.
The applicable obligations depend on the product, on the parties' status and on your situation: they are checked with a lawyer before publication, and that check is written down.
Practical notes for the brand
Four points that save weeks.
Have the script approved, never the video. A correction on a script costs ten minutes, on an edit it costs a shoot.
Deliver a master with no burnt-in text, so the disclosures can be adjusted if the regulation or the offer changes.
Choose creators able to say "I cannot state that" and to propose another wording. It is a skill, and it is paid for.
And keep a trace of everything: approved script, date, person approving, version published. That file is what protects, far more than good faith.
What is possible and what is not
| Subject | What remains possible | What is ruled out |
|---|---|---|
| A service | Showing a sign-up journey | Promising a gain |
| A price | Quoting a publicly displayed price | Comparing with no source |
| An investment | Referring to the documentation | Recommending anything at all |
What the video must carry on screen
The advertising disclosure, the warnings required by the regulation and the identity of the party offering the service, to be confirmed with a lawyer.
What is refused even when well paid
A performance testimonial, a staging of financial success, a referral link with no disclosure, and any artificial urgency about a money decision.
Why this category remains interesting
Because the constraint drives the competition away.
Few creators agree to work within so strict a framework, and even fewer know how. Those who learn become rare, work with players who communicate all year, and charge for a skill rather than an audience.
It is also a category where videos serve for a long time: a well-made explanation of a mechanism, with no promise, stays useful for years.
Sources
Checked on 4 September 2026. Thresholds and rates change: where this guide and the official source disagree, the official source is right.
