What happened
- The market, which draws around 20-21 million visitors a year, requires anyone filming for commercial or influencer purposes to complete an online form specifying date/time, crew size, purpose, and to hold a permission letter while filming. (The Standard)
- Filming during weekends is banned under the policy, and filming during peak times (11:00-14:30 weekdays) is also restricted. (FindArticles)
- A food-review creator, Gerry del Guercio of the “Bite Twice” channel, was carrying out a review of a £9 apple-and-cinnamon “Humble Crumble” dessert when he was approached by security and told to stop filming and leave because he did not have the required permission. (The Standard)
- The market operator states that the policy has been in place for some time; the recent enforcement reflects increased volume of influencer-style filming and the potential for disruption. (LondonWorld)
Stakeholder viewpoints
From the market’s side:
- A spokesperson said: “We welcome all food lovers … we have a long history of working closely with the wider food community including chefs, established food writers and food influencers … Our filming policy is designed to ensure that activity doesn’t cause disruption to stallholders or visitors.” (The Standard)
- The operator emphasises their “number one priority is to ensure visitors are comfortable … sometimes we ask reviewers to stop filming if they are causing congestion or haven’t got the relevant permission.” (The Standard)
From creators / influencers:
- Gerry del Guercio said: “The modern concept of Borough Market now exists because of social media … it needs it, it’s important to them. The whole not-recording thing is ridiculous — we’re just two guys with our camera phones.” (The Standard)
- Another creator, Tanya Goode (EatingWithTanyaa), said the rules “could limit opportunities for small businesses in the market” (that benefit from influencer exposure). (The Tab)
From traders at the market:
- Some traders complained that the crackdown goes too far: “They make us famous,” said one, pointing out that influencer videos have boosted business. (The Standard)
- Others supported the restrictions, noting that unregulated filming can lead to congestion, disruption, long queues and interference with customer service. (The Standard)
Key issues and implications
- Influencer vs environment tension: The incident reflects a broader conflict – on one hand, influencers and content creators can drive traffic and visibility; on the other, unregulated filming in a busy market can create congestion, safety risks and discomfort for traders/visitors. (The Independent)
- Public vs private space nuance: While the market is a publicly accessible space, it is privately managed and has the right to impose policies on filming, especially commercial filming, for safety, visitor flow and trader-rights reasons. (The Caterer)
- Policy clarity / communication: Some creators say they weren’t aware of the requirements or found them unreasonable. The market says the rules existed but they’re now more rigorously enforced. The ambiguity around what constitutes “professional filming” vs casual “phone recording” is a flashpoint. (FindArticles)
- Impact on small businesses: Some traders depend on social-media exposure for footfall; stricter filming rules might reduce that benefit. Others say the disruption from uncontrolled filming can harm daily operations and visitor experience.
- Precedent for other venues: This move at Borough Market may signal a trend for other high-footfall venues (markets, malls, tourist sites) to enforce more rigorous filming permissions, especially for influencer content. (LondonWorld)
What to watch
- Whether Borough Market revises its filming policy further (they state they are reviewing it) to better reflect smartphone-based creators rather than large commercial crews. (The Caterer)
- Whether enforcement expands (e.g., more creators being stopped, more specific rules about what equipment/crew size triggers the permit requirement).
- The potential for pushback by creators/traders who feel the rules unfairly penalise smaller content creators.
- The effect on the market’s footfall and visibility – will reduced influencer filming reduce viral-driven visitor traffic and thereby impact small merchant’s business?
- Legal/regulatory clarity: though filming without permission may not always be illegal, private property owners can ask people to stop filming or leave — so creators will need to anticipate such policies.
- Here are detailed case-studies and commentary related to the story of vloggers being escorted from Borough Market in London as the market tightens filming rules.
Case Study 1: The “£9 Crumble” Incident
What happened
- The food-review duo Gerry del Guercio and Paul Delaney (Instagram/TikTok account “Bite Twice”) were filming inside Borough Market, reviewing a viral dessert: a £9 apple & cinnamon “Humble Crumble”. (The Tab)
- During the filming, security at the market intervened and asked them to stop recording and leave the market site. (The Standard)
- The market states that their policy requires those recording for “professional/influencer” purposes to apply in advance for permission via an online form, including details such as filming date/time, business name etc. (inkl)
- According to the reports, filming during weekends is banned, and filming at other times may require a “permission letter” to be carried. (The Standard)
Why it matters
- This case clearly highlights the tension between content creators/influencers and venues that are publicly accessible but privately managed (or managed by a trust).
- The market attracts ~20 million visitors a year (~55,000 a day) which makes crowd-flow, safety and stallholder access serious concerns in busy periods. (The Independent)
- From the creator side, del Guercio argued:
“The modern concept of Borough Market now exists because of social media. It needs it, it’s important to them. The whole not-recording thing is ridiculous — we’re just two guys with our camera phones.” (The Standard)
- From the market/trader side, the policy is defended on grounds of preventing disruption, congestion and ensuring that filming does not interfere with stallholders/visitors. (LondonWorld)
Outcomes / key observations
- The incident triggered press coverage and commentary.
- Tra-ders at the market are divided: some say influencers bring visibility and footfall; others say many content creators “just come to extract” without contributing, and may cause disruption. (The Standard)
- The market itself clarifies that it has not banned filming entirely, but that it is enforcing the existing policy more strictly. (LondonWorld)
- The case raises questions for creators: what counts as “professional filming”? Does a phone-only shoot still require permission? The definitions appear to be grey. (The Independent)
Case Study 2: Wider Implications & Venue Perspective
Industry / venue context
- According to an analysis by The Independent, this incident is part of a broader shift: hospitality venues and markets are increasingly pushing back against influencer filming because of issues like congested spaces, safety/footfall concerns, and the “monster they created turning on them”. (The Independent)
- The market’s policy has been in place for some time, but enforcement has accelerated recently. The operator emphasises that filming for “commercial purposes” requires pre-approval. (LondonWorld)
- From a trader’s viewpoint:
- One butcher said: “A lot of people just come here to extract from the market. If it’s people that are genuinely coming here to buy produce, contribute and interact with traders then great. If it’s people using Borough Market to just monetise themselves without promoting the traders, then I don’t think it should be allowed.” (The Standard)
- A food-stall worker (the “Oyster Man”) said he personally appreciated the attention influencers brought: “When you film and it gets lots of viewers… it’s better for the business, your account, and us.” (The Standard)
Commentary / reflections
- The incident prompts reflection: the line between “customer filming” and “influencer filming” is blur-red. The market argues: you can still film, just follow the rules. Critics argue: “Why should smaller creators have to fill forms when they’re just using phone cameras?”
- There is irony: the same venues often promote social media visibility as a marketing driver, yet now are limiting it due to the operational impact of uncontrolled filming. The Independent observes: “Hospitality built its influencer economy from scratch … only to recoil when it grew too powerful to control.” (The Independent)
Risks & issues for all parties
- For influencers/creators: risk of being removed, disrupted content, possible reputational damage if seen to be “causing a scene”. Also time/effort wasted if filming without permission.
- For stallholders/traders: risk that uncontrolled filming leads to queues, disruption, poorer visitor experience and potential loss of stock or service delays.
- For venues/markets: balancing openness, freedom of content creation, and operational constraints (safety, congestion, visitor experience) is challenging. If they are too restrictive, they risk limiting visibility and appeal; if too lax, they risk operational disruption.
Key Quotes Worth Including
- “The modern concept of Borough Market now exists because of social media. It needs it… The whole not-recording thing is ridiculous — we’re just two guys with our camera phones.” — Gerry del Guercio. (The Standard)
- “We have a long history of working closely with the wider food community … Our filming policy is designed to ensure that activity doesn’t cause disruption to stallholders or visitors.” — Spokesperson, Borough Market. (LondonWorld)
- “A lot of people just come here to extract from the market. If it’s people that are genuinely coming here to buy produce, contribute and interact with traders then great.” — Trader at Borough Market. (The Standard)