11 ms·

Paid $75k to Love a Brand on Instagram – Is It an Ad?

160 points by mantesso 10y ago

Retric 10y ago
One of the few exceptions where the headline question is YES.
- tedmiston 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
debacle 10y ago
> there are no hard and fast rules. This is untrue. There are regulations around paid endorsements: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking#when https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc...
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  Your link certainly doesn't support you. There are no hard and fast rules. The link is categorized as "guidance", refers to itself several times as "guidance", and contains language like the following: > Should I include an additional disclosure when I post on Facebook about how useful one of our products is? It’s a good idea. > Determining whether followers are aware of a relationship could be tricky in many cases, so we recommend disclosure. > Again, determining that could be tricky, so we recommend disclosure. > The Guides are intended to give insight into what the FTC thinks about various marketing activities involving endorsements and how Section 5 might apply to those activities. The Guides themselves don’t have the force of law. If someone files a complaint about you with the FTC, they may come after you after the fact, on a case-by-case, individualized basis; that's as much as they're saying until such time as someone files a complaint.
misiti3780 10y ago
So 100K followers on Instagram snags you $2.5K for a single subliminal ad ? This seems high.
- soulbadguy 10y ago
  This. Looking at the fees paid by the brands they all looked kinda high. I am wondering how do they actualy quantify the results of those endorsement
  - wastedhours 10y ago
    Unfortunately influencer marketing and ROI are rarely terms used together at present. That being said, it's a format that's a perfect fit for brand awareness as much as it is direct action, so there is value in looking at vanity metrics for reach - shame that path leads to people (potentially) gaming the system.
    - EnFinlay 10y ago
      I was at a talk given by the founder of PlentyOfFish and I asked him what sort or return he saw on the PoF appearances in popular music videos (Lady Gaga "Telephone" is the only one I remember right now). He said that it was just for "brand awareness". I got the impression he was keeping the real answer close to his chest though.
      - Fogest 10y ago
        That is because it would be hard to gauge. But think about it, if you are looking to join a dating site then PoF may be a site that comes to mind if you recently saw it in a video.
        EnFinlay 10y ago
        Oh yeah, absolutely hard to gauge and what you say might be the intended outcome (50% of marketing budget is wasted, but which half yadda yadda...). But the other part of me refuses to believe that such an action was taken with no planned feedback loop. It has to be damn expensive since music videos are one of the few pieces of media that people choose to watch more than twice and are short enough that your paid spot will get way more % screen time than a movie or TV show.
Trisell 10y ago
I actually have found that I am moving further and further away from using Instagram due to the ads. My feed is primary filled up with ads, links to other accounts with ads, and very few pictures that are worth actually following. But with the increase in teens using Instagram vs Facebook. I guess I understand the draw for advertisers.
Latty 10y ago
I love the 'I wish we knew what was OK' - someone viewing the content, totally blind, needs to identify it as an advert without prompting. The only way to do that is to state it, up front, in the same format as the content itself. Not hidden away in some description, not in code, plain and simple. Anything less is obviously intending to deceive, and I see no reason to give anyone leeway to try and hide sponsorship. If you want your sponsorship to come across as real and honest, then get someone to actually like your product, and then it won't matter that they disclose it, as they'll be able to explain why they like it in a convincing way. The only reason people want to hide the 'sponsored' element is that the product is bad, and paying people is the only way to get them to associate with it. When I watch an Extra Credits video sponsored by a games company, it comes off as honest because it's clear that it's an advert and the content is still quality and obviously unaltered. When Purge (DOTA 2 personality), talks about DotaBuff, it still comes off as honest as he shows how he uses the service and what value it provides him. This can be done right, and is, by reputable people.
- caminante 10y ago
  TIL yesterday on HN, there's three categories of promotions: 1. paid 2. owned and 3. earned.[0] You're referring to earned media. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_media
- Sneakos 10y ago
  The problem with finding someone to like your product is that it's much more efficient to get support from people who don't like your product but are popular, then it is get support from people who like your product, but don't reach a large audience. Business-wise, it's smarter to attempt the former than the latter. >Audiences "have a very visceral reaction to '#ad' or '#spon' or whatever it is, where they don't want to know people are getting paid for stuff even if they are." This is the biggest issue marketers have with those who are advertising their products. Even though you can logically assume that a person you follow is sponsoring products, it is more appalling to the consumer when a sponsorship is labeled with #ad, or the likes. If everyone was truly a self-aware consumer who knew they were being manipulated, this wouldn't be a huge issue. But the fact is that the majority of people will respond much better to subtle advertisements, then ads that label themselves as an advertisement, which most people are conditioned to ignore or dislike. For example, after the James Bond movie "Skyfall", in which he shaves using a cut-throat razor, razor sales were boosted by 405%. I guarantee you if they had a #ad label during that scene, we would not have seen the same effects. As for the question "Is it an advertisement?" of course it's an advertisement. But that doesn't mean those involved have to make it blatantly obvious.
apozem 10y ago
Yes. If you are paid to advertise something, it is an ad. The law is having trouble catching up on this front, especially in a world where any YouTuber with an audience could potentially run undisclosed ads. Regulating people posting videos out of their basement sounds like a nightmare. That said, I do my best to never support content creators that don't disclose ads or hide their disclosures in hashtags or below the "Show more" button in a YouTube description. That's not a real disclosure. You know it and I know it. That's why you put it there in the first place- because no one will see it.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  Never mind YouTubers. I regularly see undisclosed advertisements on national broadcast television shows, like Good Morning America, to name a particularly egregious obfuscating advertiser. It is completely obvious to me when something is a (likely paid, somehow) promotional advertising rather than informational reporting. It is obvious to me when ABC constantly promotes content owned by its parent company, Disney. But I often have to say to my spouse, "You know that's an ad, right?" and hear the response, "Whaaaaaat? No way, really? Now that you mention it..." There is still a cohort of journalists hanging on to their last shred of professional ethics that will always disclose both paid consideration and corporate relationships between the subject of a story and their employer, but they seem to be slowly dying out. YouTubers are the least of our problems. Native advertising is already firmly entrenched in mass media.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    Isn't any product featured on that show basically a paid advertisement? My wife would occasionally watch it, and I recall seeing them show off clothing all the time (complete with models parading in front of the camera.)
    - modfodder 10y ago
      If the segment includes a fashion editor/advisor from a magazine, the clothing and accessories featured are advertisers for the magazine, not paying GMA directly (to my knowledge). I did a little freelance on the magazine side, putting packages together to show the fashion labels what coverage the magazine was able to get. I have know idea if this cost extra or it was more of a incentive to purchase bigger ad buys in the magazine. This was nearly a decade ago, but at the time I don't believe the morning shows were paying labels or the fashion consultants, it was more of a quid pro quo.
bwang29 10y ago
Is there currently a way to tell how much isn't too much to pay influencers or to know what others have paid? I have seen Instagram-famous with 250k followers asking for $5k for one single post in their demographic- but after calculating the ROI with many guess work and assumptions, it seems to be a lot worse than FB ad. The influencers often pitches themselves to be more "organic", or the ad is giving more "brand" effect that's hard to measure with traditional metrics. Sometimes this just feel like a new way of gambling and the seller has way more information and leverage than the buyer.
- tedmiston 10y ago
  There are several influencer platforms that attempt to be the matchmaker, brands can browse by following or a budget.
harps1chord 10y ago
Recommended reading: "The Girl Who Was Plugged In" by James Tiptree Jr.
user202020 10y ago
As a marketing guy, I understand that an endorsement won't come across as genuine if it's clearly marked as an ad... but at at the same time it isn't genuine so there is no problem. Consumers reacting poorly to the realization that their favorite personalities were paid to like something is perfectly normal. I think the challenge to meet is how to make an authentic connection within a paid endorsement framework rather than trying to disguise a paid endorsement as just 'loving a brand.'
- valarauca1 10y ago
  Fundamentally if money changes hands for an endorsement to take place it is no longer an authentic endorsement. The most authentic endorsement you can have is word of mouth. This is simply being the best product on the market. But this would put advertisers out of business, and force companies to make good long lasting durable products. Neither of these things are in advertisers, or product manufacturers best interest. Ultimately planned obsolescence, and corporation funded advertisement driven product cargo cults are far more profitable. (I.E.: iPhone, 50's-70's auto manufacturing) Your statement boils down to How can we make corporations care about something other then profit? The answer is you can't. You misunderstand the purpose of corporations.
  - bertil 10y ago
    > Fundamentally if money changes hands for an endorsement to take place it is no longer an authentic endorsement. I wholeheartedly agree that this is common, and need to be disclosed. However, I work for a brand that is genuinely loved (not hard: we deliver food) has cult following (think major rappers mentioning us casually as a euphemism for chilling) and if we pay anyone to endorse us (I do not know that we have in the past) we’ll probably start by actual fans. Their endorsement will be authentic in that sense. We have sent free food to celebrities during special occasions (not money, but the equivalent is easy to make); I don’t think we’ve ever agreed with them before hand — we just knew they were going to be hungry. They generally learned we took the initiative via a public announcement (@-mention on twitter). > How can we make corporations care about something other then profit? I can honestly confess this corporation cares about food a lot. More than money… Well, the two are fungible.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dapearce 10y ago
This is an industry I'm familiar with and I'd love to hear some debate on this. In my opinion the industry resembles celebrity endorsements and product placement much more than digital advertising. Do celebrities need to disclose they are being compensated to mention a brand on the red carpet? Do movies need to start including #ad in scenes that have paid product placements? The idea of endorsements and product placement go back for decades, and this is no different. What distinguishes this from the examples above, and if "ad" needs to be disclosed with influencer posts, why does it not need to be disclosed with celebrity endorsements and product placement? While there are certainly exceptions (cough Kardashians) a heavy majority of influencers won't post about brands or products they don't genuinely like and believe their audience would be interested in. They won't muddy their name with a bad brand. So why do they need to be paid to post? Because they aren't going to spend the time to create and share content for free.
- typetypetype 10y ago
  I think one difference is that with celebrity endorsements, you actually see the brand in action. With the Kim Kardashian example in the article, we don't really know if she uses that hair product.
  - Domenic_S 10y ago
    And the implication is "I have great hair because of this product" when the reality is she has a legion of professionals and an unlimited hair budget. Obvious to some, deceptive to others.
  - joering2 10y ago
    Hair not but the tea in article is a fittea that my friend Michel G. started from a scratch a few years ago. She got paid $250,000 for December post about it. From the first hand I can tell you that no - she has never tried the tea, and neither she ever needed a "detox" tea to begin with.
- EnFinlay 10y ago
  To answer the question of "why does it need to be disclosed" I'd say the line is primary purpose. For the Kim instagram thing in the link - primary purpose is to promote the product. Therefore ad and disclosure required. Red carpet - primary purpose is to be seen and increase their star power, product mention is secondary. No ad, no disclosure. Product placement - House of Cards wasn't created to promote COD. That said, policing intent is a blurry line and what about scenes in movies created JUST to promote a product (looking at you Adam Sandler). I dunno. But primary purpose is the best line I can think of.
mistercow 10y ago
>“A few bloggers we work with say, ‘I want you to know, my engagement on posts that are tagged “#ad” or “#spon” get lower engagement than if that wasn’t there.’” This sums up the issue pretty well. The advertisers are acting like there must be some compromise where readers are both informed and engaged, and the reality is that knowing is what disengages them. That might be something they can overcome through the quality of the paid content, but they cannot be allowed to overcome it by deceiving people.
- chadlavi 10y ago
  "People hate ads so we'd prefer to just keep tricking them into thinking it's not an ad"
coldtea 10y ago
>Paid $75k to Love a Brand on Instagram – Is It an Ad? Why the question? The answer is yes. It is an ad, and worse...
SCAQTony 10y ago
If you are paid to "like" something when you could care less and pose for a photo like you "love it", that's not an endorsement, that is a de facto legal bribe.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
elorant 10y ago
So now we need ad blockers which could identify brands in tags and then block the entire image. I know it sounds absurd but so is modern advertising. They don’t seem to have any moral barrier. This is a war for protecting our privacy and the web as a whole.
- jrockway 10y ago
  How does Kim Kardashian posting a picture of herself eating a placebo violate your privacy?
  - elorant 10y ago
    It doesn’t violate my privacy but it endangers the well being of the web. If native advertising becomes the norm journalism as a whole will go down the toilet. First it starts with celebrities endorsing products without clearly stating that they’ve been paid, and then you’ll have the buzzfeed model all around the web. Paid articles that promote products in a way that the untrained user can’t really tell the difference. I don’t like it. Of course I can only speak for myself.
    - sosborn 10y ago
      > Paid articles that promote products in a way that the untrained user can’t really tell the difference. You realize that there is nothing new about this right? It's been happening since the dawn of capitalism. Not saying it is bad or good, just noting that it isn't new.
      - elorant 10y ago
        It's one thing happening every now and then and a whole different in becoming the new norm.
        sosborn 10y ago
        My point is that it has been the norm for quite a while.
pravda 10y ago
They called out "Miranda Sings" for an Arby's commercial. Looks like the girl is really spreading herself around! Here's a Taco Bell commercial [1] Another Taco Bell commercial [2] Now we are doing Oreos! [3] Everything undisclosed of course. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy_rqmSXpvg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy_rqmSXpvg [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DDdBjOWXMQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DDdBjOWXMQ [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTYoI9diaQQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTYoI9diaQQ
nihonto 10y ago
Kylie looks like a zombie with a twisted left leg on that pic. Bleurgh...
chadlavi 10y ago
Why, it's almost as though people hate ads, who'd have thought
nstj 10y ago
> Captiv8, a company that connects brands to influencers, says someone with three million to seven million followers can charge, on average, $187,500 for a post on YouTube, $75,000 for a post on Instagram or Snapchat and $30,000 for a post on Twitter. Grey market indicator on the market value of the platforms themselves
- Jordrok 10y ago
  Possibly, but I'd say it probably comes closer to matching the (relative) level of effort required to create an average piece of content for each platform. Video vs short video/image vs text.
josh_carterPDX 10y ago
Personally I don't care if something is an ad or not. If it's someone that has some notoriety I sort of expect it. I love calling it out with something simple like "#ad" because I don't feel like I'm being deceived regardless of the clear distinction that the post would clearly be an ad without it. Having the simple hashtag just means that I can trust that the brand isn't trying to be deceitful.
rconti 10y ago
I'm not really clear on why anyone should care. I recognize that my first reaction is an elitist "who cares what losers who 'follow' celebrities get sold on". But even when I get past that, I can't figure out why I'd care. It doesn't sound like the FTC is in the business of determining what's a legitimate from-the-heart endorsement versus what's a paid endorsement anyway. In the end, all that really seems to matter is truth in advertising. If she's making undocumented medical claims about something, and being paid to do so, doesn't the FTC already have a right to clamp down on it? Follow the dollars. I imagine making undocumented medical claims for free fall under 'free speech'. So all they have to do is see if she's getting paid or not.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  It probably isn't a big issue if you are looking for something to drink. But say you are wanting to buy a larger investment item or one you don't know much about. Kitchen appliances are a good example. Let's say a coffee grinder. Perhaps you've bought a couple, and they haven't lasted long or been sup-par in quality, or maybe you had one you liked, but they no longer make it. You bought the same brand, but behold, it quit sooner or it doesn't do nearly as well. And you'd really like to have one that is decent, even if you spend a bit more money. If you can't sort out which reviews are paid endorsements and which ones are heartfelt reviews, you are none the wiser. Something that is basically an ad isn't nearly as trustworthy in this case. The ads might not have been false, per se, but they aren't exactly going to give the bad with the good.
  - tbihl 10y ago
    It seems that Amazon, for example, has already seen the huge problem that causes, and has been working to reduce that problem. At the other end of the spectrum, you'd be assigning the FTC to be like the small subset of redditors who feel compelled to reply "Hail Corporate!" any time you mention a product you like.
    - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
      I do understand that it is a broad spectrum to regulate, and a lot of times, it'll go without being caught. But there are ways of undermining these sorts of things. For example, regulate the more visible folks fairly stringently. This is more because a 'known' individual, a public person, has more pull and status and visibility than the unknown person on reddit. I'd always punish the offending company much more (noticable fines, dependent on company financials) - they can require the person states the paid portion of their endorsement. In cases like Amazon, it might be hard to catch, but when it is, you can fine the companies involved in the paid support - an ad company, the parent company, etc. (Amazon itself seems to be against this and likely willing to cooperate, so they'd not have much issue).
wyager 10y ago
There seems to be an overwhelming opinion here that all ads must declare themselves as such. Why is that? I hate ads as much as the next guy, but forcing media to label itself one way or another seems morally suspect, and could certainly run afoul of the principles of free speech and artistic freedom.
dmatthewson 10y ago
"Paid $75k to Love a Brand on Instagram – Is It an Ad?" If you are a public figure paid 1 cent to endorse a product, then it is an ad. If you fail to clearly disclose this ad identity and relationship then it is dishonest, possibly criminal. Nothing more to discuss. This specific situation is vastly beyond any possible gray area.
Animats 10y ago
Celebrity endorsements have been regulated by the FTC since the early days of television.[1] This isn't a new thing. It goes back much further. Mark Twain did a lot of endorsements.[2] It got completely out of hand in 1950s and 1960s TV, and the FTC put a stop to it. The same rules apply on Instagram. Nothing new here, just an old bad idea coming around again. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc... [2] http://celebritycred.com/history-of-endorsements/#foobox-1/0 http://celebritycred.com/history-of-endorsements/#foobox-1/0
xrjn 10y ago
In my eyes, this kind of advertising has existed for quite a while, and is often times too subtle for most people to notice. Casey Neistat, one of the most popular daily vloggers on YouTube, is a great example of this. There are several recurring product placements in his videos, like the Boosted board, Samsung events, and certain airlines, for which there aren't any clear statements about. An example of these undisclosed partnerships/sponsorships was his 'surprise in South Africa' [0] video back from 2012, where it appears that the trip was sponsored by British Airways without any mention of it. At one point in the video, he makes it look like he's calling American Airlines, but in reality he didn't call (some comments back in the day called him out on it). On the other hand, he did mention that Samsung invited him to the Oscars. I think most people will watch his videos regardless of whether he discloses his relationships, as was the case with the Nike 'make it count' [1] video which many (including me) found inspiring. However it is clear that it is becoming harder and harder to tell apart what is branded content/native advertising and what isn't. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Mg75awALA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Mg75awALA [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxfZkMm3wcg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxfZkMm3wcg

160 points by mantesso 10y ago

Retric 10y ago

One of the few exceptions where the headline question is YES.

tedmiston 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

debacle 10y ago

> there are no hard and fast rules. This is untrue. There are regulations around paid endorsements: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking#when https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc...

thaumasiotes 10y ago
Your link certainly doesn't support you. There are no hard and fast rules. The link is categorized as "guidance", refers to itself several times as "guidance", and contains language like the following: > Should I include an additional disclosure when I post on Facebook about how useful one of our products is? It’s a good idea. > Determining whether followers are aware of a relationship could be tricky in many cases, so we recommend disclosure. > Again, determining that could be tricky, so we recommend disclosure. > The Guides are intended to give insight into what the FTC thinks about various marketing activities involving endorsements and how Section 5 might apply to those activities. The Guides themselves don’t have the force of law. If someone files a complaint about you with the FTC, they may come after you after the fact, on a case-by-case, individualized basis; that's as much as they're saying until such time as someone files a complaint.

misiti3780 10y ago

So 100K followers on Instagram snags you $2.5K for a single subliminal ad ? This seems high.

soulbadguy 10y ago
This. Looking at the fees paid by the brands they all looked kinda high. I am wondering how do they actualy quantify the results of those endorsement
- wastedhours 10y ago
  Unfortunately influencer marketing and ROI are rarely terms used together at present. That being said, it's a format that's a perfect fit for brand awareness as much as it is direct action, so there is value in looking at vanity metrics for reach - shame that path leads to people (potentially) gaming the system.
  - EnFinlay 10y ago
    I was at a talk given by the founder of PlentyOfFish and I asked him what sort or return he saw on the PoF appearances in popular music videos (Lady Gaga "Telephone" is the only one I remember right now). He said that it was just for "brand awareness". I got the impression he was keeping the real answer close to his chest though.
    - Fogest 10y ago
      That is because it would be hard to gauge. But think about it, if you are looking to join a dating site then PoF may be a site that comes to mind if you recently saw it in a video.
      - EnFinlay 10y ago
        Oh yeah, absolutely hard to gauge and what you say might be the intended outcome (50% of marketing budget is wasted, but which half yadda yadda...). But the other part of me refuses to believe that such an action was taken with no planned feedback loop. It has to be damn expensive since music videos are one of the few pieces of media that people choose to watch more than twice and are short enough that your paid spot will get way more % screen time than a movie or TV show.

Trisell 10y ago

I actually have found that I am moving further and further away from using Instagram due to the ads. My feed is primary filled up with ads, links to other accounts with ads, and very few pictures that are worth actually following. But with the increase in teens using Instagram vs Facebook. I guess I understand the draw for advertisers.

Latty 10y ago

I love the 'I wish we knew what was OK' - someone viewing the content, totally blind, needs to identify it as an advert without prompting. The only way to do that is to state it, up front, in the same format as the content itself. Not hidden away in some description, not in code, plain and simple. Anything less is obviously intending to deceive, and I see no reason to give anyone leeway to try and hide sponsorship. If you want your sponsorship to come across as real and honest, then get someone to actually like your product, and then it won't matter that they disclose it, as they'll be able to explain why they like it in a convincing way. The only reason people want to hide the 'sponsored' element is that the product is bad, and paying people is the only way to get them to associate with it. When I watch an Extra Credits video sponsored by a games company, it comes off as honest because it's clear that it's an advert and the content is still quality and obviously unaltered. When Purge (DOTA 2 personality), talks about DotaBuff, it still comes off as honest as he shows how he uses the service and what value it provides him. This can be done right, and is, by reputable people.

caminante 10y ago
TIL yesterday on HN, there's three categories of promotions: 1. paid 2. owned and 3. earned.[0] You're referring to earned media. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_media
Sneakos 10y ago
The problem with finding someone to like your product is that it's much more efficient to get support from people who don't like your product but are popular, then it is get support from people who like your product, but don't reach a large audience. Business-wise, it's smarter to attempt the former than the latter. >Audiences "have a very visceral reaction to '#ad' or '#spon' or whatever it is, where they don't want to know people are getting paid for stuff even if they are." This is the biggest issue marketers have with those who are advertising their products. Even though you can logically assume that a person you follow is sponsoring products, it is more appalling to the consumer when a sponsorship is labeled with #ad, or the likes. If everyone was truly a self-aware consumer who knew they were being manipulated, this wouldn't be a huge issue. But the fact is that the majority of people will respond much better to subtle advertisements, then ads that label themselves as an advertisement, which most people are conditioned to ignore or dislike. For example, after the James Bond movie "Skyfall", in which he shaves using a cut-throat razor, razor sales were boosted by 405%. I guarantee you if they had a #ad label during that scene, we would not have seen the same effects. As for the question "Is it an advertisement?" of course it's an advertisement. But that doesn't mean those involved have to make it blatantly obvious.

apozem 10y ago

Yes. If you are paid to advertise something, it is an ad. The law is having trouble catching up on this front, especially in a world where any YouTuber with an audience could potentially run undisclosed ads. Regulating people posting videos out of their basement sounds like a nightmare. That said, I do my best to never support content creators that don't disclose ads or hide their disclosures in hashtags or below the "Show more" button in a YouTube description. That's not a real disclosure. You know it and I know it. That's why you put it there in the first place- because no one will see it.

logfromblammo 10y ago
Never mind YouTubers. I regularly see undisclosed advertisements on national broadcast television shows, like Good Morning America, to name a particularly egregious obfuscating advertiser. It is completely obvious to me when something is a (likely paid, somehow) promotional advertising rather than informational reporting. It is obvious to me when ABC constantly promotes content owned by its parent company, Disney. But I often have to say to my spouse, "You know that's an ad, right?" and hear the response, "Whaaaaaat? No way, really? Now that you mention it..." There is still a cohort of journalists hanging on to their last shred of professional ethics that will always disclose both paid consideration and corporate relationships between the subject of a story and their employer, but they seem to be slowly dying out. YouTubers are the least of our problems. Native advertising is already firmly entrenched in mass media.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  Isn't any product featured on that show basically a paid advertisement? My wife would occasionally watch it, and I recall seeing them show off clothing all the time (complete with models parading in front of the camera.)
  - modfodder 10y ago
    If the segment includes a fashion editor/advisor from a magazine, the clothing and accessories featured are advertisers for the magazine, not paying GMA directly (to my knowledge). I did a little freelance on the magazine side, putting packages together to show the fashion labels what coverage the magazine was able to get. I have know idea if this cost extra or it was more of a incentive to purchase bigger ad buys in the magazine. This was nearly a decade ago, but at the time I don't believe the morning shows were paying labels or the fashion consultants, it was more of a quid pro quo.

bwang29 10y ago

Is there currently a way to tell how much isn't too much to pay influencers or to know what others have paid? I have seen Instagram-famous with 250k followers asking for $5k for one single post in their demographic- but after calculating the ROI with many guess work and assumptions, it seems to be a lot worse than FB ad. The influencers often pitches themselves to be more "organic", or the ad is giving more "brand" effect that's hard to measure with traditional metrics. Sometimes this just feel like a new way of gambling and the seller has way more information and leverage than the buyer.

tedmiston 10y ago
There are several influencer platforms that attempt to be the matchmaker, brands can browse by following or a budget.

harps1chord 10y ago

Recommended reading: "The Girl Who Was Plugged In" by James Tiptree Jr.

user202020 10y ago

As a marketing guy, I understand that an endorsement won't come across as genuine if it's clearly marked as an ad... but at at the same time it isn't genuine so there is no problem. Consumers reacting poorly to the realization that their favorite personalities were paid to like something is perfectly normal. I think the challenge to meet is how to make an authentic connection within a paid endorsement framework rather than trying to disguise a paid endorsement as just 'loving a brand.'

valarauca1 10y ago
Fundamentally if money changes hands for an endorsement to take place it is no longer an authentic endorsement. The most authentic endorsement you can have is word of mouth. This is simply being the best product on the market. But this would put advertisers out of business, and force companies to make good long lasting durable products. Neither of these things are in advertisers, or product manufacturers best interest. Ultimately planned obsolescence, and corporation funded advertisement driven product cargo cults are far more profitable. (I.E.: iPhone, 50's-70's auto manufacturing) Your statement boils down to How can we make corporations care about something other then profit? The answer is you can't. You misunderstand the purpose of corporations.
- bertil 10y ago
  > Fundamentally if money changes hands for an endorsement to take place it is no longer an authentic endorsement. I wholeheartedly agree that this is common, and need to be disclosed. However, I work for a brand that is genuinely loved (not hard: we deliver food) has cult following (think major rappers mentioning us casually as a euphemism for chilling) and if we pay anyone to endorse us (I do not know that we have in the past) we’ll probably start by actual fans. Their endorsement will be authentic in that sense. We have sent free food to celebrities during special occasions (not money, but the equivalent is easy to make); I don’t think we’ve ever agreed with them before hand — we just knew they were going to be hungry. They generally learned we took the initiative via a public announcement (@-mention on twitter). > How can we make corporations care about something other then profit? I can honestly confess this corporation cares about food a lot. More than money… Well, the two are fungible.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

dapearce 10y ago

This is an industry I'm familiar with and I'd love to hear some debate on this. In my opinion the industry resembles celebrity endorsements and product placement much more than digital advertising. Do celebrities need to disclose they are being compensated to mention a brand on the red carpet? Do movies need to start including #ad in scenes that have paid product placements? The idea of endorsements and product placement go back for decades, and this is no different. What distinguishes this from the examples above, and if "ad" needs to be disclosed with influencer posts, why does it not need to be disclosed with celebrity endorsements and product placement? While there are certainly exceptions (cough Kardashians) a heavy majority of influencers won't post about brands or products they don't genuinely like and believe their audience would be interested in. They won't muddy their name with a bad brand. So why do they need to be paid to post? Because they aren't going to spend the time to create and share content for free.

typetypetype 10y ago
I think one difference is that with celebrity endorsements, you actually see the brand in action. With the Kim Kardashian example in the article, we don't really know if she uses that hair product.
- Domenic_S 10y ago
  And the implication is "I have great hair because of this product" when the reality is she has a legion of professionals and an unlimited hair budget. Obvious to some, deceptive to others.
- joering2 10y ago
  Hair not but the tea in article is a fittea that my friend Michel G. started from a scratch a few years ago. She got paid $250,000 for December post about it. From the first hand I can tell you that no - she has never tried the tea, and neither she ever needed a "detox" tea to begin with.
EnFinlay 10y ago
To answer the question of "why does it need to be disclosed" I'd say the line is primary purpose. For the Kim instagram thing in the link - primary purpose is to promote the product. Therefore ad and disclosure required. Red carpet - primary purpose is to be seen and increase their star power, product mention is secondary. No ad, no disclosure. Product placement - House of Cards wasn't created to promote COD. That said, policing intent is a blurry line and what about scenes in movies created JUST to promote a product (looking at you Adam Sandler). I dunno. But primary purpose is the best line I can think of.

mistercow 10y ago

>“A few bloggers we work with say, ‘I want you to know, my engagement on posts that are tagged “#ad” or “#spon” get lower engagement than if that wasn’t there.’” This sums up the issue pretty well. The advertisers are acting like there must be some compromise where readers are both informed and engaged, and the reality is that knowing is what disengages them. That might be something they can overcome through the quality of the paid content, but they cannot be allowed to overcome it by deceiving people.

chadlavi 10y ago
"People hate ads so we'd prefer to just keep tricking them into thinking it's not an ad"

coldtea 10y ago

>Paid $75k to Love a Brand on Instagram – Is It an Ad? Why the question? The answer is yes. It is an ad, and worse...

SCAQTony 10y ago

If you are paid to "like" something when you could care less and pose for a photo like you "love it", that's not an endorsement, that is a de facto legal bribe.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

elorant 10y ago

So now we need ad blockers which could identify brands in tags and then block the entire image. I know it sounds absurd but so is modern advertising. They don’t seem to have any moral barrier. This is a war for protecting our privacy and the web as a whole.

jrockway 10y ago
How does Kim Kardashian posting a picture of herself eating a placebo violate your privacy?
- elorant 10y ago
  It doesn’t violate my privacy but it endangers the well being of the web. If native advertising becomes the norm journalism as a whole will go down the toilet. First it starts with celebrities endorsing products without clearly stating that they’ve been paid, and then you’ll have the buzzfeed model all around the web. Paid articles that promote products in a way that the untrained user can’t really tell the difference. I don’t like it. Of course I can only speak for myself.
  - sosborn 10y ago
    > Paid articles that promote products in a way that the untrained user can’t really tell the difference. You realize that there is nothing new about this right? It's been happening since the dawn of capitalism. Not saying it is bad or good, just noting that it isn't new.
    - elorant 10y ago
      It's one thing happening every now and then and a whole different in becoming the new norm.
      - sosborn 10y ago
        My point is that it has been the norm for quite a while.

pravda 10y ago

They called out "Miranda Sings" for an Arby's commercial. Looks like the girl is really spreading herself around! Here's a Taco Bell commercial [1] Another Taco Bell commercial [2] Now we are doing Oreos! [3] Everything undisclosed of course. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy_rqmSXpvg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy_rqmSXpvg [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DDdBjOWXMQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DDdBjOWXMQ [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTYoI9diaQQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTYoI9diaQQ

nihonto 10y ago

Kylie looks like a zombie with a twisted left leg on that pic. Bleurgh...

chadlavi 10y ago

Why, it's almost as though people hate ads, who'd have thought

nstj 10y ago

> Captiv8, a company that connects brands to influencers, says someone with three million to seven million followers can charge, on average, $187,500 for a post on YouTube, $75,000 for a post on Instagram or Snapchat and $30,000 for a post on Twitter. Grey market indicator on the market value of the platforms themselves

Jordrok 10y ago
Possibly, but I'd say it probably comes closer to matching the (relative) level of effort required to create an average piece of content for each platform. Video vs short video/image vs text.

josh_carterPDX 10y ago

Personally I don't care if something is an ad or not. If it's someone that has some notoriety I sort of expect it. I love calling it out with something simple like "#ad" because I don't feel like I'm being deceived regardless of the clear distinction that the post would clearly be an ad without it. Having the simple hashtag just means that I can trust that the brand isn't trying to be deceitful.

rconti 10y ago

I'm not really clear on why anyone should care. I recognize that my first reaction is an elitist "who cares what losers who 'follow' celebrities get sold on". But even when I get past that, I can't figure out why I'd care. It doesn't sound like the FTC is in the business of determining what's a legitimate from-the-heart endorsement versus what's a paid endorsement anyway. In the end, all that really seems to matter is truth in advertising. If she's making undocumented medical claims about something, and being paid to do so, doesn't the FTC already have a right to clamp down on it? Follow the dollars. I imagine making undocumented medical claims for free fall under 'free speech'. So all they have to do is see if she's getting paid or not.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago
It probably isn't a big issue if you are looking for something to drink. But say you are wanting to buy a larger investment item or one you don't know much about. Kitchen appliances are a good example. Let's say a coffee grinder. Perhaps you've bought a couple, and they haven't lasted long or been sup-par in quality, or maybe you had one you liked, but they no longer make it. You bought the same brand, but behold, it quit sooner or it doesn't do nearly as well. And you'd really like to have one that is decent, even if you spend a bit more money. If you can't sort out which reviews are paid endorsements and which ones are heartfelt reviews, you are none the wiser. Something that is basically an ad isn't nearly as trustworthy in this case. The ads might not have been false, per se, but they aren't exactly going to give the bad with the good.
- tbihl 10y ago
  It seems that Amazon, for example, has already seen the huge problem that causes, and has been working to reduce that problem. At the other end of the spectrum, you'd be assigning the FTC to be like the small subset of redditors who feel compelled to reply "Hail Corporate!" any time you mention a product you like.
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    I do understand that it is a broad spectrum to regulate, and a lot of times, it'll go without being caught. But there are ways of undermining these sorts of things. For example, regulate the more visible folks fairly stringently. This is more because a 'known' individual, a public person, has more pull and status and visibility than the unknown person on reddit. I'd always punish the offending company much more (noticable fines, dependent on company financials) - they can require the person states the paid portion of their endorsement. In cases like Amazon, it might be hard to catch, but when it is, you can fine the companies involved in the paid support - an ad company, the parent company, etc. (Amazon itself seems to be against this and likely willing to cooperate, so they'd not have much issue).

wyager 10y ago

There seems to be an overwhelming opinion here that all ads must declare themselves as such. Why is that? I hate ads as much as the next guy, but forcing media to label itself one way or another seems morally suspect, and could certainly run afoul of the principles of free speech and artistic freedom.

dmatthewson 10y ago

"Paid $75k to Love a Brand on Instagram – Is It an Ad?" If you are a public figure paid 1 cent to endorse a product, then it is an ad. If you fail to clearly disclose this ad identity and relationship then it is dishonest, possibly criminal. Nothing more to discuss. This specific situation is vastly beyond any possible gray area.

Animats 10y ago

Celebrity endorsements have been regulated by the FTC since the early days of television.[1] This isn't a new thing. It goes back much further. Mark Twain did a lot of endorsements.[2] It got completely out of hand in 1950s and 1960s TV, and the FTC put a stop to it. The same rules apply on Instagram. Nothing new here, just an old bad idea coming around again. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc... [2] http://celebritycred.com/history-of-endorsements/#foobox-1/0 http://celebritycred.com/history-of-endorsements/#foobox-1/0

xrjn 10y ago

In my eyes, this kind of advertising has existed for quite a while, and is often times too subtle for most people to notice. Casey Neistat, one of the most popular daily vloggers on YouTube, is a great example of this. There are several recurring product placements in his videos, like the Boosted board, Samsung events, and certain airlines, for which there aren't any clear statements about. An example of these undisclosed partnerships/sponsorships was his 'surprise in South Africa' [0] video back from 2012, where it appears that the trip was sponsored by British Airways without any mention of it. At one point in the video, he makes it look like he's calling American Airlines, but in reality he didn't call (some comments back in the day called him out on it). On the other hand, he did mention that Samsung invited him to the Oscars. I think most people will watch his videos regardless of whether he discloses his relationships, as was the case with the Nike 'make it count' [1] video which many (including me) found inspiring. However it is clear that it is becoming harder and harder to tell apart what is branded content/native advertising and what isn't. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Mg75awALA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Mg75awALA [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxfZkMm3wcg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxfZkMm3wcg