8 ms·

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 th

by 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.
- munificent 10y ago
  > 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. And would that have been a bad thing? Have we really measurably improved the world by having a huge spike in cut-throat razor sales? > But that doesn't mean those involved have to make it blatantly obvious. Why not? What's so great about advertising that it's OK to give it free reign to play around with human psychology and influence peoples' behavior without them even being aware of it?
  - nine_k 10y ago
    Maybe the upside is that people are getting used to it. They start to expect that any message may be a manipulation, so they pay closer attention to it, put it under a greater scrutiny. It also applies to emotional manipulation; expecting and detecting it makes people more self-aware, and make them appreciate sincere things higher.
    - munificent 10y ago
      That sounds like an argument that an arms race is OK because it leaves us better equipped to defend ourselves. But we wouldn't need all of those extra defenses in the first place if we hadn't entered into an arms race. As people get more used to it, advertisers just work harder and harder to sneak under the radar. We might get more self aware, but if anything it just leads us to be cynical and untrusting of things that are sincere. The end result is likely a belief that there are two and only two kinds of media: Insincere media where I can see that I'm being advertised to. Insincere media that has outsmarted me and where I can't see that I'm being advertised to.
      - nine_k 10y ago
        I see it more like the immune system. Greater (self-)awareness looks like a good thing to me, just due to the way this whole world works. This definitely depends on your philosophy in a wide sense. On a practical note, reputation works in this circumstances: if I read a piece about, I don't know, fruit jam industry in NYT, it's likely not a blatant paid ad. This is what they monetize when selling subscriptions; should they stop, their reputation, and with it the subscription revenue, would go down.
cloudjacker 10y ago
> 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. Well thats a naive opinion
- sctb 10y ago
  Please comment civilly and substantively on Hacker News or not at all. We ban accounts that repeatedly violate the guidelines in this way. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - cloudjacker 10y ago
    Thanks for the heads up, I just read the comment guidelines and I don't see which one you think the above comment violated I would say that to a person in person and I think it highlights that there is another perspective for the person to consider, mentioning those things because I think they would be the closest arguments the tribunal would consider given those guidelines Also thought given the plethory of tech ad startups these days, I figured others would agree with me, but since you called it out, I'll take the hint
    - Retric 10y ago
      Be civil > Well thats a naive opinion. Civil commentary is about more than just language choice. As a rule of thumb object to content, not meta information. You can replacing dumb with naive, but the underlining commentary is about the messenger not the message. Now, with some actual commentary it's less obvious. But, when the entire comment is simply a snippy one liner it's just filler. As it stands I can guess what the objection was, but not in any meaningful fashion. PS: If I would change the rules I would make it clear that it makes boring reading is one of the major things to avoid.
CobrastanJorji 10y ago
I think a good example of how to do this sort of thing right is the "Hey Ash Watcha Playin'" videos on YouTube. They make content about games. Sometimes they're paid to make content about a particular game, and when they do they write "(SPONSORED)" right in the title of the video. Still good content, I could avoid clicking on it easily, but I watch it anyway because I like the channel and know it'll probably be funny anyway. A bad example would probably be that one Kardashian guy who accidentally posted the instructions about how to pose and what to say instead of following the instructions.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  Exactly. Sponsored content isn't a problem if it adds VALUE.
downandout 10y ago
>Anything less is obviously intending to deceive I wholeheartedly disagree. What about the case where the person involved actually loves the product and wanted to talk about it anyway? This is frequently the case with gamers, models that prefer certain makeup, etc. What's worth doing is worth getting paid for, but that doesn't necessarily mean they "intend to deceive" - in fact it's the exact opposite. It's an honest endorsement. IMO, it should only be required to be labeled as an ad if the post wouldn't have been made unless the brand paid for it.
- betenoire 10y ago
  that's what they said the solution is, isn't it? > ... then get someone to actually like your product(, and then it won't matter that they disclose it)
  - downandout 10y ago
    Yes, but he's still saying that should be labeled as an ad just because the person got paid for it. That's what I disagree with. The only test should be "would the user be seeing this if the poster wasn't paid?"
    - mikeash 10y ago
      How could you ever answer that test with any reliability? Any hypothetical is going to be irrevocably tainted by the money.
      - downandout 10y ago
        The law is full of such extremely subjective tests.
- bbctol 10y ago
  But you can still label it with that specificity--I've seen Internet celebrities close videos with "Yes, I really do love this product, but I am also getting paid for this." Transparency about when money is being transferred is important.

by Latty 10y ago

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.

munificent 10y ago
> 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. And would that have been a bad thing? Have we really measurably improved the world by having a huge spike in cut-throat razor sales? > But that doesn't mean those involved have to make it blatantly obvious. Why not? What's so great about advertising that it's OK to give it free reign to play around with human psychology and influence peoples' behavior without them even being aware of it?
- nine_k 10y ago
  Maybe the upside is that people are getting used to it. They start to expect that any message may be a manipulation, so they pay closer attention to it, put it under a greater scrutiny. It also applies to emotional manipulation; expecting and detecting it makes people more self-aware, and make them appreciate sincere things higher.
  - munificent 10y ago
    That sounds like an argument that an arms race is OK because it leaves us better equipped to defend ourselves. But we wouldn't need all of those extra defenses in the first place if we hadn't entered into an arms race. As people get more used to it, advertisers just work harder and harder to sneak under the radar. We might get more self aware, but if anything it just leads us to be cynical and untrusting of things that are sincere. The end result is likely a belief that there are two and only two kinds of media: Insincere media where I can see that I'm being advertised to. Insincere media that has outsmarted me and where I can't see that I'm being advertised to.
    - nine_k 10y ago
      I see it more like the immune system. Greater (self-)awareness looks like a good thing to me, just due to the way this whole world works. This definitely depends on your philosophy in a wide sense. On a practical note, reputation works in this circumstances: if I read a piece about, I don't know, fruit jam industry in NYT, it's likely not a blatant paid ad. This is what they monetize when selling subscriptions; should they stop, their reputation, and with it the subscription revenue, would go down.

cloudjacker 10y ago

> 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. Well thats a naive opinion

sctb 10y ago
Please comment civilly and substantively on Hacker News or not at all. We ban accounts that repeatedly violate the guidelines in this way. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  Thanks for the heads up, I just read the comment guidelines and I don't see which one you think the above comment violated I would say that to a person in person and I think it highlights that there is another perspective for the person to consider, mentioning those things because I think they would be the closest arguments the tribunal would consider given those guidelines Also thought given the plethory of tech ad startups these days, I figured others would agree with me, but since you called it out, I'll take the hint
  - Retric 10y ago
    Be civil > Well thats a naive opinion. Civil commentary is about more than just language choice. As a rule of thumb object to content, not meta information. You can replacing dumb with naive, but the underlining commentary is about the messenger not the message. Now, with some actual commentary it's less obvious. But, when the entire comment is simply a snippy one liner it's just filler. As it stands I can guess what the objection was, but not in any meaningful fashion. PS: If I would change the rules I would make it clear that it makes boring reading is one of the major things to avoid.

CobrastanJorji 10y ago

I think a good example of how to do this sort of thing right is the "Hey Ash Watcha Playin'" videos on YouTube. They make content about games. Sometimes they're paid to make content about a particular game, and when they do they write "(SPONSORED)" right in the title of the video. Still good content, I could avoid clicking on it easily, but I watch it anyway because I like the channel and know it'll probably be funny anyway. A bad example would probably be that one Kardashian guy who accidentally posted the instructions about how to pose and what to say instead of following the instructions.

enraged_camel 10y ago
Exactly. Sponsored content isn't a problem if it adds VALUE.

downandout 10y ago

>Anything less is obviously intending to deceive I wholeheartedly disagree. What about the case where the person involved actually loves the product and wanted to talk about it anyway? This is frequently the case with gamers, models that prefer certain makeup, etc. What's worth doing is worth getting paid for, but that doesn't necessarily mean they "intend to deceive" - in fact it's the exact opposite. It's an honest endorsement. IMO, it should only be required to be labeled as an ad if the post wouldn't have been made unless the brand paid for it.

betenoire 10y ago
that's what they said the solution is, isn't it? > ... then get someone to actually like your product(, and then it won't matter that they disclose it)
- downandout 10y ago
  Yes, but he's still saying that should be labeled as an ad just because the person got paid for it. That's what I disagree with. The only test should be "would the user be seeing this if the poster wasn't paid?"
  - mikeash 10y ago
    How could you ever answer that test with any reliability? Any hypothetical is going to be irrevocably tainted by the money.
    - downandout 10y ago
      The law is full of such extremely subjective tests.
bbctol 10y ago
But you can still label it with that specificity--I've seen Internet celebrities close videos with "Yes, I really do love this product, but I am also getting paid for this." Transparency about when money is being transferred is important.