5 ms·

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

by 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.
  - valarauca1 10y ago
    Man the cognitive dissonance in your post is hilarious. >We have sent free food to celebrities during special occasions (not money, but the equivalent is easy to make); >this corporation cares about food a lot. More than money… Well, the two are fungible. What are you even trying to argue about? You admit your core argument is flawed every time you state it. It is like you don't even believe what you are posting about.
    - bertil 10y ago
      In the two examples you quote, I am saying that money is easily changeable into food. The reverse is actually not true (which is why there is a lot of food waste and charities handle redistributing some of it). I’m missing the cognitive dissonance. We’ve surprised hungry people with food at an opportune moment, not money. If you want a clearer discussion on the distinction, Dan Ariely has a great explanation on paying his mother-in-law for diner. I’d be happy to quote Amartya Sen or Kahneman on the same topic if you want a clearer explanation.
- Domenic_S 10y ago
  I don't think that's true by necessity, although it can be. Endorsements are worth money, so it's reasonable to pay for them. Let's say I love Taco Bell (I do) and also I'm a celebrity (I'm not). Even though I genuinely love Taco Bell I wouldn't do a radio commercial for them for free -- but if they offered me money to do it I would, because I love the product. They pay me for my reach and I do it in good conscience because I actually like the product. Problem becomes when your reach is so large essentially anyone is willing to pay you five figures to hawk anything. I can see how that would be enticing. Ultimately we (the public) have to realize that celebs are just people, who may not have special knowledge about the kinds of products they're selling. Their value is in their reach, not their expertise, so take celebrity endorsements with a grain of salt.
  - joosters 10y ago
    Ultimately we (the public) have to realize that celebs are just people, who may not have special knowledge about the kinds of products they're selling. Surely then, putting a clear sign saying 'Advert' or 'Sponsored' would help everyone to realize this.
    - Domenic_S 10y ago
      That muddies the water by treating all adverts the same, when sometimes (like the t-bell example above) the celeb truly likes/uses the product. I guess the best you can do as a celeb is build your brand around how you do adverts. Some radio hosts here in CA (Armstrong & Getty) say they only do adverts for products they personally use & recommend. I admit to buying a product they advertise (a belt) some years ago and it's great - I'm glad they advertised it because I wouldn't have heard about it otherwise (still wearing it!).
      - valarauca1 10y ago
        >That muddies the water by treating all adverts the same, when sometimes (like the t-bell example above) the celeb truly likes/uses the product. But you admit this is irrelevant because you don't know if that person has any in-depth knowledge. Nor do you know/trust that person. In your scenario that person is just a voice on a radio saying Trust me I love Tacobell and eat it all the time. Trust is an interpersonal social currency, gained via social interaction. If there is no prior social interaction between the advocator, and the person being advertised too... How can there be trust?
- user202020 10y ago
  Obviously corporations exist to make money. I'm not saying that. I do say that it is within an organization's interest to communicate authenticity. Not the illusion of authenticity (though that does benefit the bottom line too,) but legitimate authenticity. When I think of an ad that has someone I trust talking about a product they love or trust even though they were paid to like it, I think of podcast ads. Some of the podcasts I listen to; Hello Internet, Cortex, or ATP; been a fine experiences even with the ads because it didn't feel like a dishonest recommendation. I know they're getting paid to say what they do, and that's perfectly fine with me. Advertisers should move to make experiences like that, with transperancy, so that everyone knows what's going on, knows they're basically ads, but still trust the endorsements.

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.
- valarauca1 10y ago
  Man the cognitive dissonance in your post is hilarious. >We have sent free food to celebrities during special occasions (not money, but the equivalent is easy to make); >this corporation cares about food a lot. More than money… Well, the two are fungible. What are you even trying to argue about? You admit your core argument is flawed every time you state it. It is like you don't even believe what you are posting about.
  - bertil 10y ago
    In the two examples you quote, I am saying that money is easily changeable into food. The reverse is actually not true (which is why there is a lot of food waste and charities handle redistributing some of it). I’m missing the cognitive dissonance. We’ve surprised hungry people with food at an opportune moment, not money. If you want a clearer discussion on the distinction, Dan Ariely has a great explanation on paying his mother-in-law for diner. I’d be happy to quote Amartya Sen or Kahneman on the same topic if you want a clearer explanation.
Domenic_S 10y ago
I don't think that's true by necessity, although it can be. Endorsements are worth money, so it's reasonable to pay for them. Let's say I love Taco Bell (I do) and also I'm a celebrity (I'm not). Even though I genuinely love Taco Bell I wouldn't do a radio commercial for them for free -- but if they offered me money to do it I would, because I love the product. They pay me for my reach and I do it in good conscience because I actually like the product. Problem becomes when your reach is so large essentially anyone is willing to pay you five figures to hawk anything. I can see how that would be enticing. Ultimately we (the public) have to realize that celebs are just people, who may not have special knowledge about the kinds of products they're selling. Their value is in their reach, not their expertise, so take celebrity endorsements with a grain of salt.
- joosters 10y ago
  Ultimately we (the public) have to realize that celebs are just people, who may not have special knowledge about the kinds of products they're selling. Surely then, putting a clear sign saying 'Advert' or 'Sponsored' would help everyone to realize this.
  - Domenic_S 10y ago
    That muddies the water by treating all adverts the same, when sometimes (like the t-bell example above) the celeb truly likes/uses the product. I guess the best you can do as a celeb is build your brand around how you do adverts. Some radio hosts here in CA (Armstrong & Getty) say they only do adverts for products they personally use & recommend. I admit to buying a product they advertise (a belt) some years ago and it's great - I'm glad they advertised it because I wouldn't have heard about it otherwise (still wearing it!).
    - valarauca1 10y ago
      >That muddies the water by treating all adverts the same, when sometimes (like the t-bell example above) the celeb truly likes/uses the product. But you admit this is irrelevant because you don't know if that person has any in-depth knowledge. Nor do you know/trust that person. In your scenario that person is just a voice on a radio saying Trust me I love Tacobell and eat it all the time. Trust is an interpersonal social currency, gained via social interaction. If there is no prior social interaction between the advocator, and the person being advertised too... How can there be trust?
user202020 10y ago
Obviously corporations exist to make money. I'm not saying that. I do say that it is within an organization's interest to communicate authenticity. Not the illusion of authenticity (though that does benefit the bottom line too,) but legitimate authenticity. When I think of an ad that has someone I trust talking about a product they love or trust even though they were paid to like it, I think of podcast ads. Some of the podcasts I listen to; Hello Internet, Cortex, or ATP; been a fine experiences even with the ads because it didn't feel like a dishonest recommendation. I know they're getting paid to say what they do, and that's perfectly fine with me. Advertisers should move to make experiences like that, with transperancy, so that everyone knows what's going on, knows they're basically ads, but still trust the endorsements.