I don't think there is any question about whether or not it is an ad. They identified it as an ad. The conversation seems to be seeking to create a debate aroun

I don't think there is any question about whether or not it is an ad. They identified it as an ad. The conversation seems to be seeking to create a debate around disclosure, and whether it lies solely with the product, or with the the celebrity as well. I don't think we need to require celebrities to disclose all of their endorsements, financial relationships or tax returns. Hyperbole intended. From a simply practical perspective, if they all did it, it would become meaningless and no different than not doing it. I actually think it lends them some authority because they are paid to endorse something. It implies that their opinion is of value when the endorsement is actually paying for access to their audience while implying some expertise. I think Howard Stern is a great counterpoint to the Kardashian example. He has as much, or more power in terms of influencing a large audience. Where the Kardashians have proven themselves as simple profiteers (the Kardashian Card being the best example: http://kardashiankard.com/card-fees/ http://kardashiankard.com/card-fees/), at best, while Stern has shown profound respect for his audience. He sells advertising through his show, but they are clearly identified, and he claims that his personal endorsement are genuine. I believe him. In the end, I think the Kardashians and others that fall in to the same category are exploiting a mostly young, less discriminating audience. Given enough time they will discredit themselves. I think trying to police celebrity disclosures is silly, and impractical, while having the potential, as mentioned above, to make it meaningless anyway.