3 ms·
Perhaps your "unit" here should not be the post but the entire Instagram feed - the same way you're talking of a film rather than a particular scene or shot. T
by hakanensari 10y ago
Perhaps your "unit" here should not be the post but the entire Instagram feed - the same way you're talking of a film rather than a particular scene or shot.
The way I see it, she has simply placed a product in her feed, the same way a film places a product in its timeline. Whether you like the practice or not, I'd treat both the same way.
Also, disclosed or not, part of the audience will inevitably figure out the ulterior motive ("Oh, look at that product placement!"), and then some will get turned off ("How blatant!"). It's up to the content creators to do this slily or tactfully enough so it doesn't backfire. Perhaps that's more important than disclosing per se.
- kelnos 10y agoThis gets into an insane grey area, and is completely subjective, but I think for movies, often the entire point of a film is suspension of disbelief, to transport the viewer somewhere else for two hours. A "#ad" in the corner every time a product placement shows up would be jarring and ruin the effect, ruin the _art_, if you want to put it that way. Tagging a single Instagram post with "#ad", on the contrary, doesn't detract from other non-ad photos in the feed. Obviously if the feed is mostly advertisements, some people might find its value overall go down. But yeah... I can argue it either way.
- EnFinlay 10y agoI would argue for reducing the unit rather than increasing it. > Perhaps that's more important than disclosing per se. I respectfully disagree, I don't support any ulterior or non-marked advertising. I'd rather see legislation that bans paid product placement in movies than reduced disclosure rules. But that's just me being an angry old man.