3 ms·

I'm surprised no one's mentioned this yet, but the photo of Gretchen referenced as a "candid shot" at the very start of the article (and shown on right a bit lo

I'm surprised no one's mentioned this yet, but the photo of Gretchen referenced as a "candid shot" at the very start of the article (and shown on right a bit lower down) is anything but. There's at least 5 (!) different kinds of branded 'Hills Bros' merch filling the shot. It's hugely obvious that it's an ad. Weird leading example for an article included "Do you know it when you see it?" in the title.

mruts 7y ago
I was thinking the same thing. I don’t think anyone was trying to deceive anyone.
cdubzzz 7y ago
Came here to point this out as well. I didn’t read the entire article because I was too confused by that being called a “candid shot”. I’m sure there is a real issue to discuss here, but what a terrible way to introduce people to it.
Cthulhu_ 7y ago
Oh it is obvious - in this specific case - but the main issue is that the line between original content and advertisements is blurred. I noticed the same on Facebook - if it's not actual ads, it's my FB friends raving about a movie, a game, a destination (think Disneyworld), a thing they got, etc - so basically most content is ads. The They Live sunglasses should be an extension that can abstract these things to keywords like "CONSUME" for product promotion and "MARRY & REPRODUCE" for relationship updates / family pictures.
dmurray 7y ago
However, it is missing the disclaimers that the article says this influencer insists on using > Van Ness's posts are clearly labeled as ads, with the caption #advertisement or #sponsoredcontent [...] Altman is diligent about using those hashtags. It wouldn't be too hard for the FTC to crack down on sponsored content that isn't tagged as sponsored. Of course they don't have the budget to go after everyone, but they can fine one big player and make a heavy handed example of a handful of small ones (who won't actually get hurt, the free publicity will be worth it to them). The cost of compliance is cheap, so everyone will make sure to display the "sponsored content" sign. That, like the article, misses the point, however: like placebo drugs, ads work just fine even if you know they are ads.

mruts 7y ago

I was thinking the same thing. I don’t think anyone was trying to deceive anyone.

cdubzzz 7y ago

Came here to point this out as well. I didn’t read the entire article because I was too confused by that being called a “candid shot”. I’m sure there is a real issue to discuss here, but what a terrible way to introduce people to it.

Cthulhu_ 7y ago

Oh it is obvious - in this specific case - but the main issue is that the line between original content and advertisements is blurred. I noticed the same on Facebook - if it's not actual ads, it's my FB friends raving about a movie, a game, a destination (think Disneyworld), a thing they got, etc - so basically most content is ads. The They Live sunglasses should be an extension that can abstract these things to keywords like "CONSUME" for product promotion and "MARRY & REPRODUCE" for relationship updates / family pictures.

dmurray 7y ago

However, it is missing the disclaimers that the article says this influencer insists on using > Van Ness's posts are clearly labeled as ads, with the caption #advertisement or #sponsoredcontent [...] Altman is diligent about using those hashtags. It wouldn't be too hard for the FTC to crack down on sponsored content that isn't tagged as sponsored. Of course they don't have the budget to go after everyone, but they can fine one big player and make a heavy handed example of a handful of small ones (who won't actually get hurt, the free publicity will be worth it to them). The cost of compliance is cheap, so everyone will make sure to display the "sponsored content" sign. That, like the article, misses the point, however: like placebo drugs, ads work just fine even if you know they are ads.