15 ms·
Paid influencers must label some posts as ads, German court rules
- ramboldio 5y agoThe headline in a domestic newspaper reads "There are some product placements that influencers do not need to label as ads" https://www.zeit.de/digital/internet/2021-09/bundesgerichtshof-influencer-instagram-werbung-kenzeichnung-urtei https://www.zeit.de/digital/internet/2021-09/bundesgerichtsh... :D it's all about framing
- w-m 5y agoThis is a better headline, as it clarifies the situation. The Reuters headline, that influencers must label posts as ads when money changes hands, is not really news - the law was voted on this June, and goes into effect at the beginning of next year.
- growt 5y agoThe ruling was actually in favor of influencers, as before almost everything had to be labeled as an ad. Now there is a ruling that makes a lot of exceptions. So the headline you cited is closer to the truth IMHO.
- dathinab 5y agoI just read the article and from the facts listed in it the decision seems fairly reasonable. Hopefully this will generate a bit more legal reliability for them. The current legal situation was (and probably still is) somewhat absurd.
- qwertox 5y ago> it's all about framing My pet peeve are the news snippets in Google Discover or Google News, which then lead to a paywalled article. From my point of view these snippets are all ads for the newspaper or magazine which is promoting them by giving Google access to index them. One could argue that they are not actively promoting their articles, that it is Google who is "stealing" the content and publishing it, but then again, they want to be monetized through the "Leistungsschutzrecht" (Ancillary copyright for press publishers), so they are well aware that having their articles indexed is beneficial to them. They might as well add a robots.txt file, which is respected by Google. They are also formatting their articles in such a way, that the snippets are as attractive as possible, which becomes obvious when you read an article and have the feeling that you're reading 3 times the same content until you get to the real information. These snippets are clearly ads and Google should have to label them as such, unless the content is free-to-view.
- daniel-cussen 5y agoThis is not new. Newspapers typically were folded so you could read the headline on the front page before deciding to buy it. And then you'd have a paperboy yelling "Extra! Extra! Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor!"
- 5faulker 5y agoThat's the zeitgeist.
- dang 5y agoHmm - ok, I've squeezed a 'some' up there to make it less misleading. Thanks!
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- k__ 5y agoWhat does "übertrieben werblich" even mean? Did those people read any Apple fanboy blogs lately? These people actually pay Apple AND write overboarding positive reviews.
- glugc 5y agoIf you cannot see by yourself when an "influencer" is showing you an ad you are not the sharpest tool in the shed
- jacobmischka 5y agoI follow some somewhat popular accounts who occasionally advocate for a product they enjoy even though they aren't being paid to. It would be nice to know for sure when the sentiment is legitimate or bought.
- the-dude 5y agoIs it still a sentiment if it is bought?
- jacobmischka 5y agoMost ads include feigned sentiment, in my experience.
- glugc 5y agoThe result is that those influencers will be paid under the table and won't label their posts as ads.
- fartcannon 5y agoYes, that's the problem they're trying to address. As George Carlin said "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
- TamDenholm 5y agoTom Scott makes a good video on this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-x8DYTOv7w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-x8DYTOv7w
- fouc 5y ago> Around the world there are regulations for "influencers", for people with a large audience on platforms like YouTube, or Instagram, or TikTok. Those regulations make sure that if someone is paid to endorse a product, they have to declare that payment to the people watching. But.. why does no-one on TV, or film, or anywhere else have to do that? That's a quote from near the beginning of his video. Tom Scott is supportive of declaring paid endorsements, he just thinks it should be declared everywhere by everyone, not just influencers. He gives some good examples of some TV/film that do declare it with a sort of watermark.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 5y agoThe "anywhere else" just isn't true. Ads on TV as well as in the printed press and large online platforms are labeled either by law or more or less formal agreements between these publishers. The same is true for "native content" which tries to blend into the site with design and format, but is still clearly labeled as being "sponsored by BP" or whatever. Journalists at quality publications aren't allowed to accept anything of actual value. So books for reviews are ok, but you aren't going to keep that Mercedes. For car reviews specifically, I remember seeing notes on them explaining that the publication paid travel expenses or that they accepted the invite to some luxurious event. It's really only the entertainment sector, especially US movies and series, that does product placement.
- pessimizer 5y ago> Ads on TV as well as in the printed press and large online platforms are labeled either by law or more or less formal agreements between these publishers. Ads on TV are literally placed in news (local and national) broadcasts with no indication that they were paid for. Every morning show has a segment where they shill products, periodic "gift guides," and people being interviewed who are headlining or keynoting local trade conventions and festivals. I don't think that there is legislation of any sort governing print ads; they're labeled to distinguish them editorially from the rest of the magazine or paper for the magazine or paper's sake whenever they're labeled. If they're disguised as a story, I've never seen them labeled at all. On the internet paid stories get labeled a lot more often these days, but the push that made that happen is part of the same push that made influencer labeling happen, because the internet, being new, is the center of a lot of moral panics.
- zinekeller 5y agoA bit unrelated, but if you want a overview of sponsorships in different media platforms across different countries (mostly Britain and US though), I suggest watching Tom Scott's excellent video: https://youtu.be/L-x8DYTOv7w https://youtu.be/L-x8DYTOv7w. (Note that the video is ~30 minutes long. It's unfortunately that complicated, even when only talking rules mainly in two countries.)
- jedimastert 5y agoFirst thing I thought of as well. The hypocrisy is a bother to say the least
- xqcgrek2 5y agoWhy does YouTube or Instagram tolerate sponsored content? They don't get a cut from a sponsored video or product placement, and their dominance in the advertising space means this is also cutting into their ad revenue.
- corobo 5y agoSponsored content isn't locked in to YouTube The second they ban it all the creators that can afford to will jump ship. YouTube knows the creators that can afford to jump ship are also the ones keeping their lights on I have no idea the legal situation but I'd also imagine there'd be a safe harbour challenge in there somewhere too
- Jerry2 5y ago>The second they ban it all the creators that can afford to will jump ship. Jump to where though? No other video platform is even close to the number of visitors. We really need a credible YT alternative :(
- corobo 5y agoProbably Vimeo plus their remaining socials at first to satisfy outstanding contracts and then I'm not sure unfortunately Depends on their access to tech knowledge whether they go distributed (peertube) or find another YouTube. Wherever they go would become the new YouTube over time Oddly enough it seems all content creators quickly attract a tech person that they later rely on and make their first hire when successful. I doubt it'd be the issue, depends what exists at the time
- ajhurliman 5y agoSponsored content is the main income for creators, so if a platform banned it there would be a mass exodus and they'd lose their dominance.
- xqcgrek2 5y agoBut they would earn more money from regular ad revenue, presumably. You're painting a rather bleak picture -- that the majority of creators/influencers' content is advertising. If that's the case, I'm not sure why Youtube/Instagram should also tolerate that -- it's basically spam on their platform they haven't curated through their ad network.
- jjcm 5y agoGood. I'd love if we could go further and make requirements to disclaim if a photo's structure has been digitally altered. Combining these two would be very effective in increasing clarity of content online.
- throwaway98797 5y agoThis is tough. Phones do a lot of magic already.
- Veen 5y agoDigitally altered from what? All digital cameras and image processing tools "digitally alter" images.
- jjcm 5y agoThat's why I specifically mentioned the structure of the image. You'd still have to differentiate lens corrections, but structural changes could be counted differently from color / sharpening corrections / standard postprocessing.
- slapfrog 5y agoLots of industries/companies are required law to maintain records of what they do. If such requirements were imposed on media companies, it could be done by archiving source material and using nondestructive editing software that saves edit decision lists. Laws requiring media production companies to keep these records seem implausible in America, but at least conceivable in some of countries.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 5y agoNo thanks, we don't want another Prop 65 nuisance, this time for photos.
- mLuby 5y ago"Results not guaranteed" "Actor portrayal" "Real users compensated for appearing" If everything would have the warning label (like "Don't try this at home" or California's "known to cause cancer" signs or arguably GMO food labels) then people ignore it. It'd be better to know how different what's shown is from the median result, but that'd be hard to figure out, and if you could, why not just require the ads show that result instead?
- stickfigure 5y agoIsn't there a jurisdictional problem here? I can't imagine anyone outside of Germany paying any attention to this.
- zinekeller 5y agoUnless you're in Germany or specifically targeting Germans, nope. But some people are interested in these type of topics, especially when compared to (for example) America's lax policies (but it can't beat America's very lax policies on sponsorships in television and movies).
- colinmhayes 5y agoEven if you're specifically targeting Germans. I don't see how international influencers could be judged against.
- dathinab 5y agoI don't think this law has the same (intentional) overreaching characteristics as GDPR, i.e. it only applies to people "doing business" in Germany. In this end the ruling just clarifies some legal details about when and when not you need to label it in certain cases where the respective law(s) "standalone" was clear enough. The ruling also seems to be in general in favor of influencers, making it clear that in certain situations they don't have to label content as ads.
- Bayart 5y agoIt's typically the type of stuff that ends up becoming an EU norm.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 5y agoI believe this is most common in the teenager-focused segment, especially young girls and cosmetics? That demographic will tend to prefer domestic content because the language still makes a difference at that age and fashion/products/culture are not completely universal.
- 5y ago
- dukeofdoom 5y agoI noticed a trend of youtube now where the entire video is some sort of setup for a product. It will start off with some emotionally charged story about some personal struggle, and you're like okay this person is being so genuine sharing, the hard time they're going through. And you're feeling empathy. But it ends with some ad for some bullshit online coaching. Its just so off putting. Reminds me off that hot waitress in Mexico that does a shot of Tequila with you because you think she likes you. Later before you leave you find out it was like $40 for that shot. And the bouncer will kick your ass if you don't pay. The betrayal is real.
- eli 5y agoUS law already requires influencers to disclose ads. (And the FTC says that US law includes foreigners whose audience is reasonably likely to include Americans) https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/dis...
- k1rcher 5y agoThis is enormously surprising to me. I can't seem to find any links to official legal code or documents on that page (seems to be a guide for influencers). What I'm specifically interested in, is what happens when as an influencer you _don't_ disclose an ad? Are there fines? Is it a series of "stern warnings", akin to the Comcast emails you'd get for pirating big Hollywood studio movies from public trackers on a home connection? An n-strikes and you're out system? Influencers (in joint union with targeted advertisements-- and even more tangentially cross-site/browser/device fingerprinting) has made me extremely embittered and disillusioned to social media in general, going so far as to delete old accounts made while I was younger and even abandoning certain platforms. (early-mid-20's here btw)
- jasode 5y ago>What I'm specifically interested in, is what happens when as an influencer you _don't_ disclose an ad? Are there fines? Of course, not everyone is caught and punished but if you're big enough to attract the scrutiny of the FTC, they do issue fines for not disclosing ad sponsorship. Example: https://www.marketingdive.com/news/ftc-fines-detox-tea-company-1m-over-instagram-ads/573703/ https://www.marketingdive.com/news/ftc-fines-detox-tea-compa...
- jrochkind1 5y agoThanks for link! In that case, fined the company, but not the influencers? I mean, it makes sense, the influencers are small potatos in many cases just hustling to get by. But... the company probably just takes the risk as a potential cost of doing business (especially when enforcement is so rare; in this case they were fined $1 million which isn't peanuts, but I wonder what % of their profits it was...), and the influencer has no incentive to worry about it at all unless the company paying them tells them to.
- franciscop 5y agoIn Spain influencers are regularly breaking up to 6 laws by hiding they are doing ads. This is a great video, but in Spanish ofc: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPHeadnlKnI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPHeadnlKnI
- erk__ 5y agoIt's the same in Denmark usually the consumer ombudsmand first asks them to comply before getting the police to set up a case against them if they do not comply They have also set up a website where they say what a influencer should https://www.forbrugerombudsmanden.dk/hvad-gaelder/markedsfoeringsloven/skjult-reklame/reklame-paa-sociale-medier-1/ https://www.forbrugerombudsmanden.dk/hvad-gaelder/markedsfoe...
- fnord77 5y agocan we stop using the euphemism "influencers"? There's several words in English to describe them. I like "shill"
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- warent 5y agoI think most influencers openly communicate that they are sponsored. A shill intentionally obscures it. In this sense it's not a euphemism, it's just a different thing altogether.
- fnord77 5y agountil the influencers were forced to disclose they were sponsored (in the US), they actively obscured the fact. shills by intent
- Ansil849 5y agoI just assume that any time any product is promoted, that the person is a potential shill. It may be a cynical view, but I find it a cleaner metric than trusting the poster to disclose whether they are getting compensated for mentioning a product.
- katbyte 5y agoIndeed, and it becomes very apparent when it’s a product you know is rubbish.
- yann2 5y agoIts Germany. They dont make assumptions about anything unless its in the rule book, as a rule.
- malandrew 5y ago> They dont make assumptions about anything unless its in the rule book, as a rule. I'm curious. Is this in any German rulebook? (I secretly want it to be).
- dathinab 5y agoThe secret rule book was lost during WW1 which is why thinks went so out of hand afterwards. (Sorry for the bad joke, but as a German the though that there is a secret rule book which was lost in WW1 had me rolling, I just have no idea why??) > Is this in any German rulebook? Idk. but I feel that: - State organs often act as if it's the case. - Politicians often do some many (bad/wrong) assumptions hat I feel it would be better if it would be the case.
- isk517 5y agoIn the aftermath of WW1 the secret rule book was accidentally allowed to become too secret.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- that_guy_iain 5y agoNearly all Influencers in Germany as a far as I know where doing this. It was widely known that it would be required since it's required for other advertising.
- numair 5y agoThere’s laws, and then there’s enforcement. Let’s see who gets in trouble, and what happens to them. We live in an era where governments are diluting the value of their legal frameworks through selective enforcement (SEC, anyone?). I don’t get too excited anymore when I see these sorts of “protections” passed.
- tmaly 5y agoI would love to see something similar to commercial new stories. Have stories written by PR firms written as such. Have opinions labeled as such. Have speculation labeled as such.
- websap 5y agoIf an influencer owns a brand, then are all their posts ads? How does that work with Instagram's algorithms, will it suppress this content?
- neonate 5y agohttps://archive.is/pBNog https://archive.is/pBNog
- 908B64B197 5y agoShouldn't we assume that anything online is paid advertising? I mean, someone is paying for it. Same thing for newspaper and medias in general.
- mrweasel 5y agoWho paid you to write that? It would be sad if we have to go down that road. There's a guy who maintain a website about old local railroad in my area (and you are NOT allowed to share his content on Facebook), no one is paying him anything. Should he then be forced to label his content as: "Not sponsored", if he don't want readers to assume that he's sponsored by someone? I'd say you where closer if you had suggested just labeling Instagram as an ad platform. Anyone with more than X number of follows, assume that their posts are sponsored.
- jrochkind1 5y agoI have wondered for a while why the FTC isn't getting serious about this here.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- throwawaymanbot 5y agoThe Germans being sensible again. This is needed, (especially for the younger teen cohort who might not realize they are being used to garner sales/revenue).
- MuffinFlavored 5y agoIf she's in a swimsuit/leggings with a protein powder or some CBD oil in the forefront of the photo saying "thanks to @companyname" in the caption... it's an ad.
- OptionX 5y agoWith this new decision how exactly does tings work as so far as not giving the influencer money but other goods. For example a gaming pc brand give a fully built top-of-the-line in exchange for publicity. Would a video by that person on the brand be labeled an ad or not?
- noizejoy 5y agoFor music making products (hardware and software) it’s become common for influencers to get products for free without official strings attached. Of course a bad review will most likely stop the free flow of products to that influencer. I’m not sure who’s being scammed more, the video viewer or the video maker.
- netcan 5y agoWhether or not these influencers should have to label ads is one thing. But... I'll note how "little guy" regulation works relative to major players. You don't see court, legislature decisions, or such upending the business model of a FB, Google or whatnot. Every word will be negotiated, Google and/or FB will have control over implementation. Often, the regulation will be a net positive, given that it can slow small competitors down. The process will take years, the roll out will be gradual.... "Influencers" or really anyone selling content via platforms can have rules slapped onto them by either the state or the platform without notice, lots of potential for revenue disruption... It's easy to belittle the little, and this article kind does it too: "The court said one fitness influencer should have been clear she was advertising when she was paid to promote a brand of jam." Meanwhile.. FB, Adwords and such got decades of lead time. Extreme tolerance of various dubious practices as regulation designed to be business friendly at the cost of timeliness & effectiveness was slowly formulated. No parliament demands Fast and Furious post little notices, nor have they over decades.
- ashtonkem 5y agoYou’re right, but it’s worth pointing out that the other party being slowed down by these rules are corporations that are paying influencers to post ads, some of which are quite large. They’re losing a source of sneaky ads hidden as genuine personal endorsement.
- netcan 5y agoAdvertising exists, and I have no problem talking about that as a whole. "Paid influencing" is <1% of that near trillion dollar market. The real meat is divided between giants like Google and FB. They own the platforms, dictate terms and cut content makers in on a sliver when and if they choose. That is true for music, porno, instagram garden influencing... The advertising buyer side has a megacorp presence, but it's mostly a lot of everything and there's not much power concentration. Platforms generally want to own the connections. Advertiser-influencer, artist-listener, youtuber-viewer, etc. Sponsorships and paid placement is a workaround. It's what TV, cinema, games and such got away with for decades. Maybe there are transparency rules or somesuch somewhere... but nowhere does regulation upend the business model or get overly handsy. When it's an instagram people instead disney, open season. I'm not against regulating advertising. I just think picking on the smallest, ugliest kid and then running off is scapegoating.
- Pxtl 5y agoOn the subject, Tom Scott has a great video on the inconsistency that online influencers and youtubers have to declare ads/product-placements while traditional media does not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-x8DYTOv7w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-x8DYTOv7w
- pacman2 5y agoMany [German] influencers don't even live in Germany. The German court thinks again it can rule the world with its ruling. Good luck with that.
- prawn 5y agoMany wouldn’t be bothered by this - promoting that businesses are paying you to post just tells other businesses that they can do the same. Small time content people on Instagram would likely be excited to show that they are finally in the game. I have traded content for product ($100-30k travel experiences usually). One thing that makes this ad scenario awkward is that the business would ordinarily pay an agency to create the content. An influencer has replaced that. They are doing work and then showing it off, and often it’s being used by the business going forward.
- trevcanhuman 5y agoYet the TV industry is still far from done with shady advertising. Very Related: YouTubers have to declare ads. Why doesn't anyone else? [0] On another note, that is like the shortest news article ever! It's literally just 102 words! [0] https://youtu.be/L-x8DYTOv7w https://youtu.be/L-x8DYTOv7w
- mclightning 5y agoWorld needs this extensively. I can't find an honest tech review anywhere anymore.
- aspiringtechYy 5y agowhere I live this is already the norm, thankfully