4 ms·
Maybe they should be. If no actor is willing to take the risk then would we be worse off with less ads for prescription drugs being advertised on TV.
by Larrikin 4y ago
Maybe they should be. If no actor is willing to take the risk then would we be worse off with less ads for prescription drugs being advertised on TV.
- registeredcorn 4y agoDo you think it's reasonable to assume that actors wouldn't take the risk in order to get paid in an industry that is notoriously competitive to get paid in? I could see a lot of people simply chalking it up to "Well, hopefully nothing bad happens...?" That is also assuming they even fully appreciate the risk that they'd be taking on. It certainly doesn't seem like it would be in the interest of the ad agency to make them aware of their share of culpability.
- jerrysievert 4y agowhat about the person operating the camera? it seems there is some conflation between a "brand ambassador" and someone hired to film a commercial. if someone takes direct interest as payment for filming something, and they further go out and endorse it, then they are a brand ambassador. if someone gets paid once for doing a job (or some residual per play), but nothing further, that sounds like payment for hire.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]