5 ms·

Larry David in particular made a point of never endorsing it - quite the opposite. As for the others, if people listen to a football/movie/fashion/etc star for

Larry David in particular made a point of never endorsing it - quite the opposite. As for the others, if people listen to a football/movie/fashion/etc star for investment advice, I think they should know what to expect.

chubot 3y ago
Eh, that was the joke / genius of it. I'm sure he got paid well over $1M to say "meh FTX" or whatever it was. So it depends on whether you think "endorsement" is "taking money to associate yourself with a company by appearing on video in their advertisement" or saying on the record "I endorse this company, I use their products, etc." Most endorsements are now in the former category, although it does seem like modern podcasts also have explicit ones in the latter category too
- fineIllregister 3y ago
  > I'm sure he got paid well over $1M to say "meh FTX" or whatever it was. 10 million dollars, according to Michael Lewis in his recent 60 Minutes interview.
- explaininjs 3y ago
  I do not know of any reasonable interpretation of reality in which “these people payed me a lot of money to make an ad for them but I do not think they are legit so I will take their cash but use the platform they provide me to keep on repeating that I think they are all a fad and I do not recommend them” can be considered an endorsement.
  - nwienert 3y ago
    Did he ever say he wasn’t a fan of them outside of the ad?
  - brvsft 3y ago
    You have it reversed. The celebrity endorser is the platform. FTX has no platform, they have money and can buy commercial time. Larry David has his own 'brand', and people like you and I have positive feelings towards it. His mere appearance in an FTX commercial is him lending his platform of positive feelings we all have for him over to the brand of FTX, so that we may associate those positive feelings toward them. That's the endorsement. Even if he said, "FTX fucking sucks, and so does crypto!" in the ad, people would think, haha that's so funny, did he really say that in a commercial?! And the next time they think about crypto they remember their jovial laughter at that dumb ad and "FTX." I also don't care that he endorsed them and don't think he's at all responsible for people losing money in crypto.
im3w1l 3y ago
> As for the others, if people listen to a football/movie/fashion/etc star for investment advice, I think they should know what to expect. That was my first impulse, but then I realized that I would never do such a thing myself. And that really, the regulation should mainly be about protecting the interests of those that would. Adding a layer of bureaucracy and requiring promoters to due diligence, on the plus side it will help protect people, on the minus side it will cut into the margins of these celebrities and the industries around them, which could lead to the sector shrinking and worse entertainment. That tradeoff needs to be made with the people that stand to be affected the most in mind.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  This is ridiculous. Promotors should be more responsible than the Regulators? If it was obviously a fraud at the time, the police and SEC should have shut it down. Why expect some random celebrity to do more diligence and gatekeeping than the officials that license FTX? If a product is legal to sell, and legal to advertise, then actors should not be held responsible.
  - richbell 3y ago
    > If a product is legal to sell, and legal to advertise, then actors should not be held responsible. FTX was in a legal gray area. They were using customer funds in part to make large campaign donations and influence the, at the time hotly debated, regulatory decisions about cryptocurrency.
  - nullc 3y ago
    > Why expect some random celebrity The "random" celebrities were paid tens of millions of dollars, that's why. It's a separate question about the failure of regulators and law enforcement. It turns out that more than one party can do something wrong.
- explaininjs 3y ago
  I unilaterally reject any policy proposals predicated upon “I’m better than most other people and I know what’s best for them”.

chubot 3y ago

Eh, that was the joke / genius of it. I'm sure he got paid well over $1M to say "meh FTX" or whatever it was. So it depends on whether you think "endorsement" is "taking money to associate yourself with a company by appearing on video in their advertisement" or saying on the record "I endorse this company, I use their products, etc." Most endorsements are now in the former category, although it does seem like modern podcasts also have explicit ones in the latter category too

fineIllregister 3y ago
> I'm sure he got paid well over $1M to say "meh FTX" or whatever it was. 10 million dollars, according to Michael Lewis in his recent 60 Minutes interview.
explaininjs 3y ago
I do not know of any reasonable interpretation of reality in which “these people payed me a lot of money to make an ad for them but I do not think they are legit so I will take their cash but use the platform they provide me to keep on repeating that I think they are all a fad and I do not recommend them” can be considered an endorsement.
- nwienert 3y ago
  Did he ever say he wasn’t a fan of them outside of the ad?
- brvsft 3y ago
  You have it reversed. The celebrity endorser is the platform. FTX has no platform, they have money and can buy commercial time. Larry David has his own 'brand', and people like you and I have positive feelings towards it. His mere appearance in an FTX commercial is him lending his platform of positive feelings we all have for him over to the brand of FTX, so that we may associate those positive feelings toward them. That's the endorsement. Even if he said, "FTX fucking sucks, and so does crypto!" in the ad, people would think, haha that's so funny, did he really say that in a commercial?! And the next time they think about crypto they remember their jovial laughter at that dumb ad and "FTX." I also don't care that he endorsed them and don't think he's at all responsible for people losing money in crypto.

im3w1l 3y ago

> As for the others, if people listen to a football/movie/fashion/etc star for investment advice, I think they should know what to expect. That was my first impulse, but then I realized that I would never do such a thing myself. And that really, the regulation should mainly be about protecting the interests of those that would. Adding a layer of bureaucracy and requiring promoters to due diligence, on the plus side it will help protect people, on the minus side it will cut into the margins of these celebrities and the industries around them, which could lead to the sector shrinking and worse entertainment. That tradeoff needs to be made with the people that stand to be affected the most in mind.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
This is ridiculous. Promotors should be more responsible than the Regulators? If it was obviously a fraud at the time, the police and SEC should have shut it down. Why expect some random celebrity to do more diligence and gatekeeping than the officials that license FTX? If a product is legal to sell, and legal to advertise, then actors should not be held responsible.
- richbell 3y ago
  > If a product is legal to sell, and legal to advertise, then actors should not be held responsible. FTX was in a legal gray area. They were using customer funds in part to make large campaign donations and influence the, at the time hotly debated, regulatory decisions about cryptocurrency.
- nullc 3y ago
  > Why expect some random celebrity The "random" celebrities were paid tens of millions of dollars, that's why. It's a separate question about the failure of regulators and law enforcement. It turns out that more than one party can do something wrong.
explaininjs 3y ago
I unilaterally reject any policy proposals predicated upon “I’m better than most other people and I know what’s best for them”.