I'm skeptical of the FTC's position here. In particular, I fail to see the difference between social posts and traditional product placements.
> A character on a sitcom drinking a Diet Pepsi isn’t giving their personal opinion about the soda, and the actor is playing a character.
A celebrity is also playing a character. Also, if they're filtering the choices of what to endorse based on their personal views (as many of the influencers are), doesn't that make it less of an ad?
I also don't see why a "#sponsored" hash tag is not enough. Anyone who cares can understand hash tags.
> I also don't see why a "#sponsored" hash tag is not enough. Anyone who cares can understand hash tags.
I didn't see any complaint in the article about a "#sponsored" tag. I did see complaints about "#sp" and "#spon", which are opaque if the reader is not already familiar with what they mean.
> The FTC thinks #ad is okay if it's at the beginning of a post, but #sp and #spon aren't.
> Users need to be clear when they're getting paid to promote something, and hashtags like #ad, #sp, #sponsored --common forms of identification-- are not always enough.
The quote I included made it pretty clear that #ad was conditionally acceptable if it prefixes the message. It also made it clear that #sp and #spon are never sufficient. I saw no further notes on #sponsored, but my common sense would group it with #ad if I had to choose between the two options presented.
> Also, if they're filtering the choices of what to endorse based on their personal views (as many of the influencers are), doesn't that make it less of an ad?
A distinction is useful because it allows people to categorize for themselves what they think is a worthwhile sponsership. It's adding information to the market which wasn't present (or was hard to acquire) beforehand, which is always useful.
For a simple example, imagine an endorsement of makeup by Kim Kardashian, and a shop tool by Adam Savage. Initially you believe they are using the products because they like them and think they work well. Now you learn they were paid endorsements. Do you provide the same level of confidence to the suggestions of these two people based on paid endorsements that you do if they are not paid for those endorsements? I don't. One of them I trust to care about their integrity and reputation with respect to this, the other I do not.
> I also don't see why a "#sponsored" hash tag is not enough. Anyone who cares can understand hash tags.
Because the whole world isn't twitter, and hash tags don't always make sense. how do you hash tag a segment of a podcast?
I wouldn't trust an endorsement of anything from Kim Kardashian regardless of whether it was paid or not.
For me at least, this is largely self-policing. The people and sites who I would actually trust in purchasing decisions would take pains to disclose any compensation regardless of whether the FTC mandates it. Trust is a market.
> Because the whole world isn't twitter, and hash tags don't always make sense. how do you hash tag a segment of a podcast?
Obviously you should use a medium-appropriate disclosure. My issue is that the FTC seems to believe that "#sponsored" isn't even appropriate for platforms where hashtags are used (like Instagram).
>My issue is that the FTC seems to believe that "#sponsored" isn't even appropriate for platforms where hashtags are used (like Instagram).
The argument that a hashtag should qualify as proper disclosure is without merit IMO.
Posts on social media are covered in hashtags, sometimes more than twenty hashtags are used on Instagram.
A well-hidden #sponsored hashtag buried in between, or even under, several variations of #YOLOSWAG and #drinksprite sounds nothing like proper disclosure.
In a lot of (most) circumstances, disclosures are inherently going to be pretty buried.
In a video, they're probably going to be somewhere in small print in the credit roll at the end. For example it's pretty standard practice to have a standard disclaimer related to product placement.
And even when journalists and others have a link to a detailed disclosure statement, how many people actually click through to read that.
I generally favor transparency but the reality is that most disclosures are always going to be effectively footnotes and 99% of the time people won't notice them or will just ignore them.
> In a video, they're probably going to be somewhere in small print in the credit roll at the end.
When you have small print in a video, I think that itself is a good indication of how commercial it is, so I don't really think that's a problem. If celebrities end up having to include small print in posted images, well, I think we'll understand pretty quickly how commercial and sponsered it is.
> And even when journalists and others have a link to a detailed disclosure statement, how many people actually click through to read that.
Generally I see them as a postscript on the article, not as links (unless the link is to give more detailed information).
> I generally favor transparency but the reality is that most disclosures are always going to be effectively footnotes and 99% of the time people won't notice them or will just ignore them.
That presumes that the only benefit of this is in that people immediately notice the sponsorship. There are other benefits though, which is that other people and notice the sponsorship and disseminate the information more prominently.
As I say, I strongly favor disclosure even when it's not front and center. My only caveat to people is to not assume that disclosure renders moot all conflicts of interest and other biases.
> A character on a sitcom drinking a Diet Pepsi isn’t giving their personal opinion about the soda, and the actor is playing a character.
A celebrity is also playing a character. Also, if they're filtering the choices of what to endorse based on their personal views (as many of the influencers are), doesn't that make it less of an ad?
I also don't see why a "#sponsored" hash tag is not enough. Anyone who cares can understand hash tags.