Slashdot Mirror
Do Celebrity Endorsements on Google+ Require Disclosure?
theodp writes "According to the FTC, 'celebrities have a duty to disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in social media.' So, would the ringing endorsement of Zeppelin tour operator Airship Ventures that Sergey Brin gave to his 200,000+ Google+ followers last week fall into that category? 'Since getting to know the folks over at airshipventures.com,' posted Brin, 'I have had the pleasure of flying with them several times and this loop in the south bay is arguably the most scenic. I will probably give it another go when they get back to SF in October.' Forbes calls Brin 'an investor in Airship Ventures,' and others have speculated about a possible Google connection."
Hoooo boy, I wonder if I can still get on one of those zeppelins now. Damn you Sergey and your foul underhand advertising!
Oh well, if there's going to be a rush now, I guess I'll just stay home and code a bit.
That Gawker link is pretty interesting. Apparently, Brin isn't afraid of spreading the wealth to privileged friends, who then go on to publicly support Google and Google's products in the media as well as talk about how Google should be "allowed to regulate itself." Even NASA is involved, letting Google's founders park their party jets at Moffett Field "for scientific missions" even though those jets are impractical for such flights.
Missing critical information that Sergey Brin isn't really a "celebrity" so much as "google founder." The difference may not be legally relevant, but for fuck's sake, point out in the summary that he's famous for co-founding google, the service he is fucking using to make that "endorsement."
Also worth pointing out that the "endorsement" is less of an endorsement and more of a "explanation as to how he took the picture and mentioning it was a pleasant experience."
If CEOs are barred from mentioning online things about companies they've invested in, then that's not a -terrible- abuse of the laws, but it would still be abusive.
I assume that any time some celebrity says they like something, they are doing it for money. Maybe not Sally Struthers, but everyone else. To assume otherwise, seems to me, is foolish. It's their job after all. We all use our skills and specialities at work right? Well, celebrities speciality is notoriety. It's no different really. We all depend on other people's expertise, but the trick is figuring out if the expertise is genuine or being paid for by somebody.
Mean what you say...say what you mean.
to me, disclosures should only be required if they are getting any type of compensation from the company - directly or indirectly. But then I think the rule should apply to everyone, not just celebrities.
Oh can we let go of such antiquated uses of language? When airships move by floating on the surface of the ocean then you can say they sail. While they're floating through the skies it's going to be called "flying." Don't like it? Too bad. Ask anyone if what airships do looks like sailing or flying and everybody except you and your history buff club is going to say "flying."
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I generally assume that any endorsement has some sort of commercial arrangement behind it. The only exception would be a recommendation from a friend and even those can sometimes be suspect.
Now, I don't mean to belittle this issue - the clear separation of paid and unpaid content is extremely important - but the stuff in this example doesn't seem that bad. Consider, for comparison, the lack of disclosure involved in political blogs and other online media...
Definition of a celebrity: someone who is famous for being famous. While this is a little overboard in many cases, it is far from applicable to Brin.
Sergei Brin is known by reputation to those who could not distinguish between a celebrity and a hole in the ground. He is a co-founder of Google and well-known as such, so that makes him a public figure, but by no means a celebrity. Now, do they have similar rules for "public figures", or merely for "celebrities"?
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
and you don't know what a celebrity is
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I think you missed the point of that little Simpson's lesson. No, one would not need to know your investment in it since AN ANTI-TIGER ROCK DOESN'T WORK.
Anonymous Coward is quite famous around slashdot and is a known troll on top of that, so I have to ask, what's your affiliation with the people who make said tiger-producing donuts?
I figure one can be a generally known celebrity, or a celebrity _amongst a specific group of people_. It seems fair to say that Sergey Brin is one of the latter.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
A celebrity can be any VIP or important person, and I'd say that being a co-founder of Google qualifies. I'd also consider Steve Jobs and Bill Gates to be celebrities.
Praising the service is an endorsement. If you're going to praise it, you should disclose that you're involved with it.
I'm a progressive person, regulations don't scare me. But stupid regulations should be killed, and this one seems really stupid to me.
How could Google let someone so important on that deathtrap? Some broad gets on with a staticky sweater and it's "Oh the humanity!"
We're talking slashdot celebrieties.
So, like a Physics Club formal, it's sad and demented, but sorta social?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I think Victor Kiam has prior art.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
No.
So, would the ringing endorsement of Zeppelin tour operator Airship Ventures that Sergey Brin gave to his 200,000+ Google+ followers last week fall into that category?
The simple answer is that there needs to be some form of payment exchanged before you can consider Airship Ventures to be an advertiser, and no disclosure needs to occur if there isn't an advertiser involved. If Brin had a great experience with them and wanted to speak highly of them of his own accord, he's welcome to do so without disclosing anything, regardless of whether or not he had invested in them (though, ethically, it would still be best to disclose your personal interest in a company in a situation like that). If, on the other hand, he was paid by them for an endorsement, he needs to disclose his relationship with the company. Since there's no mention of a payment having occurred, we can say that he didn't act contrary to the FTC's regulations.
Or, in other words, this was much ado about nothing.
Missing critical information that Sergey Brin isn't really a "celebrity" so much as "google founder."
If you don't know who Sergey Brin is, you're reading the wrong website.
Does appearing on a TIME cover count? If not, how about being named one of PEOPLE's "hottest bachelors"? :-)
...for them to disclose when they're NOT endorsing? Wouldn't that be the more unusual event that should be brought to our attention?
Surely noone still thinks celebrities are getting up there to extoll the virtues of particular products out of the kindness of their heart, right?!
People need to adjust their defaults if not
from the site http://www.airshipventures.com/about "Specifically, Eureka is a Zeppelin NT. The NT stands for New Technology." Are we sure Microsoft isn't an investor too?
he is a geeklebrity. after all, everyone on slashdot knows who he is, he must be famous!!
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
Airships sail, they don't fly.
So when they plummet to the ground in a massive fireball (as is the fate of all airships sooner or later) they're sinking, not crashing?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it