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."

Comments

Man I sure feel like riding a blimp now

[discord5]

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.

Incestuous

[bonch]

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.

Re:Incestuous

[PopeRatzo]

The first problem with your anti-capitalism rant is that you don't actually explain why there should be encroachment on the free market in this situation. There is already an FTC requirement for disclosure.

Um, the FTC requirement is an example of such encroachment. The corporations would call that FTC requirement a "job-killing regulation".

Please give me an example of how you can reign in a monopolistic corporation without government encroachment in the form of regulation.

And I use "evil" not in a religious sense, but in the sense of "bad for everyone". And by "everyone", I mean human beings. Though I know it makes me out of step with the Supreme Court, but I do not consider a corporation a member of the set, "human beings".

Here in the US, government is us. Whether or not you happen to like it, our government is still made up of Americans, by Americans, and for Americans. Just like it says in the manual. It is "bloated, inefficient and corrupt" to the extent that we are bloated, inefficient and corrupt. Corporations on the other hand, are virtual golems, created only to feed on the wealth of others. That is part of their definition. They were created in order to allow a business person, and groups of business people, to avoid negative consequences of their actions. Unlike our government, corporations are made "for" certain individuals, though they are not "of" or "by" those individuals (again, by definition).

Now you want to call me an "anti-capitalist" just because I state some basic lemma of the theory of free markets. I would disagree in your characterization of me as anti-capitalist". I believe in allowing "capitalism" the same limited parameters that we allow government, that it gets to exist, in a highly limited form, only as long as it provides a net positive to society. When it ceases to do so, we should put it back in the crate until it can learn to stop shitting on the carpet.

Currently, our version of "free market capitalism" (which is really a platonic ideal more than any actual possibility) is crapping all over the floor, chewing up the furniture, and basically making the place unlivable. Its enrollment in a behavior class is past due. Government is the only entity capable of disciplining the unruly beast.

Putting government in its place, on the other hand, is our job, and it's one that is still well within our grasp (but only if enough of us can be well-informed enough to get the job done). And our government is incapable of being more evil than we are, whereas no such limitation exists on corporations.

And yes, I believe most Americans are stupid when it comes to an understanding of how their government works and the relationship of government to corporations. This is how we got the Tea Party.

Celebrity? Endorsement? OBJECTION!!! TROLL!!!

[interkin3tic]

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.

disclosures for eveybody

[renegade600]

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.

Who says Brin is a "celebrity"?

[AliasMarlowe]

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"?

Re:Who says Brin is a "celebrity"?

[rommi04]

My mom has never heard him, and I'll bet yours hasn't either.

My mom has heard of him. Maybe your mom should read more?

"celebrity" definition nitpicking

[KingAlanI]

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.

Re:To answer the question in the summary

[macshit]

Or, in other words, this was much ado about nothing.

Or to be more blunt, this story is a (painfully obvious) troll / astroturf / FUD.

Recently there's been a lot of this on Slashdot; I get the feeling somebody has realized that Slashdot, with its, er, extremely lax editorial standards, and reasonably large readership, is a great place to satisfy his daily quota of anti-Google activity...