Ken Bone May Have Violated FTC Guidelines With Uber Tweet (vice.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from VICE News: In a lot of ways, unlikely presidential debate star Ken Bone is a marketer's dream. He is undecided on his political leanings (for now), inoffensive, instantly recognizable, and affable on TV and social media. So it makes sense that Uber asked him to send a promotional tweet for this week's launch of Uber's black car uberSELECT service in St. Louis, site of the debate Sunday night that launched him to fame. But there's one problem: Bone may have violated Federal Trade Commission guidelines for advertising on social media by not marking his tweet as an ad or mentioning that Uber paid him for making the tweet. "[The tweet] needs to disclose that he was compensated," said lawyer Rick Kurnit, of Frankfurt, Kurnit, Klein + Salz PC. "He and Uber are in violation of FTC guidelines, because Uber is also responsible for what their influencers do." The guidelines that Kurnit is referencing are pretty straightforward, and the FTC offers specific advice for how to craft sponsored posts on Twitter. "The FTC isn't mandating the specific wording of disclosures," an FTC guidelines FAQ states. "However the words 'Sponsored' and 'Promotion' use only 9 characters. 'Paid ad' only uses 7 characters. Starting a tweet with 'Ad:' or '#ad' -- which takes only 3 characters -- would likely be effective." Kurnit added that while the FTC "doesn't like" using simple hashtags for disclosures, he agrees that it might have sufficed. When VICE News initially reached out to Uber asking whether Bone was paid for the tweet, a spokesperson said the company is "providing him with Uber credit for his role in the launch." And although Bone and Uber wouldn't be fined for violating the FTC Act (Section 5 of which prohibits "deceptive advertising"), the guidelines say that "law enforcement actions can result in orders requiring the defendants in the case to give up money they received from their violations."

Comments

Is this a joke?

[Anonymous Coward]

Celebrities get paid ALL THE FUCKING TIME to post shit on Twitter and Instagram and there's never any mention of "this ad was paid for by...". Seriously, go to look at one of the Kardashian's Twitters or Instagrams. And in case you might be thinking it's all coincidence, I used to do IT work for a company that was paid to get celebs to do that shit.

Re:Is this a joke?

[jandrese]

This is what I don't get. I see unmarked paid endorsements everywhere on Twitter. Why did the FTC get their panties in a bunch over this one?

Just use the Hillary defense

[hsmith]

He didn't know so he can't be held responsible. Easy enough.

Re:Just use the Hillary defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Her campaign worked with her Super PACs, illegal according to FEC rules.
The DNC routed money for down ticket elections to her primary, borderline illegal according to FEC rules.
Her campaign took millions from Saudi Arabia, illegal according to FEC rules.
Her campaign coordinated with newspapers and didn't declare their help as donations, illegal according to FEC rules.

Who is in trouble after all of this?
Ken Bone, because he tweeted.

This country is completely fucked if this is how the laws are upheld now.

Total Bullsh*t

[BarbaraHudson]

This is total bullsh*t. How is this "deceptive?" And last I looked, I don't see most ads saying that they're ads. Slashdot Op Deals at the bottom of the page has ads for 6 items, none of them marked as ads. Same with ads on TV, the radio, and plenty of other web sites. Ads are obvious - even the slashvertisements.

Re:Total Bullsh*t

[Kiuas]

Ads are obvious - even the slashvertisements.

They're not obvious to everyone, in fact it'd seem they're not obvious to most people. There haveve been a few studies done on how well people, especially young people recognize sponsored content as an ad and the results are quite far from it being obvious:

In the study, published in the December Journal of Advertising, Bartosz W. Wojdynski and Nathaniel J. Evans, both assistant professors in the Grady College, conducted two experiments using online news articles to examine the differences that the language and positioning of the disclosure labels make in determining whether consumers recognize sponsored articles as advertising content.

In the first study, only 17 of 242 viewers, or 7 percent, identified the content as advertising, and in the second eye-tracking study, only 17 percent identified the articles as advertising.

"I think that many publishers and advertisers assume that just because they put a label on the content, consumers will automatically understand that the article they're reading is a paid advertisement," Wojdynski said. "These results show that's not the case at all, although the design of the disclosure label can make a big difference."

The first study invited subjects to read online content featuring two stories: one that was editorial content and one that was a native ad featuring a quote from the executive of a fictitious company. Twelve versions of the second story were presented, all with varying disclosure label language-"advertising," "sponsored by," "brand voice" and "presented by"-and different positions for the disclosure label-on the top, middle and bottom of the article page.

The study found that readers were seven times more likely to identify as advertising those articles that used "advertising" or "sponsored content" in the disclosure label compared with those that used terms like "brand voice" or "presented by."

The second study used eye tracking to determine the best position for disclosure labels within native advertising articles. When a native advertisement disclosure was at the top of the page, only 40 percent of the viewers looked at it, but when the disclosure was in the middle of the page, 90 percent looked at the label. Sixty percent of the viewers noticed advertisement labels at the bottom of a page.

As adblocking has become easier than ever advertisers have evolved and sponsored content is the new trend, and even though to you or me it's blatantly obvious to pick these out, many people are easily deceived. So if we want to make sure advertisers cannot deceive consumers emphasizing correct labeling is important.

To be not leaning one way or the other

[presidenteloco]

in the election at this stage means you must have the political and social insight of a (very vertical) fence post.

Re:To be not leaning one way or the other

[phantomfive]

It means you hate all the candidates.

Or the Trump defense

[CanadianRealist]

I never tweeted that. Anyone who says I did is wrong!! and a complete liar.

Re:What a moron

[PraiseBob]

There are several candidates I want to vote against... I'm not surprised some people have not identified a candidate they want to vote FOR.

Different rules for the 'little guys'

[Nikkos]

Seriously. A perfect example of how average individuals get fscked while the rich can do what they want. Every other fucking tweet/instagram/facebook post by a celeb is a commercial endorsement of some sort, I don't see the FTC making a fuss - until it's a (well-dressed) average American - THEN it's a problem.

Re:That's politics for you...

[Rei]

Poor Ken Bone. I guess now he'll have to go back to his old job as a card in Guess Who.

It doesnt count if he is wearing a red sweater

[youn]

c'mon leave the guy alone. (1) he is new to this, last week he had less than 10 followers (2) it's not that bad, really (3) how the heck isn't it obvious it is an ad from the tweet

Re:Who???

[ArchieBunker]

At this point I'd consider an undecided voter as someone with an IQ low enough to a ward of the state.

Re:Who???

[mspohr]

Anybody who is "undecided" at this point is a moron.

Seems unenforceable

[mattwarden]

Govt says I can't say something? There's an amendment for that.

Re:That's politics for you...

[Rei]

1) I linked that tweet myself elsewhere in the comments, as part of a series of funny tweets about Ken Bone.

2) Wow, stop the presses, someone on the internet repeated something that they found funny!

Re:That's politics for you...

[Talderas]

Poor guy asks a sensible question.

Media can't abide this.

Media searches individuals history looking for any possible dirt.

They find "dirt", the a reddit post indicating belief that the shooting of Trayvon Martin in self-defense was justified, expressing potential sexual attraction to pregnant women, and promoting vasectomies.

The only real evidence of wrongdoing that they found was a reddit post indicating that he had submitted fraudulent insurance papers to keep his pizza delivery job.