Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Social Media Stars Agree To Declare When They Post Ads For Products (bbc.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the step-in-the-right-direction dept.

"Britain's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has threatened prominent social media stars with heavy fines or prison time if they advertise commercial products on social media without making it clear that they are doing so in exchange for financial rewards," writes Slashdot reader dryriver. The BBC reports: Sixteen social media stars including singers Ellie Goulding and Rita Ora, models Rosie Huntington-Whiteley and Alexa Chung, and vlogger Zoella have agreed to change how they post online. They will have to clearly state if they have been paid or received any gifts or loans of products they endorse. It follows warnings from the Competition and Markets Authority that their posts could break consumer law. Online endorsements can boost brands but can also mislead, said the CMA. The CMA has not made a finding on whether the influencers named breached consumer law, but said all of them volunteered to change their practices following an investigation. However, if they fail to comply with the agreement reached with the CMA, they could be taken to court and face heavy fines or prison sentences of up to two years.

40 comments

  1. social media stars by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sixteen social media stars including singers Ellie Goulding and Rita Ora, models Rosie Huntington-Whiteley and Alexa Chung, and vlogger Zoella

    Who?

    1. Re:social media stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a ~50 year old IT worker who rants about how people use their cell phone too much. You aren't expected to know what's popular with the kiddies.

    2. Re: social media stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I only advertise my mad skills at cleaning drains for enjoyment. I have no desire to profit. I never met a particular drain I failed to want to clean all night with drain cleaning sponge and clamps

    3. Re:social media stars by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      People who are of interest to a different demographic than you. I mean, I don't want people making fun of people who like niche cultural products - because I also like niche cultural products. And you probably do to. I mean, if you wanna go back to the days of being mocked in HS for liking Star Trek instead of watching sports, I don't wanna join you.

      Although the "Star Trek"/"sports" were used as examples. I think Star Trek has become pretty popular, and most people like some sports.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re: social media stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recognize zoella only because her brother is hot.

    5. Re:social media stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Social Media Stars" means "ordinary people", I think. So yea: Who?

    6. Re: social media stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you are literally stepping in your own coattails

    7. Re:social media stars by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Grandpa, the world has moved on. If you've never heard of them, it's you not everyone else.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    8. Re:social media stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who?

      So they say you're a star.
      That's what the boys all say you are.
      I don't watch much TV,
      so you don't mean shit to me . .

    9. Re:social media stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm 27 and have no idea who these are (but I also rant about how people use their mobile phones too much).

    10. Re:social media stars by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I just completed a quick poll among the people I know in the age range of 14 to 30. Out of 8 people asked, 8 answered with the counter question "who?"

      I admit, that 8 isn't that big a sample, but maybe you could point to what demographic is actually interested in these people so I know whether I should be worried.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re: social media stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh we not hitchhiking anymore, we riding

    12. Re:social media stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a great day. The day when somebody was talking about who the hot new thing was, and I had no idea who they were and realized I didn't care to know either.

      Life improves when you stop caring about pop culture and concentrate on things you like.

    13. Re:social media stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it is a modern equivalent for reality-tv star? Bunch of douchebags who like to talk shit about themselves and their co-actors.

  2. Already Required In The US by WankerWeasel · · Score: 1

    The FTC has Endorsement and Influencer guidelines which require disclosure any time a product is received for free or as part of a paid endorsement. They haven't been strictly enforcing them but have begun to issue warnings. I'm sure in the future we'll see stricter enforcement and maybe even fines as part of their requirements.

    1. Re: Already Required In The US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine for continuous endorsing

  3. Social Media Stars??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is the most perfect example of an oxymoron possible.

    1. Re:Social Media Stars??? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nah, the first spots are still well covered by "military intelligence" and "Microsoft Works".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. So, basically they'll tag everything as 'ad' now? by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

    Because I've never seen anything posted by a "media star" that is not a product ad. Even their titpics are advertising - for silicon gel bags or niptuck services.

  5. WTF, Man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These people make like omission of facts is a bad thing! What's up with that?! Can't they even use fucking Google?!

    Oh well, UK, No free speech rights there... What the hell happened to *Buyer Beware*? Try to make the world idiot proof, and you'll end up with a world full of idiots!

    Hey, Trump! Let's keep the Brits (and definitely the French) out too! Build a Sea Wall! Then you can keep Climate Change out and make everybody happy. You bastard!

    1. Re:WTF, Man! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You DO know that this is already the case in the US, yes?

      Besides, a country where every rear view mirror invariably reminds the driver that objects in it are closer than they are and has a military that deems it necessary to print on their ordnance which end of the weapon should be pointed towards the enemy should maybe not complain about making the world idiot proof...

      Still not enough? How about this label?

      (linking to Amazon so nobody could claim it's just a hoax someone made up. Given the label the "made in the USA" information is kinda redundant...)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. The British can fuck off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just as I tell my own masters I'm an independent being who can decide for myself what is and isn't trustworthy and to that extent others can too be it viewers, advertisers, and "influencers". If someone isn't committing an act of violence, theft, or fraud the government(s) of the world have no business getting involved. End of story.

    I choose not to use shitty companies products and services. The thing I ask is the government stay the hell out so free market competition can thrive and I not be stuck monopolies (of which isn't uncommon and often fostered or outright instituted by governments). I don't need no stickin government to tell me what to buy or who I need "protection" from thereof.

    I don't use Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, Apple, WhatsApp, Skype, or Google products (outside of a complete set of sources being released anyway and mainly just forks of Android w/o the proprietary crap). I also don't need government telling any of that.

    1. Re: The British can fuck off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You did not list Instagram or Snapchat. Then you use them.

      You did not list Windows. You are a Windows user.

      Liar

  7. No, the problem is the sample size of 16. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, the problem is the sample size of 16.

    But you knew that. :)

  8. isn't "compelled speech about motivation" wrong? by tech-law-ny · · Score: 0

    Suppose I prominently use Apple products when I visit a public library or park. Should I be required to carry a sign disclosing that I actually hate Apple products, and do this only because I own a large amount of Apple stock?

  9. Why is this restricted to "social media"? by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    How about regular media? TV, films, printed? I propose that all the monitoring and data gathering technology in newer televisions, combined with the data harvesting practices of content distribution networks like Comcast, Youtube or Netflix makes them "social"; just not as interactive as other "social media".

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    1. Re:Why is this restricted to "social media"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, an actor in a TV commercial should state "I was paid to advertise this", because it is the same thing. Idiots think the anti-wronkle cream is good because Kardashian uses it - but no, she's merely paid to advertise it. Not using it otherwise!

      Oh, it is not "necessary" because everybody recognises a TV commercial as such? Well, everybody knows that anything an "influencer" says is mainly influenced by their payments & free products, so . . .

    2. Re:Why is this restricted to "social media"? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Its obvious that a TV commercial is exactly that, an ad for the product being advertised.

      But if Ford is giving Wheel of Fortune a free/cheap/discounted/whatever car to give away on the show in return for promotion of the car by Wheel of Fortune, Wheel should absolutely be required to tell people that they have received that stuff from Ford.

      Or if Nike is paying a studio to have a character in a sitcom wear Nike shoes (and to show those Nike shoes off on camera) the studio should be required to tell the audience that Nike has paid for those shoes to be in there.

      Just like if someone running a PC-related YouTube channel is required to tell someone that the Gigabyte motherboard they are using in their video was donated by Gigabyte. Or that the promotion of Squarespace on the channel is in fact paid promotion.

    3. Re:Why is this restricted to "social media"? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      But if Ford is giving Wheel of Fortune a free/cheap/discounted/whatever car to give away on the show in return for promotion of the car by Wheel of Fortune, Wheel should absolutely be required to tell people that they have received that stuff from Ford.

      Or if Nike is paying a studio to have a character in a sitcom wear Nike shoes (and to show those Nike shoes off on camera) the studio should be required to tell the audience that Nike has paid for those shoes to be in there.

      Just like if someone running a PC-related YouTube channel is required to tell someone that the Gigabyte motherboard they are using in their video was donated by Gigabyte. Or that the promotion of Squarespace on the channel is in fact paid promotion.

      The TV shows already do - and usually pretty damn early in the credits. Usually it goes under the heading "Promotional consideration given by" followed by a list of companies who have given money or product to the show.

      Sometimes they even put it up on screen of "Courtesy of". Though you can pretty much assume all prizing given out was either donated/given/provided cheaply to the show.

      Most YouTube personalities already identify their sponsors - Brilliant.org, Squarespace, TunnelBear and NordVPN, etc.

    4. Re:Why is this restricted to "social media"? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I don't know about your country, in mine you're informed before and after the show that it is sponsored by something and/or that product placement happens.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Why is this restricted to "social media"? by coofercat · · Score: 1

      First up, the vloggers and whatnot don't get on regular media, so there's no need to worry about them there. They're a concern on youtube and whatnot because it's ostensibly their account, rather than (say) l'oreal or whomever. As a 'reasonable person', I would imagine that what they say on their own channel/account is their views. Of course, if they're being paid to have views, then fairly reasonably, they should say so.

      Secondly, we generally have carefully marked adverts on TV and in print. That is, on TV, before the ads start there's a little title page, and then at the end of the ads the same. That tells you you're about to see ads. The 'informercial' type of ads (or the ones that look a bit like a TV show or whatever) typically have to say "advertisement" on the screen while they're playing too. Likewise in print, if a "reasonable person" could be fooled into thinking an ad was something more than that, then it too must say "advertisement" on it, sufficiently prominently to avoid any such confusion. The regular media is already pretty heavily regulated and managed. Anyone messing up there gets some pretty hefty issues to deal with afterwards, and as yet, we don't have "a problem" with product placement there.

  10. Advertising by ledow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Alternate headline:

    "Social Media Stars Agree To Abide By The Law That's Been In Place For Years Or Else Go To Jail"

    They didn't "agree" to anything... and they shouldn't need to.
      They got told to comply with long-established advertising laws in the UK, or else.

    Unlike other countries, you can't just slip in a sponsored product into a tweet, movie, TV programme, etc. without either clearly stating that or it literally being incidental (e.g. a live program interviewing someone who says "Well, I bought a Tesla the other day..." as part of an anecdote, etc.).

    You know what ruins some Hollywood movies? Blatant product placement. Literally stopping the movie and introducing bullshit adverts for no reason - and often for products not even available in some countries. Not just "Oh, they're drinking a Coke" or "He used an Apple Mac to hack into the mainframe" but "Hey, look at my new Nike's" (e.g. iRobot).

    If you're commercially benefiting, you need to make that clear. It's pretty much that simple.

    The bigger question is: Why do people follow such people (who just use them to monetise their "fame")? Why would anyone buy something because a celebrity they like "endorsed" it?

    Someone was watching one of those trashy YouTube channels the other day - the ones where it's just a couple filming themselves and talking about the most inane and facile trivia while they do, interrupting their own sentence to "look at the little bird", etc. as they walk through town and all that nonsense. They literally had a merchandising channel. They had T-Shirts and all sorts and pushed it in the middle of their "vlogs".

    Merchandising. For someone who films the most boring parts of their day (literally - they aren't funny, they aren't famous, they don't do anything, they just film themselves wandering around their OWN house!) and streams it to the Internet for others to sit and watch. If ever there was a sign that God doesn't exist, it's that we've got trash like that and not incurred an Apocalypse.

    1. Re:Advertising by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      they aren't funny, they aren't famous, they don't do anything, they just film themselves wandering around their OWN house

      Sounds like most sitcoms, but some people find that stuff entertaining too. And maybe it is, sometimes. For a long time I wondered about people streaming themselves playing games and thought: "Why on earth would anyone watch that", but then I found out that some actually are genuinely entertaining, and funny in the way they play and narrate what they do. So if one of the peeps I watch playing the games that I like, states that this or that game is awesome, I might give his opinion a little bit more weight than a paid reviewer or some random punter in the street.

      And maybe it works like that for those social media celebrities as well. If kids watch them because for whatever reason they enjoy watching what they wear, eat, buy, or how they behave in public, and if their friends are watching the same thing, then it's rather likely that they will try and emulate them to some degree. It's probably more effective advertisement than some sports bloke wearing a brand T-shirt: the kids might admire him but they do so for his athletic achievements, not for his lifestyle (although that particular line is rather blurred these days).

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just don't understand the nanny behavior of people. I don't understand why there are people who are compelled to be obsessed with how people make money, or who they follow on insta-whatthefuckever, or what is trendy. It gets worse when they whine about it so much that a government has to enact a law just to shut them up.

      Here in a real country no one gives a shit as it should be. If you don't like what someone's business practice is, don't participate. If you don't like the Kardashians, then don't watch them. No one cares if you do, or don't...either way. It is like that because people who obsess over things that do not involve themselves are typically wastes of flesh who have no ambition to meet or exceed any standards set by their peers. But yet they spend so much fucking effort shitting on everyone and everything, dragging those standards down so they can actually meet some expectation. If they would put that much effort into being useful, instead of dragging everyone down, they'd be that part of a couple who run those "trashy YouTube channels, making money off of t-shirts.

  11. Finacial rewards by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Phew, I dodged a bullet.
    I only get cars, flights, cosmetics, clothes and restaurant vouchers, so I'll be OK.

    1. Re:Finacial rewards by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'd first try to figure out how the UK define "financial" compensation. It might well stretch into anything that you could at least in theory sell and make money of.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Re:isn't "compelled speech about motivation" wrong by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    If you're trying to influence people into following your example, yes.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. For the lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "social media stars"? more nobodies I'm not missing by not being on these lame platforms? excellent!

  14. Found the Nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was just wondering what sort of subhuman non-person was posting all the "grandpa" shit on the internet lately.
    And of course it's notorious Nazi DNS-and-BIND (461968).

    Some things transcend generations. Freedom is good, but being dry fucked in the ass by corporations is bad.
    Kids, you need to stand up for your rights. Use GNU/Linux. Don't end up like this cock smoking faggot.