Slashdot Mirror
Social Media Stars Agree To Declare When They Post Ads For Products (bbc.com)
"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.
Sixteen social media stars including singers Ellie Goulding and Rita Ora, models Rosie Huntington-Whiteley and Alexa Chung, and vlogger Zoella
Who?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Phew, I dodged a bullet.
I only get cars, flights, cosmetics, clothes and restaurant vouchers, so I'll be OK.
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.
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.
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.