Social Media Stars Agree To Declare When They Post Ads For Products (bbc.com) 40
"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.
social media stars (Score:5, Insightful)
Who?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Already Required In The US (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the first spots are still well covered by "military intelligence" and "Microsoft Works".
So, basically they'll tag everything as 'ad' now? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You DO know that this is already the case [influencerdb.com] 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 [amazon.com]?
(linking to Amazon so nobody could claim it's just a hoax someone made up. Given the label the "made
Re: (Score:2)
If you're trying to influence people into following your example, yes.
Why is this restricted to "social media"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 audie
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Advertising (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 weigh
Finacial rewards (Score:2)
Phew, I dodged a bullet.
I only get cars, flights, cosmetics, clothes and restaurant vouchers, so I'll be OK.
Re: (Score:2)
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.