
Teen Vogue published and then deleted an uncritical story about Facebook - coloneltcb
https://www.businessinsider.com/teen-vogue-story-on-facebook-prompts-sponsored-content-questions-vanishes-2020-1
======
LeifCarrotson
Looks like somebody accidentally hit the "make visible to the entire planet"
button on Teen Vogue's CMS instead of the "make visible to just Lauren so she
can edit it and submit it to her editor".

That's the way submarine articles are written and the way a CMS works these
days, no surprise to most of the people here I assume, but I still find it
surprising that CMS vendors sell systems that have minimal friction required
to publish something. You don't quite need an air-gapped multi-key
cryptographically secure system, but a few checks by various parties that
articles have been copy-edited, fact-checked, verified for browser support and
accessibility, and approved by an editor would seem to alleviate a lot of
embarrassing publication errors.

~~~
tempsy
The problem with the "it's Teen Vogue's fault for fat fingering the
publication" is that Sheryl Sandberg immediately shared the article on her
personal Facebook page. I mean, are we to believe that she did not realize
this was paid sponcon by her own company (PR/comms falls under her leadership)
that it was "mistakenly" published and was organic content (in which case she
should've known as well as they had access to FB employees with pictures
inside the office).

Mistake or not, FB leadership clearly cheer led it's publication, and then
walked back and claimed they had no idea this was sponsored, and only in the
last hour or so said it was a "mistake" to deny it was sponsored.

~~~
tmpz22
Can’t we assume at this point that Sandberg likely has someone posting on her
behalf? Someone who likely is in PR/marketing working “next to” the
person/team that spearheaded the article.

This is particularly ironic because there are likely rules against account
sharing that Facebook PR does not in fact follow.

~~~
tempsy
there's no way someone could've posted this on her personal FB page without
her knowledge

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
Is that true? Maybe I misunderstand how powerful people typically use media,
but I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that Sheryl Sandberg has an
assistant who's allowed to post to her personal Facebook.

~~~
tempsy
you’re conflating the act of posting something with posting something you made
up without approval from the person in question.

------
jashkenas
Twitter thread about the mislabeling/misattribution/removal, for context:
[https://twitter.com/maxwelltani/status/1214957104206876672](https://twitter.com/maxwelltani/status/1214957104206876672)

Mashable story tracking the takedown and statements by Teen Vogue:
[https://mashable.com/article/facebook-teen-vogue-
sponsored-c...](https://mashable.com/article/facebook-teen-vogue-sponsored-
content-election-integrity/)

 _Update: Sadly, it looks like the Internet Archive copy has now turned into a
404. Mods should probably replace this link with the Mashable writeup above
instead._

~~~
hnaccy
[https://archive.is/8J1qB](https://archive.is/8J1qB)

Since Internet Archive chucked it in memory hole.

~~~
Thorrez
The Internet Archive is working for me:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20200108170304/https://www.teenv...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200108170304/https://www.teenvogue.com/story/how-
facebook-is-helping-ensure-the-integrity-of-the-2020-election)

~~~
mirimir
Please see my post in the other thread about how TFA images fared on the
Internet Archiv.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21998463](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21998463)

------
tempsy
I don't think "fears" is really the right word, and is not part of the
original headline...

Regardless, sponsored editorial content is one of those icky things that I'm
surprised remotely reputable journalistic outlets get into. You're renting out
your reputation to those that could use it (e.g. likely not very reputable
themselves and thus can easily drag you down).

How much does an article like this go for? Six-figure range? It just seems
like the monetary reward doesn't make up for the possible damage to your
perceived journalistic integrity.

~~~
onlyrealcuzzo
Six figures? My guess is in the low thousands -- if that. Teen Vogue is not
that big of a website -- according to SimilarWeb it gets 4M visits every six
months, which is less than ~22k visits a day.

A reasonable CPC for native content is under 10 cents. Assuming a 5% CTR
(high), that's 1k clicks, for ~$100.

A reasonable CPM is also under 10 cents. That comes in at ~$200.

News articles don't stay on the front page very long.

It's amazing and pathetic how willing companies are to throw their reputation
into the ground for almost no money.

~~~
tempsy
The math is different when a company is paying for it. It's not the same
economics as a random ad that shows up on the page.

~~~
onlyrealcuzzo
I know. They overpay for stuff like this. But in the order of 10s, not
thousands.

The point was, the OP guessed six figures. I was trying to make it clear that
I can't imagine this being above the low four figures.

~~~
tempsy
this is dumb, but I don't think vogue is that dumb. for < $10k many
individuals and corporations seeking to wash their reputation by pumping "fake
news" could afford it, and if that were true you'd see a lot more of this.

I can't imagine it would be that cheap.

~~~
thaumasiotes
It might cost more than $10,000 to publish something like this, but not all of
that money goes to the venue. Just because Teen Vogue didn't have to write it
doesn't mean nobody had to write it.

------
lern_too_spel
Not surprised that Facebook initially denied it. Planting news stories
covertly has been part Facebook's PR playbook since the beginning.

[https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-google-
lies-2011-5](https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-google-lies-2011-5)

[https://www.technologyreview.com/f/612424/facebook-is-
being-...](https://www.technologyreview.com/f/612424/facebook-is-being-
accused-of-hiring-a-pr-firm-to-smear-its-opponents/)

~~~
JohnFen
Yep. I assume that any "news" story that fawns over Facebook is a PR plant.

------
minimaxir
> Newest in teenvoguegate: Facebook sponcon _was_ supposed to be sponcon: “We
> had a paid partnership with Teen Vogue related to their women’s summit,
> which included sponsored content. Our team understood this story was purely
> editorial, but there was a misunderstanding.” - FB spox

[https://twitter.com/pkafka/status/1215034900375433216](https://twitter.com/pkafka/status/1215034900375433216)

~~~
CaptainZapp
Whenever a FB spokes drone, or senior manager opens their mouth they lie.

That, at least, is my take.

------
leftyted
> Facebook spokesperson Lisa Stratton said: "This piece is purely editorial.
> We pitched this to Teen Vogue and worked with their team on the piece over
> the past few months." (Companies' communication teams will sometimes pitch
> news outlets on possible stories, in the same way news outlets will reach
> out to companies to ask for interviews and access, and it's not a sign of a
> financial relationship or underhand behaviour.)

Maybe I'm naive but the idea that Facebook (or whatever company) is "pitching
possible stories" to news outlets seems bizarre to me.

~~~
jimhi
I will let you in on a secret then, this is how 1/3 of stories work. I have
gotten such stories written about my companies. These writers are under
constant pressure to churn out stories and welcome someone doing most of the
work for them.

Here is a general rule of thumb when reading an article. If what you are
reading is not news, you are being marketed to.

------
stefan_
The middle aged social media marketing person, responding in the faux speech
of a 14 year old to shrug it all off:

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ENxrpCCX0AATVYd.png:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ENxrpCCX0AATVYd.png:large)

------
jrochkind1
That various people at both Teen Vogue and Facebook _don 't even know_ if it
was sponsored content or not (and in some cases thought they did) says a lot
all on it's own.

~~~
casefields
No. The issue is they all weren't sure how much truth to admit to, until it
went up the chain of command. Decisions like this are hard when you have a web
of deceit to navigate.

------
tus88
> But Teen Vogue then added a note saying it was sponsored content, before
> removing it again. A Facebook spokesperson told Business Insider it wasn’t
> sponsored content, then finally admitted it was.

Did they let interns run the PR department for a day?

------
deogeo
Suppose the story _was_ marked as sponsored content - what is Facebook's
motivation for publishing it in Teen Vogue? Presumably _Facebook_ shouldn't
have trouble reaching people. The only sensible explanation is that they had
hoped the 'sponsored content' tag would go unnoticed, so that readers would
mistakenly attribute the story to Teen Vogue. No matter how you look at it,
the aim was deception.

------
sincerely
Reminder that only something like 10% of Teen Vogue’s leadership is under 20
years old

~~~
jyrkesh
I'm assuming you mean *readership rather than leadership? It would be kinda
weird if they had even 10% teens as their execs.

But yes, I've also heard it's a bunch of creepy older folks

~~~
somebodythere
Creepy by virtue of being older than 20?

~~~
jyrkesh
By virtue of 96% being older than 24? For a magazine called Teen Vogue that's
about dating tips and makeup advice for teenagers. Yeah.

While it's not exactly an unbiased source, Wikipedia trusts this citation
enough...

[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/teen-vogue-
promot...](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/teen-vogue-promotes-
prostitution-to-an-audience-of-minors-and-thats-not-even-its-biggest-problem)

------
rchaud
Is it possible that it was an A/B test with one variant showing the "sponsored
content" byline, and the other hiding it?

I'm remembering the Stanford study in 2016 that showed 4 out of 5 middle
school students weren't able to distinguish sponsored content from the
publication's own content.

Maybe an enterprising Teen Vogue marketer decided to push that number up to 5
out of 5.

[https://ed.stanford.edu/news/stanford-researchers-find-
stude...](https://ed.stanford.edu/news/stanford-researchers-find-students-
have-trouble-judging-credibility-information-online)

------
RickJWagner
Outside my circle, but it just strikes me odd that Teen Vogue would have an
article of this type.

Shouldn't Teen Vogue be about teenage fashion stuff? Isn't Facebook the 'old
people' platform? Would real teens care?

~~~
umeshunni
To get with the times, Teen Vogue recently pivoted from fashion to wokeness.

~~~
dragonwriter
Is it a pivot, or is wokeness an element of fashion in the demographic it
targets?

~~~
Jamwinner
Bingo. Even the fashion is a signaling medium for wokeness now.

------
madcow2011
"Literally IDK" _snicker_ I got a kick out of that response.

------
neonate
[http://archive.md/i4iuG](http://archive.md/i4iuG)

------
mirimir
Anyone have the actual content?

Just curious.

~~~
casefields
[https://archive.is/8J1qB](https://archive.is/8J1qB)

