
Netflix using fake Twitter accounts to promote new movie - holic
https://twitter.com/samiswine/status/1078506903909523456
======
metalchianti
Wow, not surprising to me.

I noticed an explosion of Birdbox memes on social media yesterday. I hadn't
heard of the movie and did some research. Mediocre reviews and the plot seemed
like ordinary horror/thriller. Still, these memes were popping up everywhere.
No way this was organic.

~~~
mattdeboard
Yeah I'm just sitting here thinking, "Oh."

I had to block mentions of this show's title on Twitter. It was getting
ridiculous.

------
zerotolerance
Almost zero data here. Zero investigation or reference material. Almost no
editorial. Only an arbitrary clickbait accusation. But it says "Netflix" so HN
FP here we come. This is Obama "invading" West Texas and declaring martial law
to take over a Walmart all over again.

~~~
zerotolerance
... and now we're all talking about Bird Box. Thanks "hollywood babylon" for
the meta-advertisement.

------
cribbles
Would such a thing be legal, per FTC guidelines on social media endorsement?
(Let's set aside whether Netflix is "really doing this" for a moment.)

The FTC's Sponsorship Identification Rule requires influencers and marketers
to "clearly and conspicuously disclose their relationship to brands when
promoting or endorsing products through social media."[1] This is the reason
you see hashtags like #ad on promoted posts from celebrities. Violations of
this rule "can result in penalties far larger than any imposed to date by the
FTC."[2]

I'd think that creating phony, low-follower accounts _en masse_ to promote a
product would not circumvent the rule, simply because these accounts don't
belong to "influencers." But I don't know. Can anyone with a better legal
grasp on this chime in?

[1] [https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-
releases/2017/04/ftc-s...](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-
releases/2017/04/ftc-staff-reminds-influencers-brands-clearly-disclose)

[2] [https://www.allaboutadvertisinglaw.com/2018/01/fcc-
revives-i...](https://www.allaboutadvertisinglaw.com/2018/01/fcc-revives-its-
own-native-advertising-rule-sponsorship-identification.html)

------
paulpauper
A $110 billion company cannot be bothered to buy realistic looking shill
accounts.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I'm pretty sure fake media that is really a company posting masquerading as an
independent review, or is actually an unflagged advert (ie doesn't show
unambiguously that it's an advert) are illegal in the EU.

So, perhaps the "fake looking accounts" is on purpose so as to (arguably) not
be fraudulent; as buying well hidden accounts would be a very clear
contravention of the law.

------
bengale
So they've hired some social media marketing company?

------
leowoo91
Are we at the point just reading a tweet and believing it immediately? What if
those accounts are created intentionally to create such tweet?

------
davesque
I guess they're thinking the ends justify the memes.

~~~
general8bitso
Oy.

------
dustinmoorenet
I watched the movie last night and it was good for what it is. I wonder if
Netflix wanted to jump start something they genuinely thought was good but was
being buried by all the other things they are offering. Maybe they thought the
ends justify the means if their costumers are entertained.

~~~
hannasanarion
The movie drives me crazy, because they had an amazing premise and set up a
meaningful metaphor, and then totally just dumped it.

I think at the beginning the doctor literally says "ignoring your problems
won't make them go away", it's extremely on-the-nose, and the bulk of the film
is about trust and teamwork and that seems like it's going somewhere, and then
you get to the end, and it like... nothing. Nothing is learned. Nothing
changes.

The doctor even comes back at the end and you go "oh boy here comes the moral
when we learn what this movie really was about" and she's all like "yay now we
can be blind to our problems together" roll credits. There was so much
opportunity in the premise and it's totally squandered.

~~~
hombre_fatal
I was hooked at the start just for the Lovecraftian cosmic horror concept
rather than some sort of moral metaphor (didn't notice) but it just goes
nowhere after the cool introduction.

Though at first my reaction was "oh look, it's 'A Quiet Place' but with sight
instead of sound."

Funny how we're here discussing it now on the front page of HN though. If this
tweet gets picked up by HN and other large forums, then I'll have to give
Netflix marketing a "well played."

------
dx87
"Suspiciously low tweet/follower count" seems like an awfully low bar to set
for claiming that it's a bunch of bot accounts. Not everyone spends their life
making posts on social media.

~~~
darkerside
That's why they used a ratio instead of pure volume numbers. Why are so many
people following these accounts that don't even tweet?

~~~
gammateam
the point is that using ratios to determine engagement doesn't mean that an
account is fake or a bot, or that the followers are fake or bought.

people mistakenly believe even influencers have bot or bought followers, just
because their engagement is low

its just a poor metric to make a conclusion, and you'll have to accept that
nobody knows anything

------
CM30
Studios have been doing this sort of thing for years. Not too surprised
Netflix would do the same.

Hopefully they'll never got as far as making up a fake critic to promote the
movie like Sony did with David Manning.

------
kuhhk
Counter-theory: a bot builder needs to test out his bot code, and used tweets
about Bird Box movie as the test subject to shill for, hoping to drown amongst
the other fans, rather than something that might get flagged.

Seems just as plausible, if not more..

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
Indeed, or the bots are just scraping the most popular content from the big
meme accounts, which all seem to be sharing these Bird Box memes at the
moment.

