
Paid $75k to Love a Brand on Instagram – Is It an Ad? - mantesso
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/business/media/instagram-ads-marketing-kardashian.html
======
Latty
I love the 'I wish we knew what was OK' \- someone viewing the content,
totally blind, needs to identify it as an advert without prompting. The only
way to do that is to state it, up front, in the same format as the content
itself. Not hidden away in some description, not in code, plain and simple.
Anything less is obviously intending to deceive, and I see no reason to give
anyone leeway to try and hide sponsorship.

If you want your sponsorship to come across as real and honest, then get
someone to actually like your product, and then it won't matter that they
disclose it, as they'll be able to explain why they like it in a convincing
way. The only reason people want to hide the 'sponsored' element is that the
product is bad, and paying people is the only way to get them to associate
with it.

When I watch an Extra Credits video sponsored by a games company, it comes off
as honest because it's clear that it's an advert and the content is still
quality and obviously unaltered. When Purge (DOTA 2 personality), talks about
DotaBuff, it still comes off as honest as he shows how he uses the service and
what value it provides him. This can be done right, and is, by reputable
people.

~~~
Sneakos
The problem with finding someone to like your product is that it's much more
efficient to get support from people who don't like your product but are
popular, then it is get support from people who like your product, but don't
reach a large audience. Business-wise, it's smarter to attempt the former than
the latter.

>Audiences "have a very visceral reaction to '#ad' or '#spon' or whatever it
is, where they don't want to know people are getting paid for stuff even if
they are."

This is the biggest issue marketers have with those who are advertising their
products. Even though you can logically assume that a person you follow is
sponsoring products, it is more appalling to the consumer when a sponsorship
is labeled with #ad, or the likes.

If everyone was truly a self-aware consumer who knew they were being
manipulated, this wouldn't be a huge issue. But the fact is that the majority
of people will respond much better to subtle advertisements, then ads that
label themselves as an advertisement, which most people are conditioned to
ignore or dislike.

For example, after the James Bond movie "Skyfall", in which he shaves using a
cut-throat razor, razor sales were boosted by 405%. I guarantee you if they
had a #ad label during that scene, we would not have seen the same effects.

As for the question "Is it an advertisement?" of course it's an advertisement.
But that doesn't mean those involved have to make it blatantly obvious.

~~~
munificent
> For example, after the James Bond movie "Skyfall", in which he shaves using
> a cut-throat razor, razor sales were boosted by 405%. I guarantee you if
> they had a #ad label during that scene, we would not have seen the same
> effects.

And would that have been a bad thing? Have we really measurably improved the
world by having a huge spike in cut-throat razor sales?

> But that doesn't mean those involved have to make it blatantly obvious.

Why not? What's so great about advertising that it's OK to give it free reign
to play around with human psychology and influence peoples' behavior without
them even being aware of it?

~~~
Sneakos
>Have we really measurably improved the world by having a huge spike in cut-
throat razor sales?

That's not the point. The point is that these types of advertisements are
effective. In an world where standard ads are being phased out, these types of
product placements are becoming more and more necessary. Adding an ad label
will eventually make these types of ads obsolete. And it is very naive to
think that ads aren't necessary in today's society.

~~~
munificent
> And it is very naive to think that ads aren't necessary in today's society.

I work at Google, so I fully understand how much of today's economy rests on
top of advertising. But that doesn't mean society _needs_ to, just that it has
_chosen_ to.

I haven't heard compelling arguments that advertising is much of a net boon to
humanity. To me, it mostly looks like tools to steal my precious attention in
order to make me feel bad about not having a product I didn't know I was
missing out on in the first place.

------
apozem
Yes. If you are paid to advertise something, it is an ad.

The law is having trouble catching up on this front, especially in a world
where any YouTuber with an audience could potentially run undisclosed ads.
Regulating people posting videos out of their basement sounds like a
nightmare.

That said, I do my best to never support content creators that don't disclose
ads or hide their disclosures in hashtags or below the "Show more" button in a
YouTube description. That's not a real disclosure. You know it and I know it.
That's why you put it there in the first place- because no one will see it.

~~~
tedmiston
What if it's a free trip sponsored by Red Bull?

What if you pay $1 for the trip?

What if it's 50% off the trip?

...

Is a social referral program an "ad"?

There's plenty of gray area where you're gifting something non-cash, like an
experience that you are interested in anyway. Look at the Kylie Airbnb deal
for instance.

~~~
teacup50
> _There 's plenty of gray area ..._

There's not. Journalism and politics have this covered:

NO GIFTS.

It's really that simple.

~~~
chris_va
What constitutes a gift is definitely a gray area, and very culturally
specific. It's nice to want things to be black and white, but reality doesn't
always line up.

~~~
enraged_camel
This is why most government agencies have strict policies to never accept any
sort of favor from organizations or people they do business with. Even if it's
a "I'll pay for lunch next time, you can pay next time."

Basically, if there is even a remote chance that the action could be
misconstrued as a gift when viewed from the outside, it's politely rejected.

~~~
tbihl
I was part of a government group that regularly accepted airfare, lodging, and
meals. There was demand for us, but we didn't have the funding to travel on
our own.

One time this created a funny situation where a pro sports team flew us out on
their private jet. While we were in the air, they were about to hand out hats
with their logo on them, and the head of our group had to stop that until he
could consult the lawyers about that gift. It felt like an overreaction in the
particular situation, to say the least.

------
dapearce
This is an industry I'm familiar with and I'd love to hear some debate on
this. In my opinion the industry resembles celebrity endorsements and product
placement much more than digital advertising.

Do celebrities need to disclose they are being compensated to mention a brand
on the red carpet?

Do movies need to start including #ad in scenes that have paid product
placements?

The idea of endorsements and product placement go back for decades, and this
is no different. What distinguishes this from the examples above, and if "ad"
needs to be disclosed with influencer posts, why does it not need to be
disclosed with celebrity endorsements and product placement?

While there are certainly exceptions (cough _Kardashians_ ) a heavy majority
of influencers won't post about brands or products they don't genuinely like
and believe their audience would be interested in. They won't muddy their name
with a bad brand. So why do they need to be paid to post? Because they aren't
going to spend the time to create and share content for free.

~~~
sbov
This is just my personal line, and others may have different lines. My problem
is more the implication that someone is using and likes a product when they
actually aren't. Regardless of whether or not they're paid to use it. So I
don't have an actual problem with the original airbnb tweet, assuming they
actually used the house.

> Do celebrities need to disclose they are being compensated to mention a
> brand on the red carpet?

They tend to mention brands they are actually wearing at the time. In public.
I don't have much of a problem with this.

> Do movies need to start including #ad in scenes that have paid product
> placements?

Movies are obvious works of fiction.

~~~
burkemw3
I'm assuming "the original airbnb tweet" refers to Kylie Jenner's AirBnB
birthday gift post.

I consider AirBnB's product/service to be the marketplace for temporary
lodging.

I don't know what actually happened with AirBnB/Jenner, but I predict AirBnB
reached out with something like "We'll find somewhere nice for you to stay if
you post it". I don't consider that using AirBnB's product. The AirBnB's
marketing/promotion/whatever team just short-circuited the usage of the
product/service.

Of course, if AirBnB's product/service was reaching out out to me and giving
me free lodging in a beautiful place for me to post on social media, then I'd
be totally down with the original AirBnB tweet.

------
mistercow
>“A few bloggers we work with say, ‘I want you to know, my engagement on posts
that are tagged “#ad” or “#spon” get lower engagement than if that wasn’t
there.’”

This sums up the issue pretty well. The advertisers are acting like there must
be some compromise where readers are both informed and engaged, and the
reality is that _knowing_ is what disengages them.

That might be something they can overcome through the quality of the paid
content, but they cannot be allowed to overcome it by deceiving people.

~~~
chadlavi
"People hate ads so we'd prefer to just keep tricking them into thinking it's
not an ad"

------
Retric
One of the few exceptions where the headline question is YES.

~~~
tedmiston
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

------
bwang29
Is there currently a way to tell how much isn't too much to pay influencers or
to know what others have paid? I have seen Instagram-famous with 250k
followers asking for $5k for one single post in their demographic- but after
calculating the ROI with many guess work and assumptions, it seems to be a lot
worse than FB ad. The influencers often pitches themselves to be more
"organic", or the ad is giving more "brand" effect that's hard to measure with
traditional metrics. Sometimes this just feel like a new way of gambling and
the seller has way more information and leverage than the buyer.

~~~
tedmiston
There are several influencer platforms that attempt to be the matchmaker,
brands can browse by following or a budget.

------
rconti
I'm not really clear on why anyone should care.

I recognize that my first reaction is an elitist "who cares what losers who
'follow' celebrities get sold on".

But even when I get past that, I can't figure out why I'd care. It doesn't
sound like the FTC is in the business of determining what's a legitimate from-
the-heart endorsement versus what's a paid endorsement anyway.

In the end, all that really seems to matter is truth in advertising. If she's
making undocumented medical claims about something, and being paid to do so,
doesn't the FTC already have a right to clamp down on it? Follow the dollars.

I imagine making undocumented medical claims for free fall under 'free
speech'. So all they have to do is see if she's getting paid or not.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
It probably isn't a big issue if you are looking for something to drink. But
say you are wanting to buy a larger investment item or one you don't know much
about. Kitchen appliances are a good example. Let's say a coffee grinder.

Perhaps you've bought a couple, and they haven't lasted long or been sup-par
in quality, or maybe you had one you liked, but they no longer make it. You
bought the same brand, but behold, it quit sooner or it doesn't do nearly as
well. And you'd really like to have one that is decent, even if you spend a
bit more money. If you can't sort out which reviews are paid endorsements and
which ones are heartfelt reviews, you are none the wiser. Something that is
basically an ad isn't nearly as trustworthy in this case. The ads might not
have been false, per se, but they aren't exactly going to give the bad with
the good.

~~~
tbihl
It seems that Amazon, for example, has already seen the huge problem that
causes, and has been working to reduce that problem. At the other end of the
spectrum, you'd be assigning the FTC to be like the small subset of redditors
who feel compelled to reply "Hail Corporate!" any time you mention a product
you like.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
I do understand that it is a broad spectrum to regulate, and a lot of times,
it'll go without being caught. But there are ways of undermining these sorts
of things. For example, regulate the more visible folks fairly stringently.
This is more because a 'known' individual, a public person, has more pull and
status and visibility than the unknown person on reddit. I'd always punish the
offending company much more (noticable fines, dependent on company financials)
- they can require the person states the paid portion of their endorsement.

In cases like Amazon, it might be hard to catch, but when it is, you can fine
the companies involved in the paid support - an ad company, the parent
company, etc. (Amazon itself seems to be against this and likely willing to
cooperate, so they'd not have much issue).

------
dmatthewson
"Paid $75k to Love a Brand on Instagram – Is It an Ad?"

If you are a public figure paid 1 cent to endorse a product, then it is an ad.
If you fail to clearly disclose this ad identity and relationship then it is
dishonest, possibly criminal.

Nothing more to discuss. This specific situation is vastly beyond any possible
gray area.

------
nstj
> Captiv8, a company that connects brands to influencers, says someone with
> three million to seven million followers can charge, on average, $187,500
> for a post on YouTube, $75,000 for a post on Instagram or Snapchat and
> $30,000 for a post on Twitter.

Grey market indicator on the market value of the platforms themselves

~~~
Jordrok
Possibly, but I'd say it probably comes closer to matching the (relative)
level of effort required to create an average piece of content for each
platform. Video vs short video/image vs text.

------
elorant
So now we need ad blockers which could identify brands in tags and then block
the entire image. I know it sounds absurd but so is modern advertising. They
don’t seem to have any moral barrier. This is a war for protecting our privacy
and the web as a whole.

~~~
jrockway
How does Kim Kardashian posting a picture of herself eating a placebo violate
your privacy?

~~~
elorant
It doesn’t violate my privacy but it endangers the well being of the web. If
native advertising becomes the norm journalism as a whole will go down the
toilet. First it starts with celebrities endorsing products without clearly
stating that they’ve been paid, and then you’ll have the buzzfeed model all
around the web. Paid articles that promote products in a way that the
untrained user can’t really tell the difference. I don’t like it. Of course I
can only speak for myself.

~~~
sosborn
> Paid articles that promote products in a way that the untrained user can’t
> really tell the difference.

You realize that there is nothing new about this right? It's been happening
since the dawn of capitalism. Not saying it is bad or good, just noting that
it isn't new.

~~~
elorant
It's one thing happening every now and then and a whole different in becoming
the new norm.

~~~
sosborn
My point is that it has been the norm for quite a while.

------
pravda
They called out "Miranda Sings" for an Arby's commercial.

Looks like the girl is really spreading herself around!

Here's a Taco Bell commercial [1] Another Taco Bell commercial [2] Now we are
doing Oreos! [3]

Everything undisclosed of course.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy_rqmSXpvg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy_rqmSXpvg)
[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DDdBjOWXMQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DDdBjOWXMQ)
[3]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTYoI9diaQQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTYoI9diaQQ)

------
harps1chord
Recommended reading: "The Girl Who Was Plugged In" by James Tiptree Jr.

------
xrjn
In my eyes, this kind of advertising has existed for quite a while, and is
often times too subtle for most people to notice. Casey Neistat, one of the
most popular daily vloggers on YouTube, is a great example of this. There are
several recurring product placements in his videos, like the Boosted board,
Samsung events, and certain airlines, for which there aren't any _clear_
statements about. An example of these undisclosed partnerships/sponsorships
was his 'surprise in South Africa' [0] video back from 2012, where it appears
that the trip was sponsored by British Airways without any mention of it. At
one point in the video, he makes it look like he's calling American Airlines,
but in reality he didn't call (some comments back in the day called him out on
it). On the other hand, he did mention that Samsung invited him to the Oscars.

I think most people will watch his videos regardless of whether he discloses
his relationships, as was the case with the Nike 'make it count' [1] video
which many (including me) found inspiring. However it is clear that it is
becoming harder and harder to tell apart what is branded content/native
advertising and what isn't.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Mg75awALA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Mg75awALA)
[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxfZkMm3wcg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxfZkMm3wcg)

------
user202020
As a marketing guy, I understand that an endorsement won't come across as
genuine if it's clearly marked as an ad... but at at the same time it isn't
genuine so there is no problem. Consumers reacting poorly to the realization
that their favorite personalities were paid to like something is perfectly
normal. I think the challenge to meet is how to make an authentic connection
within a paid endorsement framework rather than trying to disguise a paid
endorsement as just 'loving a brand.'

~~~
valarauca1
Fundamentally if money changes hands for an endorsement to take place it is no
longer an authentic endorsement.

The most authentic endorsement you can have is word of mouth. This is simply
being the best product on the market. But this would put advertisers out of
business, and force companies to make good long lasting durable products.
Neither of these things are in advertisers, or product manufacturers best
interest.

Ultimately planned obsolescence, and corporation funded advertisement driven
product _cargo cults_ are far more profitable. (I.E.: iPhone, 50's-70's auto
manufacturing)

Your statement boils down to _How can we make corporations care about
something other then profit?_ The answer is you can't. You misunderstand the
purpose of corporations.

~~~
Domenic_S
I don't think that's true by necessity, although it can be. Endorsements are
worth money, so it's reasonable to pay for them. Let's say I love Taco Bell (I
do) and also I'm a celebrity (I'm not). Even though I genuinely love Taco Bell
I wouldn't do a radio commercial for them for free -- but if they offered me
money to do it I would, because I love the product. They pay me for my reach
and I do it in good conscience because I actually like the product.

Problem becomes when your reach is so large essentially anyone is willing to
pay you five figures to hawk anything. I can see how that would be enticing.

Ultimately we (the public) have to realize that celebs are just people, who
may not have special knowledge about the kinds of products they're selling.
Their value is in their reach, not their expertise, so take celebrity
endorsements with a grain of salt.

~~~
joosters
_Ultimately we (the public) have to realize that celebs are just people, who
may not have special knowledge about the kinds of products they 're selling._

Surely then, putting a clear sign saying 'Advert' or 'Sponsored' would help
everyone to realize this.

~~~
Domenic_S
That muddies the water by treating all adverts the same, when sometimes (like
the t-bell example above) the celeb truly likes/uses the product.

I guess the best you can do as a celeb is build your brand around how you do
adverts. Some radio hosts here in CA (Armstrong & Getty) say they only do
adverts for products they personally use & recommend. I admit to buying a
product they advertise (a belt) some years ago and it's great - I'm _glad_
they advertised it because I wouldn't have heard about it otherwise (still
wearing it!).

~~~
pbhjpbhj
IMO it doesn't matter how much the person loves the product it's still an
advert if they're compensated in some way for promoting it. "I loved it so
much I bought the company", well then it's not an ad?? Of course it's
advertising. If there's a causal link between the placement and [the paying
of] a consideration then it's an ad.

>they only do adverts for products they personally use & recommend //

Is that a legally binding statement in the relevant jurisdiction, sounds just
like the sort of thing a person who'd never used something but was only
concerned about the money would say.

------
Trisell
I actually have found that I am moving further and further away from using
Instagram due to the ads. My feed is primary filled up with ads, links to
other accounts with ads, and very few pictures that are worth actually
following. But with the increase in teens using Instagram vs Facebook. I guess
I understand the draw for advertisers.

------
Animats
Celebrity endorsements have been regulated by the FTC since the early days of
television.[1] This isn't a new thing. It goes back much further. Mark Twain
did a lot of endorsements.[2] It got completely out of hand in 1950s and 1960s
TV, and the FTC put a stop to it.

The same rules apply on Instagram. Nothing new here, just an old bad idea
coming around again.

[1] [https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-
center/guidance/ftc...](https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-
center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking) [2]
[http://celebritycred.com/history-of-
endorsements/#foobox-1/0](http://celebritycred.com/history-of-
endorsements/#foobox-1/0)

------
coldtea
> _Paid $75k to Love a Brand on Instagram – Is It an Ad?_

Why the question? The answer is yes. It is an ad, and worse...

------
josh_carterPDX
Personally I don't care if something is an ad or not. If it's someone that has
some notoriety I sort of expect it. I love calling it out with something
simple like "#ad" because I don't feel like I'm being deceived regardless of
the clear distinction that the post would clearly be an ad without it. Having
the simple hashtag just means that I can trust that the brand isn't trying to
be deceitful.

------
wyager
There seems to be an overwhelming opinion here that all ads must declare
themselves as such. Why is that? I hate ads as much as the next guy, but
forcing media to label itself one way or another seems morally suspect, and
could certainly run afoul of the principles of free speech and artistic
freedom.

------
chadlavi
Why, it's almost as though people hate ads, who'd have thought

------
SCAQTony
If you are paid to "like" something when you could care less and pose for a
photo like you "love it", that's not an endorsement, that is a de facto legal
bribe.

------
debacle
> there are no hard and fast rules.

This is untrue. There are regulations around paid endorsements:
[https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-
center/guidance/ftc...](https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-
center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking#when)

~~~
thaumasiotes
Your link certainly doesn't support you. There are no hard and fast rules. The
link is categorized as "guidance", refers to itself several times as
"guidance", and contains language like the following:

> Should I include an additional disclosure when I post on Facebook about how
> useful one of our products is? It’s a good idea.

> Determining whether followers are aware of a relationship could be tricky in
> many cases, so we recommend disclosure.

> Again, determining that could be tricky, so we recommend disclosure.

> The Guides are intended to give insight into what the FTC thinks about
> various marketing activities involving endorsements and how Section 5 might
> apply to those activities. The Guides themselves don’t have the force of
> law.

If someone files a complaint about you with the FTC, they may come after you
after the fact, on a case-by-case, individualized basis; that's as much as
they're saying until such time as someone files a complaint.

------
misiti3780
So 100K followers on Instagram snags you $2.5K for a single subliminal ad ?
This seems high.

~~~
soulbadguy
This. Looking at the fees paid by the brands they all looked kinda high. I am
wondering how do they actualy quantify the results of those endorsement

~~~
wastedhours
Unfortunately influencer marketing and ROI are rarely terms used together at
present. That being said, it's a format that's a perfect fit for brand
awareness as much as it is direct action, so there is value in looking at
vanity metrics for reach - shame that path leads to people (potentially)
gaming the system.

~~~
shostack
Branding plays are notoriously hard to measure the impact of because they
simply lack the ability to consistently track the touchpoint on the path to
conversion. And even then there is the question of how to weight it along with
all the others. View-throughs should never be given 100% credit.

If there is anyone who has cracked the nut on how to justify branding efforts
to management on an ROI basis I'd love to pick your brain. Arguably one of the
hardest problems in marketing today.

~~~
wastedhours
If you have a suitable targetable niche, then perception studies really do
help - especially if your campaign is designed to change an existing
preconception in order to appeal to new people (as opposed to being a direct
driver - long pipeline for us). That's what we did and got buy-in from
management for the ROI on that basis

~~~
shostack
How did your ROI calculation look then?

------
nihonto
Kylie looks like a zombie with a twisted left leg on that pic. Bleurgh...

