It’s easy for celebrities and other individuals with a serious social-media Klout to pass off tweets and Facebook posts, which are created by marketing companies, as original, genuine and spontaneous thoughts. These celebrities might fool some of their followers, but they’re sure not fooling the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
After several incidences where celebrities failed to declare they were being paid for their tweets, the FTC is demanding change. According to an article on The Wrap by Ira Teinowitz:
“After an incident when Lauren Bacall showed up on “Today” promoting a drug without disclosing she was being paid, the Federal Trade Commission warned celebrities — and the marketers that use them — about not disclosing paid endorsements. It afterward took steps to ensure bloggers disclose when they are being compensated for their comments. Now the FTC’s focus is social-media endorsement, most obviously through Twitter but involving any mobile message.”
Clearly this is a big step for many critics of Twitter who view the social-media platform as a beacon for fraud and misinformation. It also reveals a lot about the power of Twitter and the potential to market directly to consumers. Millions of users are paying attention to celebrities, athletes and politicians. They’re retweeting and “favoriting” everything from Justin Bieiber being upset about his dead hampster to the latest feuds between Taylor Swift and, I don’t know, Christina Aguilera. (Has this actually happened?) So naturally, why wouldn’t advertisers take advantage of this mass appeal?
Doesn’t it make sense to regulate the way advertisers use celebrity Twitter handles, especially if it’s similar to the example with Lauren Bacall, where she endorsed a drug without revealing she was being paid? Does this not create misinformation? Is this not the same problem with blogs and a lax approach to accuracy? Shouldn’t we demand honesty in terms of declaring fiscal partnership on social media?
Sure, it makes perfect sense that Bacall should declare that she was being paid by a pharmaceutical company. But where does this stop? What about product placements in movies? Do movie starts have to declare they are being paid during the movie to pretend like they just happen to be drinking a Bud Light? Where are the lines drawn? And does this make Twitter less appetizing to advertizes looking to brand their products into the unconscious minds of teenagers?
The new demand from the FTC brings a lot of questions to the forefront of social-media marketing, and I’m not trying to answer them in this blog post. I’m merely trying to explore the questions. Just let me leave you with this story about Lindsay Lohan.
Today, Lindsay Lohan had to appear before a court in Los Angeles for a misdemeanor. Of course, the crowds were swarming around her as she entered the court. Cameras were on all sides, and she was “glitter-bombed” on the way inside of the courthouse. The attention surrounding her was immense. Now, as the media is talking about her courtroom appearance, we’re also looking at her tweet, which is showing up on several publications across the country. So this is what she tweeted on the way to L.A. Shouldn’t this be clarified? Shouldn’t she be following FTC rules? Or is she just participating in brilliant marketing? What about an exchange of gifts or services? Mr. Pink is a Ginseng infused beverage. Let us know what you think.
Thanks Mr. Pink for the private jet see you all in a few hours in LA @drinkmrpink @sheerazhasan
— Lindsay Lohan (@lindsaylohan) March 18, 2013