Hacker News Reader

To answer the question of "why does it need to be disclosed" I'd say the line is primary purpose.

For the Kim instagram thing in the link - primary purpose is to promote the product. Therefore ad and disclosure required.

Red carpet - primary purpose is to be seen and increase their star power, product mention is secondary. No ad, no disclosure.

Product placement - House of Cards wasn't created to promote COD.

That said, policing intent is a blurry line and what about scenes in movies created JUST to promote a product (looking at you Adam Sandler).

I dunno. But primary purpose is the best line I can think of.

Perhaps your "unit" here should not be the post but the entire Instagram feed - the same way you're talking of a film rather than a particular scene or shot.

The way I see it, she has simply placed a product in her feed, the same way a film places a product in its timeline. Whether you like the practice or not, I'd treat both the same way.

Also, disclosed or not, part of the audience will inevitably figure out the ulterior motive ("Oh, look at that product placement!"), and then some will get turned off ("How blatant!"). It's up to the content creators to do this slily or tactfully enough so it doesn't backfire. Perhaps that's more important than disclosing per se.

This gets into an insane grey area, and is completely subjective, but I think for movies, often the entire point of a film is suspension of disbelief, to transport the viewer somewhere else for two hours. A "#ad" in the corner every time a product placement shows up would be jarring and ruin the effect, ruin the _art_, if you want to put it that way.

Tagging a single Instagram post with "#ad", on the contrary, doesn't detract from other non-ad photos in the feed. Obviously if the feed is mostly advertisements, some people might find its value overall go down.

But yeah... I can argue it either way.

I would argue for reducing the unit rather than increasing it.

> Perhaps that's more important than disclosing per se.

I respectfully disagree, I don't support any ulterior or non-marked advertising. I'd rather see legislation that bans paid product placement in movies than reduced disclosure rules. But that's just me being an angry old man.

I don't think there is any question about whether or not it is an ad. They identified it as an ad. The conversation seems to be seeking to create a debate around disclosure, and whether it lies solely with the product, or with the the celebrity as well.

I don't think we need to require celebrities to disclose all of their endorsements, financial relationships or tax returns. Hyperbole intended. From a simply practical perspective, if they all did it, it would become meaningless and no different than not doing it. I actually think it lends them some authority because they are paid to endorse something. It implies that their opinion is of value when the endorsement is actually paying for access to their audience while implying some expertise.

I think Howard Stern is a great counterpoint to the Kardashian example. He has as much, or more power in terms of influencing a large audience. Where the Kardashians have proven themselves as simple profiteers (the Kardashian Card being the best example: http://kardashiankard.com/card-fees/), at best, while Stern has shown profound respect for his audience. He sells advertising through his show, but they are clearly identified, and he claims that his personal endorsement are genuine. I believe him.

In the end, I think the Kardashians and others that fall in to the same category are exploiting a mostly young, less discriminating audience. Given enough time they will discredit themselves.

I think trying to police celebrity disclosures is silly, and impractical, while having the potential, as mentioned above, to make it meaningless anyway.

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.

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.

In regards to your last point, I believe experiments in human psychology have shown that the lines are quite blurred when it comes to fiction vs reality w/ sensory input.

Unless one holds some principle that is able to supersede any given perceived "facts", fiction easily becomes truth, and even then it's a real struggle.

We have been studied, we have been found flawed, and those flaws are exploited for monetary gain as a matter of course.

If one is marketing a product and the ad/product doesnt interest me, then one needs a more compelling ad/product. Ploys to game my psyche are simply (imo immoral) manipulations in order to extract more value without giving any more value. That is, by using these games you're attracting your worst customers-- the ones who may not otherwise want you, who will pay nonetheless and when the psychological manipulation subsides will be most likely to regret and complain about what they received for the money.

> 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.

Other influencers also do not have the reach that they do, and consequently the payout is so much different.

And do you really believe their audience isn't interested in hair care products? I mean they make their own line of makeup...

I'm not defending the approach, but I feel like there's more strategy in the selection than that.

I think one difference is that with celebrity endorsements, you actually see the brand in action. With the Kim Kardashian example in the article, we don't really know if she uses that hair product.

And the implication is "I have great hair because of this product" when the reality is she has a legion of professionals and an unlimited hair budget. Obvious to some, deceptive to others.

Hair not but the tea in article is a fittea that my friend Michel G. started from a scratch a few years ago.

She got paid $250,000 for December post about it. From the first hand I can tell you that no - she has never tried the tea, and neither she ever needed a "detox" tea to begin with.