21–30 of 184 posts
If you cannot see by yourself when an "influencer" is showing you an ad you are not the sharpest tool in the shed
I follow some somewhat popular accounts who occasionally advocate for a product they enjoy even though they aren't being paid to. It would be nice to know for sure when the sentiment is legitimate or bought.
Isn't there a jurisdictional problem here? I can't imagine anyone outside of Germany paying any attention to this.
But some people are interested in these type of topics, especially when compared to (for example) America's lax policies (but it can't beat America's very lax policies on sponsorships in television and movies).
Why does YouTube or Instagram tolerate sponsored content? They don't get a cut from a sponsored video or product placement, and their dominance in the advertising space means this is also cutting into their ad revenue.
Sponsored content is the main income for creators, so if a platform banned it there would be a mass exodus and they'd lose their dominance.
You're painting a rather bleak picture -- that the majority of creators/influencers' content is advertising. If that's the case, I'm not sure why Youtube/Instagram should also tolerate that -- it's basically spam on their platform they haven't curated through their ad network.
The headline in a domestic newspaper reads "There are some product placements that influencers do not need to label as ads" https://www.zeit.de/digital/internet/2021-09/bundesgerichtsh... :D it's all about framing
The headline in a domestic newspaper reads "There are some product placements that influencers do not need to label as ads" https://www.zeit.de/digital/internet/2021-09/bundesgerichtsh... :D it's all about framing
Why does YouTube or Instagram tolerate sponsored content? They don't get a cut from a sponsored video or product placement, and their dominance in the advertising space means this is also cutting into their ad revenue.
Maybe if you are on of the 0.1% creaters but then you would miss out on a lot of smaller channels.
Sure you have things like Patreon but its not that easy to get people to pay for your stuff.
So in the end you will take sponsorship deals because you either do that or do something else.
Good. I'd love if we could go further and make requirements to disclaim if a photo's structure has been digitally altered. Combining these two would be very effective in increasing clarity of content online.
Why does YouTube or Instagram tolerate sponsored content? They don't get a cut from a sponsored video or product placement, and their dominance in the advertising space means this is also cutting into their ad revenue.
For example say I follow a lot of architecture / interior design / construction accounts. A company that pays a construction influencer is going to waste their money on my impression — I’m never going to buy professional-grade construction equipment.
On the other side Instagram or whomever already knows I’m a white collar worker and just sends me ads for ring lights and laptop stands.
So influencers and platforms are essentially going after different sets of ad dollars.
Tom Scott makes a good video on this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-x8DYTOv7w
That's a quote from near the beginning of his video.
Tom Scott is supportive of declaring paid endorsements, he just thinks it should be declared everywhere by everyone, not just influencers. He gives some good examples of some TV/film that do declare it with a sort of watermark.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I follow some somewhat popular accounts who occasionally advocate for a product they enjoy even though they aren't being paid to. It would be nice to know for sure when the sentiment is legitimate or bought.
The result is that those influencers will be paid under the table and won't label their posts as ads.