Do Celebrity Endorsements on Google+ Require Disclosure? 79
theodp writes "According to the FTC, 'celebrities have a duty to disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in social media.' So, would the ringing endorsement of Zeppelin tour operator Airship Ventures that Sergey Brin gave to his 200,000+ Google+ followers last week fall into that category? 'Since getting to know the folks over at airshipventures.com,' posted Brin, 'I have had the pleasure of flying with them several times and this loop in the south bay is arguably the most scenic. I will probably give it another go when they get back to SF in October.' Forbes calls Brin 'an investor in Airship Ventures,' and others have speculated about a possible Google connection."
Man I sure feel like riding a blimp now (Score:3)
Hoooo boy, I wonder if I can still get on one of those zeppelins now. Damn you Sergey and your foul underhand advertising!
Oh well, if there's going to be a rush now, I guess I'll just stay home and code a bit.
Who says Brin is a "celebrity"? (Score:3)
Definition of a celebrity: someone who is famous for being famous. While this is a little overboard in many cases, it is far from applicable to Brin.
Sergei Brin is known by reputation to those who could not distinguish between a celebrity and a hole in the ground. He is a co-founder of Google and well-known as such, so that makes him a public figure, but by no means a celebrity. Now, do they have similar rules for "public figures", or merely for "celebrities"?
brin is most certainly a celebrity (Score:2)
and you don't know what a celebrity is
Re: (Score:1)
Definition of CELEBRITY
1: the state of being celebrated : fame
2: a famous or celebrated person
Your definition is wrong.
Going by the real definition Sergey Brin is a celebrity.
"celebrity" definition nitpicking (Score:3)
I figure one can be a generally known celebrity, or a celebrity _amongst a specific group of people_. It seems fair to say that Sergey Brin is one of the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
My mom has never heard him, and I'll bet yours hasn't either.
My mom has heard of him. Maybe your mom should read more?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Geek idol, sure. Billionaire executive, yes. Celebrity, definitely not. He isn't even close to being famous. My mom has never heard him, and I'll bet yours hasn't either.
So? My mum hadn't heard of Justin Bieber until my seven year old tolder her all about him.
TIME Cover Subject? PEOPLE Hottest Bachelor? (Score:2)
Does appearing on a TIME cover [time.com] count? If not, how about being named one of PEOPLE's "hottest bachelors" [people.com]? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Definition of a celebrity: someone who is famous for being famous.
Definition of a twat: someone who makes up their own highly restrictive definition of a word.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no. Not even close.
A celebrity is someone who is famous - period. From Wikipedia: "A celebrity, also referred to as a celeb in popular culture, is a person who has a prominent profile in the media and is easily recognized". From Dictionary.com. "a famous or well-known person. fame; renown. distinction, note, eminence, stardom".
Incestuous (Score:3)
That Gawker link is pretty interesting. Apparently, Brin isn't afraid of spreading the wealth to privileged friends, who then go on to publicly support Google and Google's products in the media as well as talk about how Google should be "allowed to regulate itself." Even NASA is involved, letting Google's founders park their party jets at Moffett Field "for scientific missions" even though those jets are impractical for such flights.
Re: (Score:1)
Why the anti-google bent anyway? I mean, your signature implies google is hypocritical because they don't release their secrets and allow scummy advertisers to destroy their search engine. Jealous of their success? Being paid by Mark Zuckerberg? Or did google touch you in your bathing suit area when you were younger? Or did you
Re: (Score:2)
You're seriously going to ignore all the financial links between these people? All these people who just so happen to be funding each other and praising each other's products, sometimes without disclosure?
From the article: "In fact, the Google founders' jets proved impractical for Nasa's science needs; Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Eric Schm
Re: (Score:2)
You're seriously going to ignore all the financial links between these people?
Yes, because nothing seems to be wrong. What crime is being committed? Google and/or 23 and me paid for an advertisement on a blimp and happened to know the guys operating the blimp... that's somehow bad?
Pointing out that Google's search engine isn't open source gives me anti-Google bent? What my signature implies is that Google is hypocritical for professing to be an openness advocate when their core product is as closed and proprietary as Microsoft Windows. Hiding its secrets out of fear of advertiser exploitation is the same logic used to defend closed source against security hackers. What happened to the philosophy of "many eyes"?
A search engine and an operating system are two very different things, thus it's not hypocritical. You're comparing apples to oranges. I suspect you're doing it intentionally, as google's operating system is, in fact, open source. And that's quite disingenuous, google open sourcing their search engine
Re: (Score:2)
A search engine and an operating system are two very different things, thus it's not hypocritical. You're comparing apples to oranges. I suspect you're doing it intentionally, as google's operating system is, in fact, open source. And that's quite disingenuous, google open sourcing their search engine would in fact break it, unlike an operating system.
What utter bollocks. Google keeps their search engine closed source so that advertisers can't game it, as Google make their money from advertising. There is no reason why a non-commercial search engine shouldn't be open source.
Microsoft keep Windows closed source so that they can sell licenses to use it. Google keeps its search engine closed source so they can sell advertising space on it. Doesn't seem much different to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What my signature implies is that Google is hypocritical for professing to be an openness advocate when their core product is as closed and proprietary as Microsoft Windows.
What your signature implies is that you don't understand the difference between an OS and a search engine, and between security research and information research.
Re: (Score:2)
This is more evidence that in anything resembling "free market capitalism" as corporations grow they will inevitably become evil. The final result of the single-minded quest for increase in shareholder value will always be evil behavior.
There are no exceptions. If as a society we are
Re: (Score:1)
The first problem with your anti-capitalism rant is that you don't actually explain why there should be encroachment on the free market in this situation. There is already an FTC requirement for disclosure. Beyond that, people are free to fund things, and this submission is just pointing out the links between these companies and the lack of disclosure in some cases.
The second, and bigger, problem is that you do what many anti-capitalists do--go on and on about some perceived "evil" (a religious term) inhere
Re: (Score:3)
Um, the FTC requirement is an example of such encroachment. The corporations would call that FTC requirement a "job-killing regulation".
Please give me an example of how you can reign in a monopolistic corporation without government encroachment in the form of regulation.
And I use "evil" not in a religio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
about some perceived "evil" (a religious term) ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil [wikipedia.org]
It seems to be more complex than that.
Governments are the biggest, most "evil" corporations of all. Bloated, inefficient, and corrupt, they make the laws and therefore are above them.
And I thought 'governments' are bought by the 'corporations', and now I learn that 'governments' are above 'corporations'. My whole 'Weltanschauung' is shattered.
CC.
Re: (Score:2)
Governments are the biggest, most "evil" corporations of all. Bloated, inefficient, and corrupt, they make the laws and therefore are above them. Even worse, they have no incentive to please the people using their services because, unlike a corporation which must compete for customers in order to survive, you are forced to pay the government at gunpoint.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were actually a rational person. Instead, you're one of "those" "libertarians". Nevermind, carry on. The men in white wil be by shortly. Alternatively, I hear there's a project to build islands just for you. Feel free to go check that out.
Re: (Score:2)
you are forced to pay the government at gunpoint. Think that's hyperbole? Try not paying your taxes or showing up to court and see what happens.
That's probably because making the payment of tax voluntary has never really worked out too well.
Re: (Score:2)
Gawker better have some proof. They're the World of the News of Silicon Valley. In the meantime...
If it's true, the answer is simple: yes, of course they need to disclose it. Actually, it doesn't matter whether you're a celebrity or not. You're supposed to disclose for-profit postings.
If it's not, there's nothing to say.
It really all boils down to whether Gawker is making shit up or not.
Celebrity? Endorsement? OBJECTION!!! TROLL!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Also worth pointing out that the "endorsement" is less of an endorsement and more of a "explanation as to how he took the picture and mentioning it was a pleasant experience."
If CEOs are barred from mentioning online things about companies they've invested in, then that's not a -terrible- abuse of the laws, but it would still be abusive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A celebrity can be any VIP or important person, and I'd say that being a co-founder of Google qualifies. I'd also consider Steve Jobs and Bill Gates to be celebrities.
Praising the service is an endorsement. If you're going to praise it, you should disclose that you're involved with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Missing critical information that Sergey Brin isn't really a "celebrity" so much as "google founder."
If you don't know who Sergey Brin is, you're reading the wrong website.
Celebrity endorsements? (Score:2)
Sergey Brin (Score:1)
Is he a celebrity?
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking slashdot celebrieties.
So, like a Physics Club formal, it's sad and demented, but sorta social?
Re: (Score:2)
disclosures for eveybody (Score:4, Insightful)
to me, disclosures should only be required if they are getting any type of compensation from the company - directly or indirectly. But then I think the rule should apply to everyone, not just celebrities.
Re: (Score:2)
But then I think the rule should apply to everyone, not just celebrities.
The law covers consumers, experts, and celebrities -- bloggers included. So whether people think Sergey is a celebrity or not (I do -- even if he's not a household name), his endorsement and financial ties to the company require disclosure under FTC guidelines.
In my opinion, I am not a lawyer, blah blah.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh can we let go of such antiquated uses of language? When airships move by floating on the surface of the ocean then you can say they sail. While they're floating through the skies it's going to be called "flying." Don't like it? Too bad. Ask anyone if what airships do looks like sailing or flying and everybody except you and your history buff club is going to say "flying."
Re: (Score:2)
Airships sail, they don't fly.
So when they plummet to the ground in a massive fireball (as is the fate of all airships sooner or later) they're sinking, not crashing?
Aren't they all (Score:2)
I generally assume that any endorsement has some sort of commercial arrangement behind it. The only exception would be a recommendation from a friend and even those can sometimes be suspect.
Now, I don't mean to belittle this issue - the clear separation of paid and unpaid content is extremely important - but the stuff in this example doesn't seem that bad. Consider, for comparison, the lack of disclosure involved in political blogs and other online media...
Re: (Score:2)
I think Victor Kiam has prior art.
Stupid regulation? (Score:2)
I'm a progressive person, regulations don't scare me. But stupid regulations should be killed, and this one seems really stupid to me.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it stupid? The public has a right to not be misled in advertising, and if someone is being paid to make an endorsement, the public needs to be informed that it's a paid endorsement. It's been that way for decades on TV and radio, and this is merely an extension of the same policy in order to cover social media (which the prior regulations already covered via case law anyway). There's nothing stupid about the regulation itself.
What I think you may be upset about is the idea that the regulation may app
The real question! (Score:1)
How could Google let someone so important on that deathtrap? Some broad gets on with a staticky sweater and it's "Oh the humanity!"
Re: (Score:1)
(I can't really recall the last large helium explosion).
To answer the question in the summary (Score:2)
No.
So, would the ringing endorsement of Zeppelin tour operator Airship Ventures that Sergey Brin gave to his 200,000+ Google+ followers last week fall into that category?
The simple answer is that there needs to be some form of payment exchanged before you can consider Airship Ventures to be an advertiser, and no disclosure needs to occur if there isn't an advertiser involved. If Brin had a great experience with them and wanted to speak highly of them of his own accord, he's welcome to do so without disclosing anything, regardless of whether or not he had invested in them (though, ethically, it would still be best to disclose your personal interest in a company in a situa
Re: (Score:3)
Or, in other words, this was much ado about nothing.
Or to be more blunt, this story is a (painfully obvious) troll / astroturf / FUD.
Recently there's been a lot of this on Slashdot; I get the feeling somebody has realized that Slashdot, with its, er, extremely lax editorial standards, and reasonably large readership, is a great place to satisfy his daily quota of anti-Google activity...
Would it make more sense... (Score:2)
...for them to disclose when they're NOT endorsing? Wouldn't that be the more unusual event that should be brought to our attention?
Surely noone still thinks celebrities are getting up there to extoll the virtues of particular products out of the kindness of their heart, right?!
People need to adjust their defaults if not
NT? (Score:1)