Alex Westerh
aw366209@ohio.edu
Celebrity endorsements of a product or service is nothing
new within the advertising industry, but the rise of Twitter and other online
forums has blurred the lines between ethical decision making. The corporate
world has long
leaned on celebrity endorsements in print or broadcast, and it was always
clear that they were paid for their nod of approval. Now, advertising companies
such as Ad.ly are helping to connect celebrities with corporate partners
through Twitter shout outs. More than $50 billion a year is spent on endorsements,
according to Ad.ly CEO Arnie Gullov-Singh in the Poynter article, and each year
more of that money is being budgeted for online use.
Courtesy of rackcdn.com |
This is a good change for the public relations and
advertising departments because they are able to reach their target audiences
in a more direct manner than in the past. In addition, sponsored tweets can have
the appearance of authenticity, which is much different than in traditional
endorsements. These are becoming more popular every day, and in fact, scrolling
through my Twitter feed right now I stumbled across one from Snoop (Dogg) Lion.
Courtesy of Twitter.com. Posted approximately 2 p.m. on Tuesday October 8, 2013. |
Companies must also be very careful when doing this. If consumers
catch on to this, it can cause resentment toward the company because it can
appear as if they are trying to undermine their consumer base.
In stark contrast to the advertising world, I believe that
government and news agencies should keep as far away from sponsored material as
possible. Governments have an obligation to serve their people and have no
business promoting the laws the current administration is trying to drum up
public support for. It should work the other way around.
In 2004, Armstrong Williams, who is a TV pundit, was paid $240,000 of TAX PAYER money to endorse the No Child Left Behind Act. This is something that is not ethical, quasi-legal and completely unacceptable. If the FTC mandates independent bloggers must indicate endorsements, shouldn't the US government be forced to do the same thing? The government should operate through public support; it has no business dealing with celebrity endorsements.
In 2004, Armstrong Williams, who is a TV pundit, was paid $240,000 of TAX PAYER money to endorse the No Child Left Behind Act. This is something that is not ethical, quasi-legal and completely unacceptable. If the FTC mandates independent bloggers must indicate endorsements, shouldn't the US government be forced to do the same thing? The government should operate through public support; it has no business dealing with celebrity endorsements.
News agencies have a different problem to worry about when
dealing with endorsements. Their credibility is at stake. Studies have shown
that confidence with the media is at an all-time low, which should alarm
journalists. There is no wiggle room to experiment with paid advertising
through a news organization's social media presence. However, Ad.ly will be
partnering with outlets as prominent as Time Magazine to undertake this
experiment. My guess? This won’t work out well for Time Magazine.
When a news organization is desperate enough to accept money
for posting a specific post, readers see that and roll their eyes. Aren't news
organizations supposed to serve as watchdogs and have the public interest at mind?
How does that tweet about a new pair of Nike shoes help achieve those goals? When
a news organization folds and decides to take on endorsement tweets of a
product, they should always be marked as advertising material. But doesn't that
defeat the purpose?
No comments:
Post a Comment