Popularity for Hire -- Unethical Social Media Misrepresentation

Ryan Spellman
rs344103@ohio.edu


A wide range of ethical codes are available to help guide communications professionals. The NPAA code of ethics for visual journalists, the SPJ code of ethics for journalists, the ASMEmagazine editorial guidelines, RTDNA’s ethical codes for radio/television/digital news… and the list could go on. These codes all speak to the profession they guide, but how well do they speak to the one communication platform that is a constant across all specializations – that of social media?

Social media blunders are found in abundance. It takes no great effort to turn up cringe-worthy examples from prominent individuals and corporations. Sure, some blunders can be accidental and quite laughable, such as the LG tweet pictured below that contains a barb against iPhones that was sent from… you guessed it, an iPhone! However, some of the more intentional misuses of social media raise ethical concerns that reveal a lack of adherence to ethical guidelines. 

Image credit: Eric Griffith, PC Mag

A prime example of ethical concern is found in deceptive tactics employed by some “social media influencers” -- a professional service that bolsters the social media presence for clients. There is a major problem with some influencers buying followers and bots rather than getting genuine exposure. Interesting work by Social Chain Group has shown that 25% of 10,000 brands they scanned with an algorithm have been privy in some fashion to fake followers and false engagement on social media due to such deceptive strategies.

According to an article by Ryan Skine for Forbes, statistics show that 90% of customers read online reviews before visiting a business, and 84% of customers trust online reviews as much as personal recommendations. Customers widely trust what they see online, and bots and purchased followers are abusing this trust. Public opinion is skewed by eliciting a false sense of trustworthiness through an illegitimate number of followers and positive reviews. This is a major ethical dilemma.

So, back to our question about ethical codes. Are they providing guidance against such behavior? Let's take a quick look at the American Advertising Federation Institute for Advertising Ethics (AAF) guidelines and the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) code of ethics to see what we can find.

AAF

Principle 4 in the AAF’s code of ethics actually provides good guidance against such behavior. It states:

“PRINCIPLE 4: Advertisers should clearly disclose all material conditions, such as payment or receipt of a free product, affecting endorsements in social and traditional channels, as well as the identity of endorsers, all in the interest of full disclosure and transparency.”

Here we see advice to fully disclose whether any conditions were set for endorsements. Transparency is essential to building trust. Should the public discover that a large portion of social media engagements result from bots and purchased followers, trust will be eroded. Unfortunately, it is probably all too easy to pay for services by social media influencers and not question how they get their results. However, to truly follow this principle, organizations should not only be transparent themselves but also ensure hired associates are transparent in their methods. In addition, social media influencers themselves should follow a code of ethics themselves – something that is clearly lacking based on the statistics mentioned earlier from the Social Chain Group.

PRSA

How about the PRSA? In their section covering the disclosure of information, they plainly state “avoid deceptive practices.” Their ethical code shares examples of breaking their provisions, and in this specific example we find something that hits close to the topic at hand:

“A member deceives the public by employing people to pose as volunteers to speak at public hearings and participate in “grass roots” campaigns.”

This hits right on the mark of our ethical dilemma, but you have to rethink the provision a little. Here, social media is the grass roots campaign and the bots and followers-for-hire are the volunteer poseurs. In this instance, we see an ethical code that could use some more specificity to ensure the point is driven home.

Does this mean we need separate social media ethical codes?

As we can see by this brief look at the AAF and PRSA, mainstream ethical codes do provide some applicable guidance, but they may be lacking in specificity and adherence.

When considering the high number of companies found to be involved with social media influencers that falsify social media engagements, it is clear that ethics are not being considered. Is it because companies are able to hire these firms and distance themselves from the methods employed, concerning themselves with only the end result? Why are a number of social media influencers themselves not following a code of ethics?

Though it is speculative to assume that companies are unconcerned with the methods being employed by hired associates, the evidence of the problem shows a need for better ethical choices. If these companies were to hold themselves accountable for the authenticity of their social media engagements, and by proxy all those hired to work on their behalf, then dilemmas such as social media engagement falsification could be improved and public trust maintained. By requiring transparency and ethical behavior, the external social media influencers themselves would be forced to use provable ethical means to achieve results.

Ultimately, adhering to mainstream ethical codes is a great start. However, it might be beneficial for companies to establish a separate, more specific social media ethical code that addresses major dilemmas, such as the fake social media engagement problem, directly.