Don't you wish your girlfriend was hot like me? Sure! *The results may vary. Conditions apply.
Consumers like you and me who are in awe of celebrities often dream and aspire to be one of them. When this aspiration transforms into desperation, consumers become ginny pigs to anything and everything that is being endorsed by celebrities. The advertisers are well aware of our weakness to idolize celebrities. All the word-of-mouth campaigns, social-media efforts and celebrity-endorsement deals are designed to influence what we eat, love and fall prey to.
About two years ago, FTC banned the use of photoshop or any kind of photo editing techniques used by advertisers to enhance the appeal of certain class of products, especially cosmeti-ceuticals and fashion. L’Oreal's 60x voluminous mascara ad featuring Penelope Cruz, Lancome's miracle foundation ad featuring Julia Roberts or Maybelline's The Eraser ad featuring Christy Turlington were considered misleading or unethical as the ads failed to disclose warning to consumers that the images have been retouched and airbrushed to exaggerate the effects of the cosmetic.
So logically even the fashion retailers should fully disclose that the look and feel of their designer clothing may vary depending on consumer's size, height and appearance? For instance - a skinny jeans ad should have models in all possible shapes and sizes so that an overweight person is not mislead in thinking she is going to look like the size zero model in the ad after purchasing jeans in her size. Similarly, toothpaste companies should not put completely white colored teeth may be a little yellowish teeth will be less misleading to the consumers. Common seriously!!
The celebrities are merely paid puppets who convey the story drafted and directed by the mad men from the ad world to boost dollar sales. And the whole purpose of advertising and marketing is to link target customers' aspirations or unmet needs with the brand's value proposition. Still, in the interest of all the vulnerable consumers FTC has come up with the endorsement guidelines which plainly states that advertisers now have to make sure disclosures are clear, conspicuous and deception-free. As a result, every ad is required to have a fine print which states that the results may vary. Check out the micro fine print disclosure from the cosmetic companies.
The advent of new advertising media such as social media platforms and mobile devices, is changing the way advertisers play the disclosure game. The regulator is trying to catch up and has recently published .Com Disclosures, "Guidelines concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising". The update states that disclosures “must be clear and conspicuous on all devices and platforms that consumers may use to view the ad.”
WARNING: And if an advertisement without a disclosure would be deceptive or unfair, or would otherwise violate a Commission rule, and the disclosure cannot be made clearly and conspicuously on a device or platform, then that device or platform should not be used.”
Independent bloggers who do product reviews must reveal any connection, in-kind payment or free stuff they get from the advertisers. Those who fail to disclose paid reviews or freebies can face up to $11,000 in fines from the FTC. What about Oprah Winfrey who started off as an ordinary TV hostess to later exude her 'O' influence on brands through her talk show. Is that less misleading? So, why FTC feels that product reviews by independent bloggers or the celebrity endorsers who push products on their personal blog or personal social network misleading?
For instance - actress Gwyneth Paltrow attended the re-opening of the La Mamounia hotel sometime ago in Marrakech, Morocco. I believe Paltrow had an amazing stay at the posh hotel given the fact that she generously praised her stay at the hotel on her digital newsletter, Goop.com. While her travelogue article also talks about other recommended places to stay, things to do, must see places etc. in Morocco but we do not know if La Mamounia hotel review on her newsletter was an honest feedback or the praises were in exchange for a free stay. Check the link without the required disclosures here http://www.goop.com/journal/go/61/Marrakesh
On the other hand, check out the sponsored tweets of Kourtney and Kim Kardashian who are paid approx. between $5,000 - $10,000 per sponsored tweet to endorse a product through their own Twitter account. Notice the disclosures #Spon or # Ad. Does the fine print make the ad more transparent and less misleading to the consumers?
Here's Rich Cleland, FTC associate director's comment on such cases - The average consumer might well be aware that celebrities of Paltrow's stature often receive free clothing, trips and other swag. It is one of the issues where celebrity endorsements are a little different than person-on-the-street endorsements," he said. "Would consumers understand that celebrities are always getting free stuff? It's a factual question."
Honestly, in both the cases the celebrities or for that matter independent bloggers are entitled to their opinion and are free to express or support anything on their personal digital space. Endorsers and bloggers need to be careful and responsible for maintaining their own authenticity to their followers. A mere fine print does not do much to protect anyone's interest. With increasing consumer awareness our expectations from such make-believe ads, tweets or blog posts are more realistic today than ever. Consumers need to use their discretion and not follow the lead ant blindly to land up in a pit. Stop blaming and choose wise!
Sources:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/03/dotcom.shtm
http://gawker.com/5442890/gwyneth-paltrow-will-never-answer-for her-e+crimes
http://www.wetpaint.com/moms/gallery/oscars-2013-kids-model-celebs-red-carpet-fashions-photos#3
http://gawker.com/5442890/gwyneth-paltrow-will-never-answer-for her-e+crimes
http://www.wetpaint.com/moms/gallery/oscars-2013-kids-model-celebs-red-carpet-fashions-photos#3
* Header image is a Bella Pillar creation
No comments:
Post a Comment