While some people might think that Ashton and Oprah on Twitter is the only news, the real social media story happening at the minute involves the FTC (the Think about the current discussions taking place about Let’s take both arguments at face value.
With regards Richard’s claim, surely the only people that will be discouraged by the new regulations will be the ones that were skirting around false advertising anyway?
Wouldn’t a claim only be misleading if any of the facts are distorted? Which would be the fault of both the blogger and the company using them.
Looking at Nathania’s position, it’s not opinion that’s being questioned - it’s false advertising. They’re two completely different things. Nathania herself points this out further in her piece (and, in a way, contradicts her opposition) when she asks, “When you see a celebrity endorse a consumer brand in traditional advertising, does anyone really believe that celebrity uses the brand?”
No. Most people don’t believe that the celebrity uses that product.
Because it is quite clearly a paid advertisement.The difference with sponsored or paid blog posts is that it’s not always apparent that this is the case. While the blogger should disclose, not every one does. And this is where the false advertising argument comes into play.
Food for Thought
If I read someone and they say I should eat at Joe Average Burger Joint rather than Wendy’s or McDonald’s because they use healthier ingredients, and I then find out it’s not the case, I’m going to be angry. I’ve been lied to.
If I then find out that the blogger who reviewed and recommended Joe Average Burger Joint has never been there in their life, but instead was paid to write a Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!