Languish.org

From New York Magazine (http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/is-it-time-to-regulate-social-media-influencers.html)

QuoteIs It Time to Regulate Social Media Influencers?

In August, the YouTube beauty vlogger Marlena Stell uploaded a nine-minute video titled "My truth regarding the beauty community" to her channel, which currently has 1.4 million subscribers. Though she refuses to name names ("I don't want, by any means, for this to be part of any of the drama," she says), the video is an attempt to shed light on the rapacious greed within the beauty influencer community.

"There are thousands of beauty influencers that want to make a name for themselves," Stell says at one point. "They want to share their love of makeup. They want to do something they're passionate about and support their livelihood by doing something they love. Some, unfortunately, are doing it because they want to be 'famous.' They want to have a nice paycheck. They want to go on trips. They want to have the fame and not share the love within the beauty industry."

She goes on to share the frustration she experienced working with beauty influencers to promote her own makeup brand, Makeup Geek. "We haven't been mentioned much, and part of the reason why is we haven't been willing to pay influencers massive amounts of money. We don't have the big funds to do that ... We don't have $60,000 to pay someone to make one video." At one point, Stell hints that influencers have tried to extort her. "I've been told that if I don't pay this amount for a video, they're either going to talk bad about Makeup Geek, or they're not going to talk about it at all."

Though Stell's refusal to "name names" makes it difficult to determine what sparked her video, its posting happened to coincide with a controversy that was, at that point, exploding throughout the beauty influencer industry. Manny Gutierrez, a beauty vlogger with close to 5 million YouTube subscribers, had been accused of being paid to start a feud with a startup eyelashes company, possibly with the idea that said feud would lead to more sales of the product. Both he and the lashes company denied that such collusion had taken place, but the fallout from the accusations was immense, with those involved claiming to be the recipients of death threats, blackmail, and all sorts of online invective.

This is far from the only controversy to erupt from the world of influencer marketing recently. Currently a multi-billion dollar industry, influencer marketing is a neologism used to describe whenever a popular online figure is paid to promote a product or service within their social media feed. Spend any time on Instagram or YouTube, and chances are you'll encounter these stylish, photogenic influencers who hawk clothes, makeup, and nutritional supplements, often with a #sponsored hashtag placed somewhere prominently within the post's description.

The industry has grown rapidly in recent years and is projected to generate as much as $10 billion by 2020. As more and more brands have waded into the market, demand for influencers has gone up. "In 2016 an endorsement from a top-level influencer would generally cost about $5,000 to $10,000," Wired's Paris Martineau reported. "Now, brands are expected to pay well over $100,000 for the same placement."

With so much money flooding into a largely unregulated, still-developing market, all sorts of ethical lapses are bound to ensue, and indeed they have. Earlier this year, for instance, several famous YouTubers began sharing heart-wrenching confessionals of their struggles with depression and burnout. In one of the most gripping examples of this type of video, the YouTuber Elle Mills screams at the camera, "This is all I ever wanted. So why the fuck am I so fucking unhappy?" These videos were regarded as an inflection point for the YouTube community, with dozens of think pieces sprouting up about YouTube burnout and the burden of chasing online fame.

But the tide of community goodwill shifted after many noticed that several of these YouTubers ended their videos by promoting BetterHelp, an app that, for a price, connected you with a professional therapist with whom you could chat virtually about your mental health issues. Users reported shoddy service from the app and filed dozens of complaints with the Better Business Bureau. Soon, these famous YouTubers who had shared their raw, personal stories were accused of cynically exploiting the topic of mental health to line their own pockets. YouTube stars like Philip DeFranco paused their sponsorship collaborations with the app in response.

At least there was some measure of accountability in that instance. But as the influencer market grows, fraud is becoming more rampant, and it's increasingly difficult to discern when influencers are engaging in above-board, ethical publishing, and when they're taking questionable shortcuts that dupe both the brands that pay them and the social media followers they're meant to influence.

Last year, The New York Times published an exhaustive investigation into the prevalence of social media bots, particularly those purchased by wannabe influencers and celebrities who want to inflate their importance online. Over a period of years, a company called Devumi "sold about 200 million Twitter followers to at least 39,000 customers," including famous athletes, chefs, and reality TV stars. In some cases, these customers then turned to brands and touted their inflated following when selling sponsored posts. The Times article points to "two young siblings, Arabella and Jaadin Daho," who "earn a combined $100,000 a year as influencers, working with brands such as Amazon, Disney, Louis Vuitton and Nintendo." Both were shown to have employed the services of Devumi to purchase bot followers.

Brands have become increasingly aware that they're the target of such fraud, and an entire cottage industry has sprouted up to help them keep the influencers they work with honest. A platform called Sylo, for instance, can hook up to an influencer's social media account and analyze its followers for signs of bot activity, assigning it a score that determines its percentage of bot followers. It's not uncommon for brands to require in their contracts that influencers be subjected to this type of analysis before an engagement begins.

Some of the major tech platforms have stepped in and attempted to regulate influencer marketing within their own ecosystems. Both Facebook and YouTube rolled out disclosure guidelines that allow you to denote a post as containing branded, paid-for content. Recently, Instagram announced it was cracking down on apps commonly used by influencers that generate automated likes, comments, and follows on other users' accounts. Instagram warned users who continued to use these apps that they "may see their Instagram experience impacted."

There's also the consumer angle to consider. It's becoming increasingly difficult for the average social media user to determine when a post showcasing a particular fashion item or other product is organic or sponsored. BuzzFeed reporter Katie Notopoulos runs a regular column in which she tries to discern whether celebrity social media posts are ads. "One thing that's clear is that even those of us who are pretty savvy about this kind of stuff are often truly confused about celebrity Instagram posts," she wrote.

To make matters even more confusing, wannabe influencers are now regularly uploading posts that are designed to look like they were paid for, even though they weren't. That's according to The Atlantic's Taylor Lorenz, who reported recently that these aspiring Instagram stars are employing a fake-it-til-you-make it strategy, with the idea that the only way to attract sponsorship money is to pretend like you're already swimming in it. "People pretend to have brand deals to seem cool," one such practitioner told Lorenz. "It's a thing, like, I got this for free while all you losers are paying."

You may be asking yourself at this point what the government has done to step in and curb this abuse. For the past year we've watched as Congress has hauled in tech executive after tech executive to force them to answer for the malevolent practices carried out by their users. But while these executives were grilled on topics that included data collection, influence from foreign actors, and alleged bias against conservative voices, virtually none of the discussion touched on influencer marketing. What talk there was about automated bots was focused on the Russian variety, not those meant to inflate the influence of celebrity chefs and athletes.

That's left most of the industry regulation to federal agencies, particularly the Federal Trade Commission. Stretching back to the late 2000s the FTC has been issuing guidance on how sponsored content should be disclosed online. Generally, the rule is that if there's any sort of relationship, paid or otherwise, between a social media poster and brand that isn't immediately obvious to the average user, then that relationship should be disclosed. Last year, the FTC participated in a Twitter chat in which the agency revealed that the disclosure tools that platforms like Facebook have put in place are not sufficient.

Legal actions have been scarce, and when the FTC has gone after a bad actor, it's usually a brand that's failed to issue firm disclosure guidelines to paid influencers. For instance, the FTC went after Warner Bros for hiring famous YouTubers to promote one of its games without disclosing that they had been paid. It also reached a settlement with Lord & Taylor for doing the same with fashion bloggers. In instances when it has targeted actual influencers, the FTC has mostly issued warning letters demanding they clean up their act.

One of the most prominent legal actions against influencers came this year when the Securities and Exchange Commission announced a settlement with Floyd Mayweather Jr. and DJ Khaled for "failing to disclose payments they received for promoting investments in Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs)." The two paid a combined $700,000 in penalties, but the SEC was likely relying on their celebrity status (or, dare I say it, "influence") to ensure that its guidelines against such shady behavior received widespread coverage.

But these punitive actions only represent a tiny portion of the ethical infractions, illegal and otherwise, that are carried out within the influencer marketing world every day. With the rise of "nano" and "micro" influencers – social media personalities who are able to sell promoted posts despite only having a few thousand followers – this world has become too fractious for any single government agency to monitor effectively.

Of course, many would have once said the same about Facebook and Twitter's ability to ward off foreign interference in U.S. elections, but the increased media scrutiny and political pressure forced these platforms to invest millions of dollars and hire thousands of new employees to combat such activity and increase ad transparency. What may be awaiting the influencer marketing industry is a "Cambridge Analytica moment," a form of fraud so calamitous that industry groups and tech platforms are shamed into adopting more drastic measures to police bad behavior.

In the near term, however, we have a divided Congress and an administration that isn't exactly pro regulation. What we'll likely see is increased scrutiny and coordination among industry players. The major tech platforms and ad agencies have already teamed up to develop a number of new tools to combat the $8.2 billion ad fraud problem, and these same companies are starting to take influencer fraud more seriously. Already we're seeing major brands like Kellogg's tighten up their policies for how they engage with influencers, changing the metrics by which campaigns are judged so they're less likely to be gamed. Unilever, one of the world's largest advertising buyers, announced last year that it would no longer work with any influencer that purchased followers. Of course, not every brand has the resources of a Fortune 100 company to manage its marketing, so the industry is still awaiting more scalable solutions.

For now, we'll just have to settle for the creeping cynicism that nothing we see on Instagram is truly authentic. As one wannabe influencer told The Atlantic's Taylor Lorenz to justify the fact she was misleading her social media followers, "They just assume everything is sponsored when it really isn't."

I kept thinking "Curiouser and curiouser," as I made my way through the mushroom forest of "Vloggers," "The beauty community," "$60,000 for a YouTube video about make-up," and "Fake influencers."  Does anyone follow an influencer; or have any insight into this?  :unsure:

I increasingly come around to the Chinese thinking that you must prove your identity for social media accounts whether with ID or photos uploaded from various angles. Its the Russian bots that are far more of an issue, some built up quite a lot of influence.
If this can be done to fuck up the country politically then yes,  such dastardly things happen on a lower business level too. It all needs regulating

No Jaron option = no vote.  I am not sure what it would take to kae me care about this, but, whatever it would take, it hasn't happened yet.  I couldn't name one influencer beyond Jaron, the First.

Freedom includes the freedom to buy dumbass lipstick because some dumbass influencer told you to. 

I think I should hold my hand up and say, yes it's time the undue influence I have on my internet readership should be reigned in and regulated.  :(

Regulated by the government, no. Regulated by the platform, sure.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2019, 05:33:12 PM
Freedom includes the freedom to buy dumbass lipstick because some dumbass influencer told you to.

I suppose it also depends whether you see paid influencers more akin to product placements in movies, or undisclosed financial interest in public affairs shows. I like knowing when someone is being compensated for promoting a brand, and when that advice may rather be linked to the merit of a product.

According to the article, the FTC is already regulating influencers, there are just focused on the bigger players and the bigger cases.

Cosmetics influencers predate written history

I could see there being some sort of disclosure requirement if you are being paid to peddle products while pretending to the consumer advocate. That might already be illegal...

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 29, 2019, 05:33:12 PM
Freedom includes the freedom to buy dumbass lipstick because some dumbass influencer told you to. 

I don't think anybody is saying different.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 29, 2019, 05:49:10 PM
Regulated by the government, no. Regulated by the platform, sure.

What makes this different from any other business?

My wife is in fact a social media influencer and makes tens of thousands of dollars a year in advertising income.  The majority of her income is derived from passive advertising carried on her websites but she also actively advertises for companies.  When she does this she always explicitly states that she is doing so, as it is a violation of FTC guidelines (as the article states) to not do so.

She complains quite often now that a lot of her peers 'cheat' and buy followers in order to land higher paying gigs, which is something she's never done and refuses to do, but it also means that her influence seems smaller to advertisers who merely count followers and don't do the real legwork to determine if their potential partners have a legit following.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 29, 2019, 07:37:04 PM
According to the article, the FTC is already regulating influencers, there are just focused on the bigger players and the bigger cases.

Correct but there seems to be a consensus among influencers that the FTC lacks the resources to really police them.

Quote from: Caliga on January 29, 2019, 09:11:15 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 29, 2019, 07:37:04 PM
According to the article, the FTC is already regulating influencers, there are just focused on the bigger players and the bigger cases.

Correct but there seems to be a consensus among influencers that the FTC lacks the resources to really police them.

Well there you go. Thanks for you insight Cal. I found it hard to believe there already were not laws against those kind of dishonest business practices.

Yes. They are outlets for false advertisement & advertisement aimed at children.

Quote from: Caliga on January 29, 2019, 09:03:48 PM
My wife is in fact a social media influencer and makes tens of thousands of dollars a year in advertising income.  The majority of her income is derived from passive advertising carried on her websites but she also actively advertises for companies.  When she does this she always explicitly states that she is doing so, as it is a violation of FTC guidelines (as the article states) to not do so.

She complains quite often now that a lot of her peers 'cheat' and buy followers in order to land higher paying gigs, which is something she's never done and refuses to do, but it also means that her influence seems smaller to advertisers who merely count followers and don't do the real legwork to determine if their potential partners have a legit following.

What's her thing?

fashion. :)

Quote from: Caliga on January 30, 2019, 09:12:05 AM
fashion. :)

Nice, I dabbled in a baking/stay-at-home-dad blog, but I realized that for it to be successful I would have to spend hours every day. Does she make enough to live on it or is it a hobby?

Nah, it's just supplemental income.

Quote from: Caliga on January 29, 2019, 09:03:48 PM
My wife is in fact a social media influencer and makes tens of thousands of dollars a year in advertising income.  The majority of her income is derived from passive advertising carried on her websites but she also actively advertises for companies.  When she does this she always explicitly states that she is doing so, as it is a violation of FTC guidelines (as the article states) to not do so.

She complains quite often now that a lot of her peers 'cheat' and buy followers in order to land higher paying gigs, which is something she's never done and refuses to do, but it also means that her influence seems smaller to advertisers who merely count followers and don't do the real legwork to determine if their potential partners have a legit following.

What are the advertisers buying exactly when it comes to followers? Is the price determined by the number of followers or by the number of actual physical followers, and if the latter how is that determined? Is the influencer typically stating in the contract that they don't buy followers? I assume the influencers don't make guarantees about the status of their followers since they do not control them (unless they buy followers in which case they partly control them)?

Quote from: Caliga on January 29, 2019, 09:03:48 PM
My wife is in fact a social media influencer and makes tens of thousands of dollars a year in advertising income.  The majority of her income is derived from passive advertising carried on her websites but she also actively advertises for companies.  When she does this she always explicitly states that she is doing so, as it is a violation of FTC guidelines (as the article states) to not do so.

She complains quite often now that a lot of her peers 'cheat' and buy followers in order to land higher paying gigs, which is something she's never done and refuses to do, but it also means that her influence seems smaller to advertisers who merely count followers and don't do the real legwork to determine if their potential partners have a legit following.

That sounds like an interesting job indeed. Also sounds like a somewhat chaotic business, so good for your wife for sticking to the rules. Hope it pays off better for her since as you say she loses out a bit. But probably better than risking legal blowback.

On the issue, Influencers might be facing a bit harsher consequences in the future:

QuoteKendall Jenner and top models can be subpoenaed over Fyre Festival

Celebrities and top models including Kendall Jenner, Bella Hadid, Emily Ratajkowski and the agencies that represent them can be subpoenaed for their participation in the doomed Fyre Festival, a federal judge has ruled.

The models and so-called social influencers promoted what was billed as a VIP music festival on an island in the Bahamas, helping to generate buzz and sell tickets to the 2018 event. It was cancelled at the last moment, stranding hundreds of people who had flown in for the concert.

The models and celebs played a prominent role in marketing Fyre Fest. Festival organizer Billy McFarland and members of his team posted videos of them frolicking on yachts and sipping cocktails at the purported site of what was supposed to be an exclusive music festival.

But the event descended into chaos when facilities weren't completed on time, leaving guests to spend the night in rain-soaked tents and without sufficient access to food or water.

Fyre Festival LLC filed for bankruptcy in July 2017 because it couldn't pay its vendors and other creditors. McFarland is now serving a six-year prison sentence for fraud valued at $27.4 million. He and his business partner, rapper Ja Rule (whose real name is Jeffrey Atkins), also faced a $100 million class action related to Fyre Fest. Atkins has claimed over Twitter that he never earned money from the event and that he was "bamboozled."

The models, along with influencers and musical artists who had been scheduled to perform, were paid a total of $5.3 million in advance of the event, court records show.

Kendall Jenner was paid $275,000 to promote the event, court records show.  She is represented by DNA Models, the same agency that represents Emily Ratajkowski. Ratajkowski earned $299,000 for her work with Fyre Festival, according to court records, Billboard reported.

The article is just saying that they can be subpoenaed to testify in the civil trial of the organizer.  Not sure that's much of a harsh consequence.

Quote from: dps on February 02, 2019, 05:08:27 PM
The article is just saying that they can be subpoenaed to testify in the civil trial of the organizer.  Not sure that's much of a harsh consequence.

I guess it then becomes at what point can they be sued for promoting a sham.

Quote from: garbon on February 02, 2019, 05:13:14 PM

Quote from: dps on February 02, 2019, 05:08:27 PM
The article is just saying that they can be subpoenaed to testify in the civil trial of the organizer.  Not sure that's much of a harsh consequence.

I guess it then becomes at what point can they be sued for promoting a sham.

That would seem to be the implication, but then why doesn't the article just come out and say it?

Of course, it's possible that the judge actually did rule that they can be sued, and the article is just poorly written.  Well, the article is certainly poorly written;  among other things, it doesn't even say in which federal court the ruling was handed down.

Emily and I watched a documentary last night about the Fyre Festival.  What a complete clusterfuck :lmfao:

What I read about the Fyre case and the subpoena to the influencers and celebrities is that they're being chased by the bankruptcy administrators, who are looking to get back the money that was paid to them to promote it (a few million dollars, not exactly a pittance).

I guess that it depends on establishing their responsability on the scam. It can be argued that they're either completely innocent, and not responsible at all about what happened to the festival afterwards, as they were not the organizers, or that they share some level of guilt, as the festival was promoted heavily using them, and they're complicit in leading on the assistants, who were lured in part with the possibility of being around them.

Quote from: Caliga on February 03, 2019, 01:06:34 PM
Emily and I watched a documentary last night about the Fyre Festival.  What a complete clusterfuck :lmfao:

Which one, the Netflix one or the Hulu one?

Quote from: The Larch on February 03, 2019, 01:54:18 PM
Which one, the Netflix one or the Hulu one?

Netflix

Quote from: Caliga on February 04, 2019, 10:14:31 AM

Quote from: The Larch on February 03, 2019, 01:54:18 PM
Which one, the Netflix one or the Hulu one?

Netflix

Yeah, it was good one.

Felt really bad for all the Bahamian laborers who got stiffed though.  :(

One of the guys who worked for Fyre did some kind of a fundraiser (GoFundMe?) for the Bahamian lady who was in charge of the catering and raised like $50K for her. :)