Posts Tagged: Disclosures

Should Influencers Influence Cause Marketing?

To use or not to use a popular marketing tool?  That is the question.  Shakespeare, himself, opted for a popular marketing tool when he cast the famous tragedian, Richard Burbage, for the part of Hamlet.  This was probably a good idea, since according to Wikipedia, the play “has been performed many times since the beginning of the 17th century.”

Engage for Good recently posted “Statistics Every Cause Marketer Should Know.”  The numbers confirm that cause marketing is big, popular, and works.

What studies also show is that cause marketing works when it is genuine and credible.  There is a trust established between the consumer and the brand.  An implicit (or explicit) promise from the brand that its intent is to “do good.”  But the question for brands now more than ever is how to get the word out, and specifically, would a social media influencer’s influence influence the millennials who you want to influence?

Nearly 40% of Twitter users say they’ve made a purchase as a direct result of a Tweet from an influencer.”  70% of YouTube subscribers trust influencers’ opinions over celebrities.  And according to one study, on average, businesses generate $6.50 for every $1 spent on influencer marketing! (more…)

Please follow and like us:

2016: The Year in Review

In case you missed it, here are some notable items from 2016 concerning sweepstakes, contests, and related promotional matters:

Influencers, Native Advertising, and Endorsements

2016 kicked off with reaction to the FTC’s new Native Advertising Rules which seek more transparency in sponsored stories/advertising.

In March, in its first enforcement action, the FTC cracked down on Lord & Taylor for paying “influencers” to attract social media attention to its Paisley Asymmetrical Dress.  The FTC issued a number of directives, including making the influencers aware of their participation, and making disclosure of the relationship unavoidable.

In May, the National Advertising Division (NAD), a self-regulatory industry, issued a decision concerning native advertising appearing in People.com under the “Stuff We Love” section.  The NAD determined that disclosure of the sponsorship must be made before you get to the stuff page.

In July, the FTC charged Warner Bros. with making inadequate disclosures in videos of influencers playing a new video game.  The FTC didn’t like that the sponsorship disclosure was in a collapsed box below the video and needed to be in a place where consumers will find it.

In October, in an effort to comply with the FTC Rule, YouTube introduced a new feature allowing visible text on a video for the first few seconds with the label stating “Includes paid promotion”

The take:  Consumers and the FTC don’t particularly like “influencers” or hidden ads, so be conspicuous. (more…)

Please follow and like us:

Do You Really Like Me? Native Advertising Enforcement is On the Rise

On July 11, 2016, the FTC announced that it had settled charges against Warner Bros. that it paid online influencers to post positive game play videos for its new a video game Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor (Ed. note: whooo). (Further Ed. Note: I will continue to use the term “influencer” which in the trade means someone who is able to influence purchases, not someone with the flu.)

This enforcement action comes on the heels of the National Advertising Division cracking down on Joyus’s “Dr. Brandt’s Needles No More Wrinkle Relaxing Cream” for native advertising in the “Stuff We Love” section of People Magazine’s website, which itself came on the heels of the FTC slapping Lord & Taylor for its native advertising campaign for its incredibly-popular Paisley Asymmetrical Dress. (Story: http://bit.ly/29V7P5B Dress: http://bit.ly/29Kqsel)

I will explain in more detail below the specifics in the Warner Bros. and Joyus matters, but for those of you who just like to cut to the chase, here’s what you need to know: (more…)

Please follow and like us:

Where’d You Get That Dress? FTC Dresses Down Lord & Taylor Native Advertising

This week the FTC settled charges against Lord & Taylor from alleged deceptive native advertising during its March 2015 Design Lab social media campaign. http://1.usa.gov/22h3sJ7 A big takeaway from this settlement is the FTC’s position that a company not only has to comply with the Native Advertising/Endorsement disclosures on its own social media platforms, but also has to ensure (by contract and monitoring) that its paid endorsers make the requisite disclosures on their own social media posts.

For its sales campaign, L&T focused on one product, the Paisley Asymmetrical Dress, to flood the Internets. The native advertising included:

  • L&T gave the Dress to 50 select fashion influencers (what a job!) who were paid $1,000-$4,000 to post pictures of themselves on Instagram wearing the Dress. By contract, L&T required them to use “@lordandtaylor” and “#DesignLab” in the posts. The contract did not require the influencers to disclose in their postings that they had been compensated by L&T. L&T pre-approved each of the posts to ensure use of the user designation and hashtag. None of the posts had any endorsement disclosure and L&T did not add any.
  • L&T contracted with the fashion magazine Nylon to run an article with a picture of the Dress, which L&T pre-approved. L&T did not require Nylon to disclose the relationship in the article.
  • L&T also contracted with Nylon to post a picture of the Dress on Nylon’s Instagram page; again, no disclosure requirement.

The campaign was a huge success; it reached 11.4 million Instagram users and produced over 300,000 brand engagements; and the Dress sold out in days. But while women everywhere said yes to the Dress, the FTC said bad to the ads. (more…)

Please follow and like us:

I Said Your Product was Great, Now Gimme a Prize: The FTC Enforces Its Endorsement Guidelines

Yesterday, the FTC settled a deceptive advertising lawsuit against the creators and marketers of the Lumosity “brain training” program. For those of you not smart enough to know, the “brain training” program claimed to not only boost your performance at work or school, but also slow down those pesky cognitive impairments we all seem to experience as we get older.

What was I saying? Oh, yeah. As part of its marketing campaign, Lumosity ran an “Athlete Testimonial Contest” inviting entrants to share their story of how “Lumosity has helped them take their athletic abilities to the next level for the chance to win a Lifetime Subscription, the new iPad, and more!” (NB: Apple frowns upon giving away iPads.)

With this call to action, burgeoning athletes took time away from their snatch and jerks to post their stories online to gain entry into the (sic) “contest”. (more…)

Please follow and like us:

“All Profits to Charity” – How Much is That? A Brief Commercial Co-venture Lesson

You’ve heard this sales pitch before. Its cousins are “A percentage of proceeds to charity” and “A portion of the proceeds to charity”. Do you really know how much will be donated? The short answer is no. I’ve read estimates that net profits on a pizza pie are typically 4% to 8%, on new cars around 1-2%, and in the clothing industry profit margins range from 4% to 13%.  The Wall Street Journal has reported that McDonald’s makes 6 cents on a one-dollar hamburger. So if a brand tells you it’s giving “all of its profits to charity,” you need to know where’s the beef. (more…)

Please follow and like us: