Stars on social media agree to say more explicitly when their posts are ads Watch

StrawberryDreams
  • TSR Community Team
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-46960179

Stars on social media have agreed to state more explicitly when their posts are paid-for ads, as the Competition and Markets Authority have said the way they are currently posting ads breaks consumer law.

What do you think? Do you think it's about time people on social media are held accountable to advertising laws when promoting products for companies? Or do you think they're being judged too harshly?

Reply below and let us know your thoughts!
0
reply
Violet Femme
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 weeks ago
#2
I think if you are dumb enough to not spot that they are advertising, then you deserve to feel ripped off when you find that the green tea herbal infusion detox enema kit you bought on the basis of some social media star's recommendation doesn't live up to your to expectation.
1
reply
the beer
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 weeks ago
#3
Stars agree to abide by the law? How thoroughly nice of them, It's a start i guess.
Last edited by the beer; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Maven Writers
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 weeks ago
#4
It's about time. Millions of us follow these stars on social media and other platforms because of our connection with their art, not to be turned into browsing cheque books. We already have thousands of advertising messages hiting us from every angle every single day. We don't need more marketing gimmicks coming at us while we're trying to relax and unwind with our chosen online social clique, at least not without informing
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 weeks ago
#5
I agree with it for a consumable product that is supposed to have an effect. Someone young, fit and healthy claiming (or implying) they owe it to McDonald's 10 times a day should state they have been paid for the endorsement, even if in this case it's very obvious.

I don't see the need for actual visual items, such as accessories. The photo at the bottom with Louise Thompson wearing a redacted watch, and saying she's wearing a redacted watch is fine. If you like the look of it, you can go and buy it, and that's ignoring the clear indication it's an ad of the discount code. There's no false or unprovable claim there.

My distinction is substance and style, I guess. You shouldn't claim there's substance if you're doing it because someone has paid you to do so rather than finding out it's substantial value yourself, but claiming something superficial has superficial value is fine whether you're paid to do so or not.
0
reply
boom88
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 weeks ago
#6
The headline is misleading, it should be "Sixteen stars on social media agree". I doubt it will change anything.
0
reply
Decahedron
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 weeks ago
#7
Do you think laws should be upheld? What a stupid question.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you give blood?

Yes (38)
10%
I used to but I don't now (12)
3.16%
No, but I want to start (137)
36.05%
No, I am unable to (86)
22.63%
No, I chose not to (107)
28.16%

Watched Threads

View All