True. But knocking down some fake endorsements and false claims is still a step in the right direction. Too bad it took the heavy hand of government to do it.
Mobile game ads with "celebrity" "endorsements" in them with a Cameo watermark... Cameo, where i can pay a celebrity to record a Happy Birthday message to Adolf Hitler, they say whatever you pay them for. 😆
Municipalities offer one cable company the “local franchise” and that gives that cable company a local monopoly. Do that in enough places close to each other, and that monopoly grows. The monopoly eliminates the competition that deregulation was supposed to encourage …
Paying people to do or say something is always going on. While I was visiting Hollywood, we walked up on some bleachers along the road in front of the Kodak building. It was the beginning of the daytime Emmy awards. We noticed some empty seats and asked if we could go up in the bleachers and watch the stars walk the red carpet. I started talking to many of the people in the bleachers and they told me they were PAID to be there as the media did not want empty bleachers on camera. We did have a good time there but most of the people there were bought and paid for. It was all fake.
So, you explain how the audience was fake and conclude "it's ALL fake". Nice modern RU-vid mental gymnastics there. ☺ To be clear, I would agree that it's mostly fake, but "all fake" requires disregarding the definition of the word "fake". 31 upvotes... Welcome to RU-vid.
My favorite is mobile game ads made up of "endorsements" by washed up "celebrities" that have the "Cameo" watermark on all the "endorsements". Cameo is a web service that was intended for users to be able to do things like pay a celebrity to record a "Happy Birthday" message for someone that is personalized to whatever script you send them... Mobile game devs use it to pay for fake endorsements, scripted by the developer not the celebrity... who never played the game.
When you buy something endorsed by a millionaire celebrity remember that part of your money goes straight into their pockets. You ain’t paying more for quality, you are paying more for making a rich person richer. At least with normal advertising it’s unknown actors who get paid.
Steve has a couple of videos with his own endorsements at the end. Companies want the celebrity endorcements because people give them more credence than random comments from ordinary users of the products.
Yup, and it should be a felony again, with every local, regional, national and international information/media/social media monopoly forcefully broken up and sold piecemeal on executive auction with anti-monopoly checks on bidders.
I remember a well-known, national talk radio host doing a live read about an auto product (I think it was a gas additive). He talked about how his Explorer was doing this or that, and the additive fixed the issue. It sounded pretty authentic. Then I hear the exact same Explorer read from another radio person. Never trusted that show host again
This is why I don't watch or listen to ads anymore. I have full adblocking on all internet browsing, I don't watch cable TV or listen to radio, and I support my favorite content creators by throwing them each 5 or 10 bucks a month. If I do happen to see or hear an ad within a video or podcast, I make a mental note to never, ever buy that product or service no matter what.
It wasn't just radio, it was for newspapers, TV. Advertising is wildly out of control. The net has opened up even worse ways to assault unsuspecting prospective consumers. Other changes included allowing longer commercial breaks on TV and radio, running ads from competing companies in the same break.
Why would any consumer be "unsuspecting" with respect to advertisements? Or any report in any form of media, for that matter? Everyone has a bias. Except me, of course.
I couldn't believe that iHeart got away with continuing to run a male enhancement commercial featuring "Smiling Bob" after the company founder was found guilty of false claims. It used to be an FCC violation to run a commercial knowing that it contained false claims. I couldn't detect any difference before and after the verdict yet the commercials started up again.
Hey Steve I once researched an item on line and noticed that all 30 of the positive reviews were all written on the very same day month and year. Steve I personally really appreciate you covering events just like these so that your audience can share their real life experiences with you and your audience.
I recently received two different extended car warranty advertisment cards in the mail. They didn't put the company names on the cards, but there were phone numbers. I suspect they don't want people googling the company name and reading reviews.
yep, its an extras casting agency called SRO. but it didnt cost you anything, and you could just walk out if you got bored. unlike paying for a product, because the ads were misleading
The dollar amount is a drop in the bucket. Sure there is a huge disincentive for a small company to break the rules but no so much for big companies. If you pay 9M in fines but because of those actions you ended up with 30M in additional profit, then why follow the rules? These fines need to be changed to a dollar amount or percentage of profits, whichever is higher.
Because the corporations are the ones in control of the laws through lobbyists, and it's setup the way it is so that the big companies get a slap on the wrist, while if a small company tried the same BS, they'd go bankrupt paying the fine. Things are working exactly as intended, and as long as corporations are throwing money at politicians through --corruption-- lobbying, nothing will change, it will just get worse.
They spent over $100m in advertising for the phone. The $9m was just added to that budget that they already knew they would be fined for and the lawyers got rich.
During my commute to and from a college in Dayton, Ohio, I would listen to WGTZ Z93. They would give their service locations by saying, "Eaton Springfield and Dayton ALIVE." I still chuckle about it when I think about it.
It’s good to know the Feds are on the job. Now finally I can sign up for Car Shield, knowing Ice T and his celebrity pals are totally on the up and up. Even better, I also know I won’t be getting scammed if I take out a Reverse Mortgage to make the Car Shield payments. My whole life just got a lot easier …
It tends to be more deceptive than that, I'm old enough to remember the cash for comment scandal first hand, talk shows often develop a lot of good will between the personality and the listeners so when they present something as their experience without disclosing the relationship it's an abuse of that trust. At least those CarShield "endorsements" are obvious ads.
@@cericatHey, I’m old enough to remember Arthur Godfrey! He practically invented the celebrity endorsement scam. Also the Radio Payola scandal of the 1950s …
So they did exactly what 99.9% of advertisement do? Most (if not all) station's use an automated computer system to play music, commercials, and station ID's. I worked with a small independent (online) station about 20 years ago and we called the system DJ Playlist, and if a DJ was live they would be able to add songs in to the list and pause the list to talk, but once they unpaused it DJ Playlist took over.
Aren't businesses already barred from misleading advertisements? And how come the government doesn't care about deceptive ads for political candidates?
We should continue this down to it's logical conclusion, that most ads in the media involving celebrities or well known individuals are fraudulent and misleading, and they should all be banned or sued as well.
A friend of mine worked 25-30 hours/week for 3 different radio stations, all owned by Clear Channel, from the same building. She collected 3 different paychecks, was not considered full time, and did not receive benefits despite working 80-90 hours/week.
This seems like a bad idea for a marketing campaign... Do people actually care that much about what a radio host thinks of a phone? Just make it a normal ad read right?
Years ago, Pat Boone was endorsing an ineffective acne medication. In 1978, Mr. Boone became the first celebrity to accept responsibility for endorsing a product that failed to deliver as advertised. He’d appeared in an ad for an acne medication, telling consumers that the ointment was a “real help” in keeping his four daughters blemish free. Turned out, that statement wasn’t true. When challenged by the FTC, Mr. Boone accepted personal responsibility and agreed to pay restitution.
"But, mamma I only use my own paddle." "I know, Forrest, but this is $25,000. Maybe you could hold it for a while and see if it grows on you." "My mamma! She sure is a smart lady!"
What I love most about you Steve, not only do you have a topic of current events, I grew up in the next county to the east and get a nostalgic walk through commonly shared life experiences. 😊
I heart radio/clear channel is the company that ruined radio in America. I'll never forget hearing my local afternoon drive-time DJ on the air in a city 100 miles away. As I'm driving between the two cities as one station starts to fade I tune in my local station and I hear the same DJ. Jay Gilbert was live in Cincinnati while a recorded show played in Columbus. As I'm writing this, and watching the video, an ad for the new Pixel popped up through the Verizon app...
Thanks Steve, I can’t tell you how thrilled I am to hear that google has been fined! I despise that company. I have a google account because I can’t have RU-vid without one. I miss Ask Jeeves. I hate that google has this monopoly, but it is what it is
i'm with everyone else. pretty much all sponsorships with content creators work this way. biggest offenders i can think of are audible and raid shadow legends. the creators have to follow a script. no matter what. right down to their favorite thing about it being scripted
It sucks that a lot of content creators have to take these subscriptions too, considering how unreliable youtube and other platforms can be with ad revenue
Just install sponsorblock - you won't have to listen to any of that BS anymore - it just auto skips all that garbage. I generally don't watch youtube channels that have promotions in them anyway, but lately it's just getting worse and worse, so sponsorblock is now required on anything I watch youtube on. Along with u-block origin for blocking everything else.
The issue with this story is that they did specifically tell people they were sponsored. RU-vid streamer sponsors are also required to inform you they are getting paid
I remembered a story that Sarah Michelle Gellar appeared in an advertising campaign from Burger King saying they were better than McDonald's which actually required her not to "show her face" in McDonald's. Presumably Google could have done similar and require they use a supplied Google phone and avoid Apple phones etc and it was basically just sloppiness that they didn't.
I love my new Google phone, it’s the best phone I’ve ever had, is the smartest phone I’ve ever had. I can’t recommend it enough.. Please send my check. (I don’t even have a Google search on any of my electronics, but I am forced to have them to get RU-vid). This fine couldn’t have happened to a better company.
The "placebo water" ads keep showing up for me in various games where it cut together scenes from "Shark Tank" and suggest that the sharks were blown away by how impressive the product is.
so they got fined 9million for a practice that probably netted them 900million? sounds about right. thats a good incentive to do it... i mean....NOT...do it again. i mean...everyone DOES realize that the 9million is merely the governments slice of the pie.
@@marcuslinton310 If google brings in the change to chrome that will stop adblock from working (supposed to be coming early next year), switch back to firefox - I actually switched back to firefox a couple of years ago now, and I'm happy I did. Google is not on a good path anymore.
@@gorak9000 I'm already on Firefox, but Google doesn't just focus on their browser, they try to alter the way advertisements are delivered to avoid blockers.
WGTZ didn't want people to know that their license was in Eaton, Ohio. They wanted to be thought of as a Dayton channel so they coined the station ID tag of "WGTZ Eaton, Dayton And Springfield alive!"
Does the memo also say station managers can't discipline radio on-air personalities for refusing to do adverts for products they don't/haven't use(d) or think negatively about??
He's a great example as to why those laws are in place recently there was a celebrity who announced that she duct tapes her mouth shut while she sleeps because it promotes better sleeping people are now dying as a result if anybody could claim anything everybody would be killing themselves over stupid s*** it just goes to prove how intelligent we as a species actually are
Back in the early 90s, I worked the college radio station. We did classical music. Many of those songs were over an hour. We would have to break in the middle of the song and do the station ID.
9 million dollar fine, probably 100 million dollar in profits from the violation. Ohhhh but now they were specifically told not to break the law again.
Why isnt monopolization illegal? Sherman Act? Why isn't the USA government suing? Do the consumers have to sue now under Qui Tam ? Doesn't monopolization take options away from consumers?
When I was a taxi dispatcher, we had to announce our radio call sign, and announce the time. So "KNFL 970 California Co-Op Cab time is 1917 hours". We would make a record by entering it in the dispatch computer as though someone had called a cab.
The elimination of media ownership limits was a bad idea. They could have increased the limits, but still somewhere in the 10-20 station range (plus newspapers), but the elimination of limits was just bad.
I find Steve Lehto a reliable and trustworthy source. Beyond him, it goes to show people will believe anything from friends, family, celebrities, influencers, online, in print, and on air. FCC and FTC won't change that with a fine or banning such endorsements.
It astounds me that average citizens are willing to go to bat and defend the practices of the corporations who are actively working to destroy our society.
Product endorsement for sketchy businesses is creeping into YT, but I have to give credit to Steve for not following this trend unlike many of the RU-vid creators I used to have more respect for. The ads for Established Titles come to mind in this regard.
What? Only $9 million as a penalty. That is just "chicken feed" to a Trillion dollar company. They spend more than $9 million on yesterday's advertisements, and they will spend the same next week.
My favorite radio station is fully automated, except for the morning show, which is live. (And yes, they always do the station ID at the top of the hour, as you mentioned.) Their on-air personalities sometimes do the product enforcement ads: While not part of I-heart, I bet they will take notice of this order. I wonder if anything will change.
