Whether celebutante Kim Kardashian was actually paid $10,000 to tweet about salads from Carl’s Jr. or if she was just sharing her honest opinion with fans, this incident opens some interesting marketing questions.
Will this become standard practice, enlisting celebrities of all stripes to shill for products and companies? It certainly would make coveted celebrity endorsements more affordable, and immediate. And even B, C, D-list celebrities could get in on the action (hello, Kathy Griffin).
How will the FTC monitor and enforce this practice? Check out this bit from section 255.1 (d) of this handy-dandy, recently-published document: “Advertisers are subject to liability…for failing to disclose material connections between themselves and their endorsers. Endorsers also may be liable for statements made in the course of their endorsements.”
So, if the aforementioned Kim K. was specifically paid to tweet that she loves said salads and didn’t disclaim it, both she and Carl’s Jr. could be subject to punishment. But what if, as Kim contends, she was indeed previously paid to be in a Carl’s Jr. commercial… yet, in her Twitter stream, she was simply expressing her sincere love for their salads? Tricky. Complex. Impossible!
Which leads to this question: will commercialization ultimately sully the appeal of social media – regarded as one of the few havens of honesty and authenticity in a marketing-saturated world. I highly doubt it. Consumers are savvy. They can generally distinguish sincerity versus shilling. And honestly: if you’re the sort of person who will start eating Carl’s Jr. salads because Kim says you should, the FTC disclaimer will mean as much as an errant crouton.
And finally, perhaps most importantly, I think I need a name for this practice. When celebrities are willing to post opinions for money via social media, does that make them a Blogsperson… or a Prostitwit?
Big questions, for intriguing times.