Recently in his news feed of consumer-related stories, MrConsumer got a link to an USA Today article questioning whether the bargain website, Temu.com, was offering legitimate deals. It was entitled, “Why Temu is so cheap – the secret behind Temu’s budget-friendly products.”
[Note: graphical excerpt of the USA Today article has been removed.]
The story was a very positive portrayal of the company not mentioning any of the negatives that often appear in other news articles. This USA Today story ended in part with this:
To sum up, Temu is real and safe to shop on. Its affordability is also no accident. It’s the result of a carefully designed business model… Its commitment to customer satisfaction, secure transactions, and quality assurance make it a reliable platform for online shopping.
So the next time you’re looking for a bargain online, remember to compare prices on Temu.
That sounded a little too promotional and commercial to me. And then the clincher came.
*MOUSE PRINT:
One might see a disclaimer like that on “commerce content” which is a story specifically written by a different section of a publication designed to help the publisher earn money from the links contained in the story. They tend to be written in a positive manner and have the effect of promoting the product or service reviewed.
The above story is labeled “Contributor Content” but there is no explanation of what that means. There is no disclosure that USA Today or perhaps even the author make money in some manner from the story, or that this “story” really is advertising or “sponsored content.” If this really is an ad, that needs to be disclosed to the reader at a minimum and even that may not be enough according to the FTC.
For example, companies shouldn’t give the impression that a ranking or review is objective and unbiased if it is based on or affected by third-party compensation. And if an advertisement strongly resembles editorial content such as a news article, or appears formatted as native content in a publication with a strong journalistic brand, it is unlikely disclaimers will overcome the deceptive net impression. — source: FTC
Even USA Today’s own ethical principles state:
*MOUSE PRINT:
We will not blur the line between advertising and editorial content. We will provide appropriate disclosures, exercise transparency and avoid actual or implicit commercial endorsements by our journalists.
We wrote to the author asking about her piece, but she did not respond. We contacted USA Today/Gannett twice asking for an explanation of what “Contributor Content” is and suggested that some type of notification to readers might be required if this was advertising. We got no response.
Here are other stories that USA Today labels as “Contributor Content.”
In a twist, another publisher, Dow Jones, has appended a refreshing footnote to some stories in the Wall Street Journal, like this one entitled “Bleeding Money on Subscriptions? These 3 Tools Will Cancel Them Fast.”
[Note: graphical excerpt of the WSJ article has been removed.]
*MOUSE PRINT:
As consumers of news, we deserve published content that does not blur the line between bona fide news content and advertising.
TEMU is a plague! Their ads are constantly popping up everywhere. Just because of that I’d never buy anything from them.
“To sum up, Temu is real and safe to shop on. Its commitment to customer satisfaction, secure transactions, and quality assurance make it a reliable platform for online shopping.
So the next time you’re looking for a bargain online, remember to compare prices on Temu.”
Agreed, as soon as I read this I identified it as corporate double speak. It’s pretty obvious once you know what to look for. Odds are, someone is getting paid to write this, it’s too on the nose. Even if USA Today isn’t, I imagine that Temu sponsored the “Contributor” to submit it to the USA Today
The term I have heard used is “sponsored content.” But no matter what these con artists call it, the ads are designed to deceive us even with disclaimers, which most readers don’t notice, understand, and/or read.
“A Harvard professor notes…” but never names the professor.
The Temu one seems more of an advertisement here even with both people being so called professional writers.
I confess I did not recognize the Temu article as essentially advertising because I misinterpreted the disclaimer at the end. Won’t happen again!
USA today should be ashamed IMO.
Temu sells really cheap (as in cr*p) merchandise that ships directly from Chinese manufacturers. Companies (Walmart) like this take advantage of the poor by offering really low prices for their products BUT leave out the part that the merchandise is usually shoddy & will have to be replaced in a couple of months. It’s a vicious cycle. Here is a Time magazine article about Temu from December 2022.
https://time.com/6243738/temu-app-complaints/
Oh, & yes I consider that to be an ad.
I knew instantly that this wasn’t a “real” news story. It was an ad.
Temu has been getting a lot of bad press lately, and this ad was a response to that.
Some sites are disguising ads like this as news stories in an effort to fool their readers. It’s unacceptable and outrageous.
Hmmm, just like the “sponsored product reviews”.
Lowes has a bunch of them.
I believe that using TEMU creates a monetary pipeline of American dollars directly into the Chinese economy.
We Americans need to get back to local markets or our economy will continue to deteriorate.
I quit reading the entire “family” of Gannett rags. They almost always want payment to read even one article, which, as the above demonstrates, are deceptively disguised ads! https://www.gannett.com/local-brands-map/
I wouldn’t even line the garbage can with the print edition. No wonder they give them away free in hotels.