Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Do Political Influencers Have to Disclose Paid Posts?

More and more political campaigns are trying to get their messages out to younger generations. How do they do this? Both major parties are paying internet influencers to create content, usually video messages, in various social media like TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, X, and others.

So the question is, do these influencers have to disclose to viewers when they were paid to espouse a particular point of view (which probably was there own anyway)? Here’s what one influencer says:

And here’s what the law says. The Federal Trade Commission has specific rules requiring infuencers to clearly disclose material connections they have with companies if they were paid for their opinions. In a commercial context, they believe that since this is a kind of paid advertising, anyone seeing it has a right to know what they are seeing or hearing may have been influenced by the money the person was paid.

But the FTC regulates trade and commerce and opinions spouted by internet influencers about politcal issues and figures is not within their jurisdiction.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) oversees political advertising. Last December they endeavored to modernize regulations governing internet communications, but decided not to require internet influencers to disclose to viewers and readers if they were paid by a political entity. Some of commissioners at the FEC disagreed saying this was a missed opportunity.

Some states have begun requiring social media influencers to disclose if they were paid to espouse a particular political opinion on a candidate or issue. Last year, California passed such a law. And in June, the Texas Ethics Commission passed a requirement that influencers have to disclose if a post or video is a paid political advertisement.

Various social media platforms have their own rules that posters must follow.

*MOUSE PRINT:

TikTok has the strictest policy — banning political advertising entirely, including branded political content from creators. Instagram and Facebook, owned by Meta, allow for paid political ads and sponsored political content from creators as long as the group is registered in its ad library. … And X, formerly Twitter, lifted its political ads ban last year. — Politico

What is your opinion? Should influencers who are paid to espouse a particular political point of view disclose that fact, whether the law requires it or not?

[Please do not turn the comments into a Trump vs. Harris, or democrats vs. republicans discussion.]

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Is It Advertising or a Bona Fide News Story?

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:

USA Today disclaimer

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:

WSJ we are not paid

As consumers of news, we deserve published content that does not blur the line between bona fide news content and advertising.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Ratings for American Home Shield Higher on Sites That Earn Commissions From Them

American Home Shield is a company that advertises a variety of home warranties to cover major appliances and systems in your home if they need repair or replacement. Here is a recent commercial:


Certain trusted websites like BobVilla.com, ThisOldHouse.com, ConsumerAffairs.com, and Forbes.com give the company good to great reviews.

ThisOldHouse.com

“American Home Shield is a veteran in the home warranty industry and one of the best home warranty companies available to homeowners. … We rated American Home Shield a 94 out of 100 [emphasis added] and named it the best overall home warranty company. …”

Cons listed: ” ✘ Charges slightly higher monthly premiums than some providers: ✘ Guarantees repairs for only 30 days.”

“In general, American Home Shield home warranty reviews from existing customers are a mix of positive and negative reviews. Some customers are happy with quick fixes and an easy claims process, while some complain about denied claims and negative experiences with on-site technicians.”

BobVila.com

“Our Verdict: American Home Shield offers well-rounded home warranty policies that will likely appeal to a wide variety of homeowners. … Every facet of the customer experience is competently executed, and there are no glaring drawbacks with its services that might raise a red flag for potential customers.” [emphasis added]

ConsumerAffairs.com

“Overall, we find that American Home Shield offers good coverage at a fair rate. Prices are on the higher end of average for the industry but still pretty competitive, considering the level of coverage provided. It’s an especially smart fit if you like the idea of managing everything online.”

Based on over 11,000 customer reviews, the company was given 4.2 stars out of five . Under “cons,” the site said “some customer service complaints.”

Forbes Home

“Our Verdict: With decades of experience and multiple exceptionally comprehensive home warranty plans, American Home Shield is one of the top home warranty providers in the industry.”

Their editorial team gave the company 4.7 out of five stars but at the same time mentioned these CONS:

Cons for American Home Shield

*MOUSE PRINT:

It should be noted that all the above sites earn a commission on the sale of American Home Shield policies, and have disclosures like this:

Affiliate Disclosure: This Old House‘s Reviews Team is committed to delivering honest, objective, and independent reviews on home products and services. To support this business model, This Old House may be compensated if you purchase through links on our website.

However, the “reviews” on their websites look more like detailed marketing material about the company and its warranty plans rather than objective evaluations.

On the other hand, if you look at websites that collect reviews, ratings, and complaints by customers, and don’t earn a commission on sales about the companies they list, a very different picture emerges.

The Better Business Bureau has closed 27,120 complaints against the company in just the past three years. The complaints are what you would expect: delays in getting repairs, repairs that did not fix the problem, delays in getting reimbursements, and difficulty getting refunds for contract cancellation, etc.

The BBB has over 11,000 customer reviews on its website that give the company an average of 2.25 stars out of five. Despite this, the BBB has given the company a “B” rating presumably because the company responds to 100-percent of BBB complaints and many consumers accept the settlements offered.

Reviews posted on other sites that don’t earn a commission from American Home Shield are similarly low. Trustpilot gives the company 1.8 stars. Those on ComplaintsBoard average one-star. Yelp reviews average one-star.

So, it appears on sites that make money by posting their own reviews, ratings of the company are significantly higher than on complaint and review sites that don’t earn revenue in that way. Which would you believe?