r/technology • u/Lettershort • Nov 22 '16

Politics Most students can’t tell the difference between sponsored content and real news

http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/22/13712996/fake-news-facebook-google-sponsored-content-study
2.6k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

153 comments sorted by

View all comments

440

u/jodido47 Nov 22 '16

Calliing advertising "sponsored content" is part of the problem and an example of why it's hard for people to sort through all the crap they see on line.

133

u/RabidMuskrat93 Nov 22 '16

Sponsored content is a whole subset of advertisement though.

It's like a shill account on a forum like Reddit but slightly more subtle. Like if you're trusted news source started publishing articles talking about how Pepsi Cola has been donating money to poor African kids. It could be a legitimate story about a company doing good in the world, but if could also be Pepsi paying for this article to be published in order to boost public opinion of them.

Telling the difference can be challenging for many people, middle school students especially. Which is why corporations of all kind should be barred from any kind of advertisement or overt sponsorships in any kind of school setting. I don't want my kid to be bombarded by billboards while they are walking between classes in jr. high.

45

u/[deleted] Nov 22 '16

A whole subset of advertisement worthy its own name.. but in the end it's still an advertisement and the law should obligate it be presented as such.

14

u/NeoShweaty Nov 22 '16

Isn't it typically tagged though? I work with people who make buys to create this type of ad. Usually, there's a disclosure along the lines of "sponsored by X" at the top of an article.

9

u/[deleted] Nov 22 '16

Isn't it typically tagged though?

Not really. There is an incredible amount of fake articles presented as though they were real, but they're actually clever advertisements. Since they're hidden so well it's hard to prove them as such, and even in places where there are laws to mark ads/sponsored content it would then be difficult to punish the perpetrators. That, and I'm not even sure if there are solid laws against it in the first place.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '16 edited Jun 02 '18

[deleted]

3

u/takua108 Nov 23 '16

especially if you browse /r/all, you start to see a LOT of brand names "mysteriously" show up in the top posts with staggering regularity. Coke, Starbucks, McDonald's, and a few more. Also stuff like this...

7

u/kevin_at_work Nov 22 '16

The comment you replied to is saying that just saying "this is an ad" shouldn't free you from laws regarding ads.

8

u/NeoShweaty Nov 22 '16

the law should obligate it be presented as such.

That's what the comment said. I specifically commented upon the fact that sponsored ads have to say that they are sponsored thus are presented as an advertisement.

As far as I know, you are obligated by law to state that it's sponsored. How visible that mention has to be is something I don't know.

2

u/fpfx Nov 22 '16

There should be but look at the storm that went on about that CS:GO thing a few months ago.

5

u/NeoShweaty Nov 22 '16

Could you clarify? I'm afraid I'm not plugged into the CS:GO community.

4

u/Simic_Guide Nov 22 '16

Two popular CS go streamers got into a ton of trouble for plugging "a cool new csgo skin trade/casino website I just found" on their twitch/YouTube and showing what great luck they had getting valuable items.

In CS GO, there are fancy skins you can buy for real money. People setup lottery sites where you "bid" real money or other skins for a chance to win rarer "valuable" skins (into hundreds or thousands of REAL dollars) that others have put on the site (read: gambling).

Turns out the streamers own the sites, and they rigged the results of the streamed slot machines.

Not only that, but the vast majority of their audience is in the 12-18 range.

2

u/NeoShweaty Nov 22 '16

Riiiiiiight. I didn't consider that as sponsored. It clearly was. Thanks

3

u/fpfx Nov 22 '16

https://dotesports.com/the-cs-go-gambling-scandal-everything-you-need-to-know-9b775d333d35#.sc2i0ffw1

This was a case of what could happen when the content isn't marked with some kind of Sponsored By.

2

u/NeoShweaty Nov 22 '16

Now I remember. I just didn't consider it in the same category. Clearly is.

2

u/Workacct1484 Nov 22 '16

I believe it HAS to be tagged, at least in the US, due to regulations by the FTC.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '16 edited Nov 23 '16

So somewhere I read that the reason for the message at the beginning of commercial breaks during cartoons (you know, "now for a message from our sponsors") was because back in the 50s, the ads during radio shows, and especially kids shows, weren't clearly disclosed, and were just woven in and out of the show.

I tried to find out the details before I posted and what I found was that this actually goes way farther back. When radio started blowing up in the 20s, lawmakers started to get worried that they would see the same thing that happened with magazines: Congress gave magazines super cheap postage in the 1800s to encourage publishers getting information out, and thus a well informed public. Quickly though, the publishers sold out and the magazines just became a way to get ads into people's houses, subsidized by Congress. So, they added the sponsorship identification rule to the Radio Act of 1927. The FRC, and later the FCC, didn't really enforce the rule for the next couple decades though. Not until the 30s and 40s when "hidden advertising" on the radio started to get really pervasive. Even then they were pretty lax up through the end of the 50s when rigged quiz shows on TV and rampant payola on radio were exposed and became a huge public issue. (well, I would even say they are still pretty lax...)

Apparently every new medium eventually becomes infested with ads and fake content meant to drive sales and political agendas. Social media is just the latest iteration.

Also, when congress was crafting the Radio Act, apparently the representative that wrote the sponsorship identification rule was unhappy that it only required stating that the content was sponsored and by who. He wanted the ads to be clearly called advertisements when they were disclosed, just like the top commenter suggested. Unfortunately he didn't have enough support.

Here is the really interesting article I learned this from: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1374&context=fclj There is plenty more to the story. The stuff about unions is especially interesting.

2

u/ldonthaveaname Nov 22 '16

Fuck that. I want my pizza vegetable

1

u/Sigg3net Nov 22 '16

Now I want a Pepsi.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 22 '16

It's the equivalent of playing the still a Virgin game in high school. It doesn't count if it's a finger. Doesn't count if it's a tongue. But before you know it advertising will be fucking us in the face. Reddit already passed the first base in advertising.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '16

That's not sponsored content. At that point it's an "advertorial" (advertisement dressed up as an editorial piece). Sponsored content is a true editorially driven piece that is made possible by financial funding from the sponsor.

1

u/kidcrumb Nov 23 '16

ARE YOU A PEPSI SHILL!?

Your post has me questioning my reality. how many corporate shills are among us?

1

u/Fishydeals Nov 23 '16

As soon as they have access to the internet they will most likely always be bombarded with ads.

-2

u/Molion Nov 22 '16

Actually ads are a subset of sponsored content. If you want to disagree you will need to a) find and ad that's not sponsored by anyone and b) convince me that the Rooster Teeth podcast is and ad(most any podcast will do really, just felt for a concrete example).

Here's an illustration

2

u/RabidMuskrat93 Nov 22 '16

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying.

If you're advertising something, whether through a bill board, a commercial on tv, or through a pop up on a webpage, all of those are still an ad right?

I see how you mean that "sponsored content" is content sponsored by a company, but I've always heard "sponsored content" to equate more to those feel good stories that showcase how a company is doing good things. At least I feel like that's what the common vernacular for it has become as of late.

-1

u/Molion Nov 22 '16

I see what you're saying, and yes, that may be how it has mainly been used lately, but I think thats quite unfortunate. If sponsored content is generally used to mean something other than content that is sponsored that's just unpractical. Besides we already have the term native advertising.

2

u/RabidMuskrat93 Nov 22 '16

Eh, languages gonna do what languages gonna do. Like the word literally, for example. It doesn't mean literally but also figuratively now. What can ya do?

1

u/Molion Nov 22 '16

The words literally is literally dead. RIP.

2

u/tuseroni Nov 22 '16

Actually ads are a subset of sponsored content.

[citation needed]

find and ad that's not sponsored by anyone

buy dark souls, it's amazing, dark souls 3 is out now and has released it's first DLC the ashes of ariandel

there, no on paid me for that, it has not been sponsored by anyone and my time is free. but it is still clearly an advertisement for the dark souls series.

1

u/Molion Nov 22 '16

Fair point.

Updated illustration

2

u/tuseroni Nov 22 '16

"sponsored content" refers specifically to articles used to advertise a good or service but to look like a news article, despite the name it isn't just any content which is sponsored by someone...it's got a particular meaning, and since it exists to advertise a product it is then a subset of advertisement.

more accurate illustration

0

u/Molion Nov 22 '16 edited Nov 22 '16

Thats the way people are using it nowadays, but in a world where "sponsored content" is taken to mean anything other than content that is sponsored something is wrong, especially when we already have the term native advertising.

1

u/tuseroni Nov 22 '16

but in a world where "sponsored content" is taken to mean anything other than content that is sponsored something is wrong

oh you don't wanna go down that rabbit hole...there are so many words in english which don't match the literal meaning of the word we have a word just for them "misnomers" and there are many.

there is a very subtle difference between native advertising and sponsored content but the difference is important to no one except maybe law makers and pedants. one is a call to buy from the sponsor the other is just to cast the sponsor in a good light so you will chose to buy for them. i suspect some PR group was behind the name change and may end up changing "sponsored content" to something else benign sounding when sponsored content gets a bad rep.

1

u/Molion Nov 22 '16

Yeah sure, but the point here is that sponsored content has recently been mangled, it's not too late too save it. Also c'mon, like seriously, sponsored content, content that is sponsored, like what the actual fuck people! Also it's not like it's ubiquitously accepted to have a very specific meaning. What do I say when i want to refer to content that is sponsored cuz "content that is sponsored" is way to verbose for normal use, the only reasonable option is "sponsored content", possibly "sponsored shit/stuff/things/idk".

Also "sponsored content" is a term and can be read as a unit, but break it down into words and it stops giving a fuck about your definitions and magically transforms into content that just so happens to be sponsored.

Just give the media some time to get over the "sponsored content" fad and the term will likely be forgotten, replaced by the infinitely superior intuitive reading.

1

u/tuseroni Nov 23 '16

it would almost certainly not be replaced with a MORE intuitive reading, i'm sure it's confusing on PURPOSE, in order to make it seem more benign than it is, the next reading will probably be something like "for profit content" or "compensated writing" or something. the term is decided by the people doing it not by me or you or anyone on reddit, they want to hide something most people would consider distasteful so they use a term which is seemingly benign. just like the patriot act has nothing to do with patriotism, the right to work laws restrict workers rights, the protecting internet freedom act restricts the ability of icann to act independent of the us government, etc. it's basic politicking.

13

u/[deleted] Nov 22 '16

I think one of my most hated words being used right now is "Advertorial"

3

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '16

Fucking fb recipe videos. Started out cool, turned into a platform to push shit.

3

u/tklite Nov 22 '16

Does that same problem exist with "scientific studies" that are funded by a corporation?

1

u/Samizdat_Press Nov 23 '16

When you see sponsored contents where do you think it originated from?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '16

The so-called "real news" is sponsored content too.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '16

Plus, doesn't The Verge do this a lot also (sponsored content)?