Influencers Were Paid By Google To Promote a Pixel Phone They Never Used

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Google and iHeartMedia -- the US's biggest radio station operator -- are being hit with a false advertising lawsuit for ads they ran about the Pixel 4 [...]. The FTC and four states say the companies aired "nearly 29,000 deceptive endorsements by radio personalities" during 2019 and 2020, with Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Samuel Levine saying that "Google and iHeartMedia paid influencers to promote products they never used, showing a blatant disrespect for truth-in-advertising rules." The two companies have settled the lawsuit and will be required to pay $9.4 million in penalties.

Google's ads had on-air personalities give first-hand accounts of how much they liked the Pixel 4, but, to quote the FTC's press release, "the on-air personalities were not provided with Pixel 4s before recording and airing the majority of the ads and therefore did not own or regularly use the phones." Therefore the first-person claims made in the ads, like, "It's my favorite phone camera out there, especially in low light, thanks to Night Sight Mode," "I've been taking studio-like photos of everything," and "It's also great at helping me get stuff done, thanks to the new voice-activated Google Assistant that can handle multiple tasks at once," can't be true. [...] As part of the settlement, Google and iHeartMedia are barred from "misrepresenting that an endorser has owned or used, or about their experience with, certain products." The agreement is subject to a public comment period of 30 days, after which the commission will vote on whether to make the proposed consent orders final. A Google spokesperson commented to TechCrunch, saying, "We are pleased to resolve this issue. We take compliance with advertising laws seriously and have processes in place designed to help ensure we follow relevant regulations and industry standards."

What else is new?

[Opportunist]

Influenza promote crap they never used or even saw, just because someone dumps money on them? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!

Next you're telling me the celebs that hawked products on conventional TV ads weren't totally in love with that product either.

Re:What else is new?

[fermion]

I am not really sure how relevant this is, either. While on social media there is an illusion that the people are promoting products they find useful and interesting, anyone with a modicum of common sense know they are just shilling. This has been the way of radio forever.

In any case, when you have a lame product that no one uses, you have to pay cooo, people to promote it. Just look at how much celebrities get paid to promote American beer.

Re:

[garyisabusyguy]

Here is relevant... I want to see politicians held to at least the same standards

Re: What else is new?

[saloomy]

Four out of five stomach doctors smoke Camels!

Re:

[Opportunist]

Four out of five oncologists promote them, too.

The fifth still has a conscience. But we're working on that.

Re: What else is new?

[gl4ss]

It is relevan to punish them when caught though.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

Reminds me of Samsung accounts tweeting about their phones, and the app automatically adding "Sent from iPhone" at the bottom.

Especially in radio - every ad is "I use it"

[raymorris]

This seems to be especially true on radio. The DJ / host says they personally use and love each product.

On TV, the fact they the celeb appears in the commercial might *imply* that they like the product, but they don't normally/always say that.

Re:

[nospam007]

"Influenza promote crap they never used or even saw, just because someone dumps money on them? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!"

I bet, the Kardashians don't even use that special razor to shave their backs every day.

Re:

[nomadic]

Yes, Apple really has had a problem getting people to buy iPhones.

Re:

[ArchieBunker]

Brazil has ridiculous duties on electronics so no surprise there.

This is the normal state of affairs

[Ed Tice]

The only time they use the Android phones is when they get caught posting about them using iPhones and then they delete and repost from the promoted device. Yawn.

Compliance

[Dr_b_]

"We take compliance with advertising laws seriously" Actually, apparently they do not or they would not have been fined for false advertising This is remorse after the fact, or after the fine Pixel 4 is a decent phone though

Re:

[larwe]

Actually, apparently they do, because "paying the fines" is probably baked into their advertising budget.

Re:

[La Gris]

This is just the legal corporate approved version of:
-- We regret to have been caught, while we always knew it was wrongdoing.

It is called advertising!

[oldgraybeard]

People are paid to say glowing things about a product. Influencers are just (on this new interwebs thingy) paid shills. Everything they say and do should be questioned and discounted. A fool and their money will soon be parted.

Re:

[EvilSS]

I agree completely. We've known for a long time radio DJs are just paid shills, why is this a surprise to anyone?

Influencer?

[ck1dog]

that's a weird way to spell "spokesmodel"

Re:

[Ed Tice]

The difference is that spokesmodels wouldn't do the promotion without the fine print at the bottom that says "paid spokesmodel"

Company faces infinitesimal fine for false advert

[cowtamer]

That should have been the headline.

"... will be required to pay $9.4 million in penalties"

See, for 29000 endorsements, this is $324 per endorsement. This is a symbolic fine which will just be written off.

I think exposing each influencer and making them apologize for lying would be a better deterrent. It's one thing to say nice things about a product for money. It's another thing to claim you love a product that you've never even seen ...

Re:

[greytree]

We need an Influencer Hall of Shame to expose these horrible people.

A Razzy-like "Influencer Cunt Of The Year" Award.

Oh, and MASSIVE FINES for their lies.

Re:

[Alain Williams]

I think exposing each influencer and making them apologize for lying would be a better deterrent. It's one thing to say nice things about a product for money. It's another thing to claim you love a product that you've never even seen ...

Making the influencers pay significant fines might change things, making managers also pay fines personally might change what they do.

i want to see a third option

[FudRucker]

in the smartphone market that is not android or iphone, one that respects user's privacy and does not allow advertising embedded in the apps

Re:

[CaptainLugnuts]

I got a couple of cans and some string.

The Google Don't Be Evil Way

[greytree]

1. Announce it, get early adopters excited.
2. Hype it, get the public ready for it.
3. Make ... nah ... Cancel it, waste everyone's time. Who cares, we're massive.

Don;t waste your time on anything Google apart from Search.

Every reviewer ever...

[MindPrison]

This isn't exactly news.

If you're not new to youtube, that's how influencers work. Just take those who review smartphones every week.
They always say this will be my daily driver, but the fact is their "daily drivers" change with every sponsor, next week you'll see some other phone that is amazing and have revolutionary new features we all must have or we will immediately lose all our friends and colleagues.

The most annoying thing about all of this is that when you purchase something and you go to youtube to check how it is, or you want to purchase something and learn about all the defects and things 1st-day reviewers never mention or talk about, you'll get 100's of 1st-day reviews of the product you search for, and you will have to sift through youtube's promoted influencers in order to find the actual good stuff (smaller youtubers that had it for a few months) and you get the real story behind it.

This also sadly RUINS good products. There are phones and items that are MILES ahead of the competition technology and even price wise, and they often get destroyed by reivewers that gave them a false review on the first day, and then they don't even stand a chance to survive and often get dumped on the marked.

I rarely purchase 1st-day releases, I wait for a 6-12 month period, and quite often these products are amazing in comparison to the heavily sponsored main street brands that everyone has been influenced to buy and promote.

Re:

[EvilSS]

That's a lot of words to say "I didn't read the summary".

Google's ads had on-air personalities give first-hand accounts of how much they liked the Pixel 4, but, to quote the FTC's press release, "the on-air personalities were not provided with Pixel 4s before recording and airing the majority of the ads and therefore did not own or regularly use the phones."

That cowboy doesn't really have a catheter?

[Sloppy]

This is making me wonder if people in other advertisements might only be actors as well. Is it possible?

Re:

[youngone]

I'm Donovan McNabb, quarterback for the Eagles and you can be too, if you eat breakfast at McDonalds.
Only $5 every morning at McDonalds.

Um, I'm lovin' It.
Can I get that check now? Thanks.

Okay, sue Justin Long and John Hodgman next!

[93 Escort Wagon]

Long has apparently been a Windows user for quite some time - and Hodgman has been a Mac guy forever!

uhmm...

[SuperDre]

that's the job of an influencer, getting paid to promote a product even if they don't use it. You must be really retarded if you think most influencers actually use the product daily when they promote something. Luckily they are bound by law to have a disclaimer that they are getting paid, but I'll bet a lot of influencers don't have that disclaimer.

I, for one, am SHOCKED!

[jdharm]

SHOCKED, I say! Celebrities hawking crap they don't care about? OMG! How dare they?! What's next? Football players saying they're going to Disney World and then NOT GOING?! People who are not doctors but PLAYING ONE ON TV?! FRAUD! SCANDAL! This cannot be allowed! Somebody has to do something! Someone MUST PAY!