WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en
Style:
::cue(c.colorCCCCCC) { color: rgb(204,204,204);
}
::cue(c.cyan) { color: cyan; }
::cue(c.green) { color: green; }
::cue(c.yellow) { color: yellow; }
##
1
00:00:00.429 --> 00:00:03.125
Around the world, there are
regulations for "influencers",
2
00:00:03.125 --> 00:00:07.502
for people with a large audience on platforms
like YouTube, or Instagram, or TikTok.
3
00:00:07.502 --> 00:00:11.151
Those regulations make sure that
if someone is paid to endorse a product,
4
00:00:11.151 --> 00:00:14.218
they have to declare that payment
to the people watching.
5
00:00:14.647 --> 00:00:20.251
But... why does no-one on TV, or film,
or anywhere else have to do that?
6
00:00:30.001 --> 00:00:31.132
What's up world?
It's your boy, TomReacts.
7
00:00:31.132 --> 00:00:34.370
And today's lazy reaction video is sponsored
by Disguised Gambling Game.
8
00:00:34.370 --> 00:00:37.323
Level up in an endless series of battles
designed to create an addiction loop!
9
00:00:37.323 --> 00:00:40.539
Then when the dopamine hits go away,
bring them back by paying money for loot crates!
10
00:00:40.539 --> 00:00:42.784
They look and feel like
a random slot machine, but in reality,
11
00:00:42.784 --> 00:00:46.441
they're rigged so you win just enough to keep you
feeding more and more money desperately into the game
12
00:00:46.441 --> 00:00:48.435
until it drains all your bank accounts
and credit cards.
13
00:00:48.435 --> 00:00:50.459
It won't work on everyone,
but it'll work on a few people,
14
00:00:50.459 --> 00:00:51.686
and that's how they make a profit.
15
00:00:51.686 --> 00:00:55.081
It's like a casino, but without any regulation,
and children can play too!
16
00:00:55.081 --> 00:00:57.544
I am morally complicit in this!
17
00:01:01.218 --> 00:01:03.082
What counts as advertising?
18
00:01:03.082 --> 00:01:05.886
That's not a rhetorical question,
it is genuinely up for debate.
19
00:01:05.886 --> 00:01:08.316
Take this song from nearly a century ago:
20
00:01:08.316 --> 00:01:12.700
♪ Does the Spearmint lose its flavour
on the bedpost overnight? ♪
21
00:01:12.700 --> 00:01:16.740
In the late 1950s, British singer-songwriter
Lonnie Donegan wanted to adapt that
22
00:01:16.740 --> 00:01:20.043
into a more modern style —
at least, modern for the 1950s.
23
00:01:20.043 --> 00:01:22.297
His cover became
the definitive version of the song.
24
00:01:22.297 --> 00:01:26.204
It reached number 5 on the US Billboard chart,
number 3 on the UK charts.
25
00:01:26.204 --> 00:01:29.172
But the title and the chorus
aren't quite the same.
26
00:01:29.172 --> 00:01:33.387
♪ Does your chewing gum lose its flavour
on the bedpost overnight? ♪
27
00:01:33.387 --> 00:01:36.882
Chewing gum, not Spearmint,
because Spearmint is a trademark,
28
00:01:36.882 --> 00:01:41.571
and in 1959, that might have counted
as advertising here in the UK,
29
00:01:41.571 --> 00:01:43.456
and the BBC wouldn't play it.
30
00:01:43.456 --> 00:01:46.855
The evidence for that's a little shaky,
Donegan also changed a lot of the other lyrics,
31
00:01:46.855 --> 00:01:51.637
but in the same way, in 1970, the song Lola,
by the Kinks, was banned by the BBC,
32
00:01:51.637 --> 00:01:53.437
because it mentioned a trademark.
33
00:01:53.437 --> 00:01:56.629
♪ And it tastes just like Coca-Cola ♪
34
00:01:56.629 --> 00:01:59.757
A ban like that could be devastating
to a song's chance of success,
35
00:01:59.757 --> 00:02:03.459
because back then, the BBC had a monopoly
on radio broadcasting.
36
00:02:03.459 --> 00:02:06.760
Yes, there were pirate stations,
and others broadcasting from international waters,
37
00:02:06.760 --> 00:02:12.810
but in 1970, the UK itself had
no legal radio stations other than the BBC.
38
00:02:12.810 --> 00:02:16.179
If you wanted your song to reach the charts,
you wanted BBC airplay.
39
00:02:16.179 --> 00:02:19.352
So lead singer of the Kinks, Ray Davies,
had to fly back from America
40
00:02:19.352 --> 00:02:21.486
to the UK, where the album's
master recordings were,
41
00:02:21.486 --> 00:02:23.439
re-record those lyrics for a radio edit...
42
00:02:23.439 --> 00:02:26.781
♪ And it tastes just like cherry cola ♪
43
00:02:26.781 --> 00:02:29.272
...and then fly straight back to the US
on the same day,
44
00:02:29.272 --> 00:02:31.042
so he didn't interrupt the band's American tour.
45
00:02:31.042 --> 00:02:33.864
It's a pretty seamless edit,
the vocal quality's a little different,
46
00:02:33.864 --> 00:02:36.178
but chances are no-one would spot it.
47
00:02:36.178 --> 00:02:41.080
Back in the 1970s, you could not mention
trademarks or company names in songs
48
00:02:41.080 --> 00:02:42.531
if you wanted airplay over here.
49
00:02:42.531 --> 00:02:46.067
The BBC was funded through an annual tax
on owning a radio or television,
50
00:02:46.067 --> 00:02:48.245
they were not allowed commercials,
51
00:02:48.245 --> 00:02:50.984
and the logic was that maybe
someone might have been paid
52
00:02:50.984 --> 00:02:53.385
for that reference to Spearmint or Coca-Cola,
53
00:02:53.385 --> 00:02:57.467
and thus would have managed to sneak
advertising onto the BBC.
54
00:02:58.271 --> 00:03:00.001
These days, they've relaxed their rules.
55
00:03:00.001 --> 00:03:02.821
Partly because deals like that
rarely happen for song lyrics.
56
00:03:02.821 --> 00:03:05.251
There are exceptions,
like pop star Pitbull,
57
00:03:05.251 --> 00:03:08.312
who did adverts for a camera company
and then gave them a shoutout:
58
00:03:08.312 --> 00:03:12.027
♪ Yeah right, picture that with a Kodak /
Take a picture of me with a Kodak ♪
59
00:03:12.027 --> 00:03:14.299
Strong move there to rhyme
the brand name with itself.
60
00:03:14.299 --> 00:03:18.260
Or maybe a pop star part-owns an alcohol company,
and then puts that company into their lyrics.
61
00:03:18.260 --> 00:03:19.154
Like Pitbull.
62
00:03:20.882 --> 00:03:22.724
But leaving those rare cases aside,
63
00:03:22.724 --> 00:03:26.457
a product reference in the lyrics of a pop song
is usually just that: a reference.
64
00:03:26.457 --> 00:03:30.001
People have written hit songs
entirely about products and brands.
65
00:03:30.001 --> 00:03:31.607
♪ Gucci gang, Gucci gang, Gucci gang ♪
66
00:03:31.607 --> 00:03:35.570
♪ It's fun to stay at the Y-M-C-A ♪
67
00:03:35.570 --> 00:03:37.477
But the companies didn't pay
for those references,
68
00:03:37.477 --> 00:03:40.907
and the companies definitely didn't have control
over those references,
69
00:03:40.907 --> 00:03:44.413
so I think pretty much everyone would agree:
not advertising.
70
00:03:44.413 --> 00:03:49.283
Those two factors, payment and control,
are what define advertising.
71
00:03:49.283 --> 00:03:51.041
Now, the lines aren't always clear.
72
00:03:51.041 --> 00:03:55.261
It's standard practice in car journalism
for reviewers to be given cars to test drive for free.
73
00:03:55.261 --> 00:03:58.252
It's unreasonable for a journalist to buy
a brand-new car for each review,
74
00:03:58.252 --> 00:04:01.617
so often, manufacturers will lend them
one for a few days,
75
00:04:01.617 --> 00:04:04.023
on the expectation that they'll get
a review out of it.
76
00:04:04.023 --> 00:04:07.129
It's a perk of the job.
Is that payment?
77
00:04:07.129 --> 00:04:09.842
If that journalist writes too many bad reviews
about a particular car company,
78
00:04:09.842 --> 00:04:12.441
or they've got a reputation for being
really honest or tough,
79
00:04:12.441 --> 00:04:15.413
maybe they won't be quite as high on the list
for free test drives next time.
80
00:04:15.413 --> 00:04:18.324
Is that control?
Does that count as an advert?
81
00:04:18.324 --> 00:04:21.284
What about, if instead of
just being delivered the car,
82
00:04:21.284 --> 00:04:24.333
the journalist — or the influencer —
is flown off first-class
83
00:04:24.333 --> 00:04:26.652
to some tropical location,
all-expenses paid,
84
00:04:26.652 --> 00:04:28.344
and spends half a day driving the car
85
00:04:28.344 --> 00:04:30.340
and another couple of days
on a beach somewhere?
86
00:04:30.340 --> 00:04:31.990
The slang for that is a "junket",
87
00:04:31.990 --> 00:04:34.998
and it is a surprisingly common occurrence
in quite a few industries.
88
00:04:34.998 --> 00:04:38.229
Can a journalist be trusted to give
an unbiased review after that?
89
00:04:38.229 --> 00:04:40.015
Would that be an advert?
90
00:04:40.015 --> 00:04:42.660
Incidentally, this is why
when I get invited to try a jetpack,
91
00:04:42.660 --> 00:04:44.349
or a wingsuit tunnel,
or something like that,
92
00:04:44.349 --> 00:04:46.321
I almost always start the video with the phrase...
93
00:04:46.321 --> 00:04:47.589
"I got an email..."
94
00:04:47.589 --> 00:04:50.247
And I make clear what's happened.
Or at least, I think I do.
95
00:04:50.247 --> 00:04:52.450
I paid my own way there,
didn't take any money from them,
96
00:04:52.450 --> 00:04:56.980
didn't run the video past them afterwards,
they had no control over what I said.
97
00:04:56.980 --> 00:04:58.743
If I'd been injured, I'd have shown it.
98
00:04:58.743 --> 00:05:01.875
In the past, I have made
public-relations people angry
99
00:05:01.875 --> 00:05:04.301
because I didn't tell the story they wanted.
100
00:05:04.301 --> 00:05:08.566
Do videos like that count as adverts?
I don't think so, the regulators don't think so.
101
00:05:08.566 --> 00:05:12.087
but that wingsuit tunnel did give me
a day's training for free.
102
00:05:12.087 --> 00:05:14.781
Everyone draws the line of what's "acceptable"
103
00:05:14.781 --> 00:05:17.046
just beneath
what they're doing themselves.
104
00:05:17.046 --> 00:05:20.553
That's why I'm mocking sponsorships
from gambling companies, but...
105
00:05:20.553 --> 00:05:24.641
I'm not mocking the basic idea of
YouTube creators doing sponsorship reads.
106
00:05:24.641 --> 00:05:25.984
'Cause I've done those!
107
00:05:25.984 --> 00:05:30.861
And everyone draws the line
just below what they're doing.
108
00:05:30.861 --> 00:05:32.537
Payment and control.
109
00:05:32.537 --> 00:05:34.576
Those are the factors
that make something into an advert.
110
00:05:34.576 --> 00:05:36.836
And around the world,
the regulators are clear:
111
00:05:36.836 --> 00:05:41.131
if you're an influencer on YouTube,
or Instagram, or TikTok, or anywhere online,
112
00:05:41.131 --> 00:05:44.938
and what you're producing has payment
or control by someone else,
113
00:05:44.938 --> 00:05:47.208
you have to declare that.
114
00:05:50.748 --> 00:05:52.981
Hey guys, just want to tell you about
these new Auntie Maggie detox teas.
115
00:05:52.981 --> 00:05:55.940
They're guaranteed never to fail.
They cure lumbago, rheumatics, gout.
116
00:05:55.940 --> 00:05:59.544
And I'll be drinking these
for the next six months because...
117
00:05:59.544 --> 00:06:01.648
because the money from that reality show I did
is really starting to run out.
118
00:06:01.648 --> 00:06:04.287
If anyone knows any casting producers
please DM me.
119
00:06:04.287 --> 00:06:08.274
I think the gold standard of influencers
declaring how they've been influenced
120
00:06:08.274 --> 00:06:12.602
would be Nikkie de Jager, a Dutch YouTuber
who mainly creates makeup tutorials.
121
00:06:12.602 --> 00:06:14.475
Okay, maybe not the gold standard,
122
00:06:14.475 --> 00:06:17.384
because using white text
on a nearly-white background is ridiculous,
123
00:06:17.384 --> 00:06:19.927
but if I boost the contrast there a lot...
124
00:06:19.927 --> 00:06:23.939
She has specific icons that she uses
when she introduces each makeup product.
125
00:06:23.939 --> 00:06:26.755
Has she bought it herself?
Has she been sent it for free?
126
00:06:26.755 --> 00:06:29.997
Because in that case there is payment —
getting stuff for free counts —
127
00:06:29.997 --> 00:06:31.906
but there's not much control.
128
00:06:31.906 --> 00:06:34.896
Or has she been paid to promote it,
is it an advert?
129
00:06:34.896 --> 00:06:37.935
Or does she get a cut of sales using
an affiliate link in the description?
130
00:06:37.935 --> 00:06:40.690
And sure enough, every time she starts using
a product in a video,
131
00:06:40.690 --> 00:06:44.798
one of those little icons pops up
to make sure her audience knows about it.
132
00:06:44.798 --> 00:06:47.547
If someone's getting paid
for endorsing a product,
133
00:06:47.547 --> 00:06:50.609
but their audience thinks
they're giving an unbiased review,
134
00:06:50.609 --> 00:06:53.856
that's... well,
maybe "fraud" is too strong a word,
135
00:06:53.856 --> 00:06:58.919
but it's what the US Federal Trade Commission, the FTC,
would call an "unfair or deceptive act".
136
00:06:58.919 --> 00:07:01.910
I'm going to be talking mostly about
the US and UK in this video.
137
00:07:01.910 --> 00:07:04.924
That's partly because I'm British
and I publish on YouTube, an American website,
138
00:07:04.924 --> 00:07:07.239
so those are the rules I have to deal with.
139
00:07:07.239 --> 00:07:11.179
But it's also partly because they represent
two different ends of the scale
140
00:07:11.179 --> 00:07:13.323
of what's allowed and what isn't.
141
00:07:13.323 --> 00:07:18.345
If you're in another country, your rules will probably sit
somewhere between those two extremes.
142
00:07:18.345 --> 00:07:20.867
Anyway: recommending a particular product,
143
00:07:20.867 --> 00:07:23.955
without disclosing that you've got
a financial incentive to do so,
144
00:07:23.955 --> 00:07:26.519
is considered lying for commercial gain.
145
00:07:26.519 --> 00:07:29.940
And in the US, that's something
that the FTC can regulate.
146
00:07:29.940 --> 00:07:33.483
They have guidance for "influencers",
which says:
147
00:07:33.483 --> 00:07:37.777
Make it obvious when you have a personal,
family, or employment relationship
148
00:07:37.777 --> 00:07:39.658
or a financial relationship –
149
00:07:39.658 --> 00:07:44.153
such as the brand paying you or
giving you free or discounted products or services.
150
00:07:44.153 --> 00:07:46.893
And they really do mean make it obvious.
151
00:07:46.893 --> 00:07:49.204
Place it so it's hard to miss.
152
00:07:49.204 --> 00:07:52.969
So, don't put it on an "About Me" page,
or at the end of the video.
153
00:07:52.969 --> 00:07:55.250
Use simple and clear language.
154
00:07:55.250 --> 00:07:58.962
Now, in the US, "simple and clear language"
can just be you explaining it,
155
00:07:58.962 --> 00:08:00.831
and the word "sponsored" is good enough.
156
00:08:00.831 --> 00:08:02.169
The British regulators,
157
00:08:02.169 --> 00:08:04.848
of which there are three
with various different remits,
158
00:08:04.848 --> 00:08:06.014
are a bit more strict.
159
00:08:06.014 --> 00:08:09.455
If the brand you're working with here has any control
over part of what you're posting,
160
00:08:09.455 --> 00:08:11.505
even just checking it through
and approving it,
161
00:08:11.505 --> 00:08:13.969
then that part becomes an advert:
162
00:08:13.969 --> 00:08:17.714
"sponsored" is not a good enough word,
it has to be "advert" or "ad".
163
00:08:17.714 --> 00:08:22.065
And if the whole video is an advert,
your audience needs to know it before they click.
164
00:08:22.065 --> 00:08:24.054
It's got to be in the title or thumbnail.
165
00:08:24.054 --> 00:08:26.995
The one common thread
in all these regulations
166
00:08:26.995 --> 00:08:31.721
is that every influencer is expected to make it clear
when they've been paid to say something,
167
00:08:31.721 --> 00:08:34.960
or wear something,
or even have something just in frame.
168
00:08:34.960 --> 00:08:39.728
Simply posting a picture of a product in social media,
or a video of you using it,
169
00:08:39.728 --> 00:08:42.535
could convey that you like
and approve of the product.
170
00:08:42.535 --> 00:08:44.708
If it does, it's an endorsement.
171
00:08:44.708 --> 00:08:48.776
You don't necessarily have to use words
to convey a positive message.
172
00:08:48.776 --> 00:08:51.126
As a side note, that's also in
the terms of service for YouTube.
173
00:08:51.126 --> 00:08:53.332
If your video has paid promotion,
you have to tick a box.
174
00:08:53.332 --> 00:08:55.424
That's partly to keep regulators
around the world happy.
175
00:08:55.424 --> 00:08:57.264
Partly so they can put up a notice to viewers,
176
00:08:57.264 --> 00:08:59.737
but it's also so their systems can work out
what you're promoting
177
00:08:59.737 --> 00:09:01.793
and make sure not to run
competing ads against it.
178
00:09:01.793 --> 00:09:04.452
They're a private company, so they're allowed
to make those rules however they want,
179
00:09:04.452 --> 00:09:08.049
but that's separate to what governments require.
180
00:09:08.049 --> 00:09:12.816
And governments require that influencers
have to declare when they've been sponsored.
181
00:09:13.245 --> 00:09:17.074
But that's a standard that doesn't
seem to apply to anyone else.
182
00:09:20.470 --> 00:09:23.743
This is gonna be a really difficult
video to make.
183
00:09:23.743 --> 00:09:26.965
There are a lot of people
I need to apologise to.
184
00:09:26.965 --> 00:09:30.344
But before that, I need to tell you
about these new wireless earbuds.
185
00:09:30.344 --> 00:09:33.520
They sound like absolute garbage.
They don't fit in my ears properly.
186
00:09:33.520 --> 00:09:36.913
And in two days' time, I will slip up
and post a photo on Instagram
187
00:09:36.913 --> 00:09:39.769
of me in the gym
with my usual Apple AirPods in,
188
00:09:39.769 --> 00:09:45.304
but until then, I have been paid to tell you
that these are really, really good!
189
00:09:46.911 --> 00:09:50.144
In American television shows,
characters will sometimes endorse a product
190
00:09:50.144 --> 00:09:52.296
for no reason related to the plot.
191
00:09:54.969 --> 00:09:56.904
Classy, I don't think anyone noticed(!)
192
00:09:56.904 --> 00:09:58.999
But often, it is more subtle than that.
193
00:09:58.999 --> 00:10:02.580
MTV's The Hills: New Beginnings
is a constructed-reality show,
194
00:10:02.580 --> 00:10:05.494
it's a soap opera where
the characters are also real people,
195
00:10:05.494 --> 00:10:10.473
where the boundary between genuine drama
and producer-written storylines is deliberately blurred.
196
00:10:10.473 --> 00:10:12.440
And it's got product placement.
197
00:10:12.440 --> 00:10:14.786
♪♪ [instrumental pop music]
198
00:10:18.965 --> 00:10:19.734
[music fades]
199
00:10:19.734 --> 00:10:21.102
If that was a YouTube influencer
200
00:10:21.102 --> 00:10:23.918
putting lingering shots of
their make-up sponsor in a video,
201
00:10:23.918 --> 00:10:27.232
that would absolutely need to be declared,
clearly and up-front,
202
00:10:27.232 --> 00:10:29.007
both in the US, and in the UK.
203
00:10:29.007 --> 00:10:30.427
Remember the FTC guidelines:
204
00:10:30.427 --> 00:10:33.313
you don't have to use words
to convey a positive message.
205
00:10:33.313 --> 00:10:36.655
Although sometimes, they do anyway,
like when they product-placed some milkshakes.
206
00:10:36.655 --> 00:10:38.733
Boom, got your shake. Wow!
207
00:10:38.733 --> 00:10:40.607
Thanks, honey, my favorite.
208
00:10:41.411 --> 00:10:44.215
But that's on TV,
so the FTC is fine with it.
209
00:10:44.215 --> 00:10:47.726
When they talk about television,
they phrase things a little differently:
210
00:10:47.726 --> 00:10:50.616
Product placement doesn't require a disclosure.
211
00:10:50.616 --> 00:10:54.671
A different US government agency:
the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC,
212
00:10:54.671 --> 00:10:57.929
does have some requirements for disclosure,
but they're minor.
213
00:10:57.929 --> 00:11:01.038
The Hills can just put a few words
in the credits at the end of the show.
214
00:11:01.038 --> 00:11:02.727
And that's all they need to do.
215
00:11:02.727 --> 00:11:06.628
That's not clear, and it's not up-front.
It's hardly a disclosure at all.
216
00:11:06.628 --> 00:11:08.479
What about in music videos?
217
00:11:08.479 --> 00:11:12.402
Those are certainly brands associating themselves
with someone influential.
218
00:11:12.402 --> 00:11:16.856
An Instagram influencer, being paid to post a picture
wearing a certain brand of headphones,
219
00:11:16.856 --> 00:11:20.486
is required to put a big disclaimer,
maybe #ad on it,
220
00:11:20.486 --> 00:11:23.408
even if they're not saying anything about
whether the product is good.
221
00:11:23.408 --> 00:11:26.587
The FTC's rules for influencers
make that very clear.
222
00:11:26.587 --> 00:11:31.869
But a pop star, who is very, very clearly influencing
legions of fans, including a lot of kids,
223
00:11:31.869 --> 00:11:35.269
doesn't have to declare anything
when they do the same thing in a music video,
224
00:11:35.269 --> 00:11:37.512
like DJ Khaled in I'm the One.
225
00:11:37.512 --> 00:11:41.883
Or when they're promoting alcohol,
like DJ Khaled in I'm the One.
226
00:11:41.883 --> 00:11:45.311
Or promoting vaping,
like DJ Khaled in I'm the One.
227
00:11:47.333 --> 00:11:48.486
There is—
228
00:11:58.981 --> 00:12:01.555
There is an argument that the audience
understands what's happening there.
229
00:12:01.555 --> 00:12:04.869
Yes, there is payment, and there's control,
and I reckon there's endorsement,
230
00:12:04.869 --> 00:12:07.642
but it's also clear that
a product placement is just that.
231
00:12:07.642 --> 00:12:11.054
It'd be different if that was a factual TV show
about reviewing vape pens.
232
00:12:11.054 --> 00:12:13.499
The argument goes that product placement
doesn't need to be declared
233
00:12:13.499 --> 00:12:15.536
in music videos
and other entertainment media
234
00:12:15.536 --> 00:12:17.750
because the audience knows what's going on.
235
00:12:17.750 --> 00:12:19.542
And that's what the FTC says.
236
00:12:19.542 --> 00:12:24.935
If what the host says is obviously an advertisement –
a disclosure probably isn't necessary.
237
00:12:24.935 --> 00:12:28.571
Because it's not confusing.
It's obviously an advert, right?
238
00:12:28.571 --> 00:12:31.864
Well, it's time to play:
Is This an Advert?
239
00:12:32.667 --> 00:12:36.475
First clip is from sitcom 30 Rock.
Is this a paid advert?
240
00:12:36.475 --> 00:12:39.429
These McFlurrys are amazing.
I know!
241
00:12:39.429 --> 00:12:44.747
The soft swirl of vanilla,
and the hard crunch of candy and cookies.
242
00:12:44.747 --> 00:12:47.199
You think they fight each other,
but no.
243
00:12:47.199 --> 00:12:49.375
That wasn't an advert,
according to the writers.
244
00:12:49.375 --> 00:12:52.326
McDonald's didn't have a say in that,
the writers just thought it was funny.
245
00:12:52.326 --> 00:12:54.028
How about this clip?
246
00:12:54.028 --> 00:12:57.185
We're not compromising
the integrity of the show to sell—
247
00:12:57.185 --> 00:12:58.291
Wow, this is Diet Snapple?
248
00:12:58.291 --> 00:13:00.214
I know, it tastes just like
regular Snapple, doesn't it?
249
00:13:00.214 --> 00:13:02.141
I only date guys who drink Snapple.
250
00:13:02.141 --> 00:13:05.856
Yes, that was an advert. Product placement,
and a testimonial unrelated to the plot.
251
00:13:05.856 --> 00:13:09.207
What about the show that inspired 30 Rock,
Saturday Night Live?
252
00:13:09.207 --> 00:13:12.079
Now, what's this I hear
about an Angry Whopper?
253
00:13:12.079 --> 00:13:15.743
It's like a Whopper, but it's spicy.
It's got onion rings in it.
254
00:13:15.743 --> 00:13:17.035
In it?
255
00:13:17.035 --> 00:13:18.180
[audience laughter]
256
00:13:18.180 --> 00:13:21.434
So it's an entree that
ate its own side dish?
257
00:13:22.291 --> 00:13:24.111
That was product placement.
258
00:13:24.111 --> 00:13:27.259
Saturday Night Live have been doing
sponsored sketches for years now,
259
00:13:27.259 --> 00:13:30.995
and there's stories of them checking jokes
to make sure they don't offend their sponsors.
260
00:13:30.995 --> 00:13:33.856
I only use Farrow & Ball.
261
00:13:34.445 --> 00:13:36.193
Farrow & Ball? I don't know that.
262
00:13:36.193 --> 00:13:37.660
Oh, well you should.
263
00:13:37.660 --> 00:13:42.249
It's the high-end British paint company that
offers unparalleled depth and col-oor.
264
00:13:42.249 --> 00:13:43.835
That sketch wasn't sponsored.
265
00:13:43.835 --> 00:13:46.029
It was a complete surprise to
everyone at the paint company.
266
00:13:46.029 --> 00:13:48.062
The writers just thought it was funny.
267
00:13:48.062 --> 00:13:51.275
To the audience, there is no difference
between a gag
268
00:13:51.275 --> 00:13:54.857
that's been written specifically for a company
and approved by that company,
269
00:13:54.857 --> 00:13:57.817
where there is payment,
control, and endorsement —
270
00:13:57.817 --> 00:14:00.482
and a gag where the writers
just put a company name in as a joke.
271
00:14:00.482 --> 00:14:03.470
It is impossible to tell without researching.
272
00:14:03.470 --> 00:14:09.124
But none of those shows have to add any sort of disclaimer
until the very end credits — if there's even one at all.
273
00:14:09.124 --> 00:14:10.618
How about in cinema?
274
00:14:10.618 --> 00:14:13.723
Well, James Bond movies are notorious
for their product placement.
275
00:14:13.723 --> 00:14:15.406
There's this scene from Casino Royale.
276
00:14:19.952 --> 00:14:25.945
Or this scene from Casino Royale.
277
00:14:28.731 --> 00:14:30.159
Those are adverts.
278
00:14:30.159 --> 00:14:32.352
The film has been altered in exchange for...
279
00:14:32.352 --> 00:14:34.768
Well, sometimes for money.
Sometimes for cross-promotion.
280
00:14:34.768 --> 00:14:38.520
And occasionally they might be in exchange for
the boss getting a cameo in the film,
281
00:14:38.520 --> 00:14:41.983
like Richard Branson appearing
in this scene from Casino Royale.
282
00:14:41.983 --> 00:14:46.236
And yes, James Bond movies are famous for this,
but it happens in a massive amount of films.
283
00:14:46.236 --> 00:14:50.080
Like that time Superman got paid $40,000
for shilling cigarettes,
284
00:14:50.080 --> 00:14:52.235
and perhaps even more for sugar-filled drinks.
285
00:14:52.235 --> 00:14:54.250
Strong choices for an all-ages movie there.
286
00:14:54.250 --> 00:14:57.555
But there's no "contains paid promotion"
on any of those movie posters,
287
00:14:57.555 --> 00:15:00.243
no title card letting the audience
know about it up front,
288
00:15:00.243 --> 00:15:02.141
like influencers have to do.
289
00:15:02.141 --> 00:15:06.894
Product placement in film was so normalised
as to be a joke in itself nearly 30 years ago.
290
00:15:06.894 --> 00:15:10.011
Contract or no,
I will not bow to any sponsor.
291
00:15:10.868 --> 00:15:13.982
Sure, Casino Royale may put some names
at the end of the credits —
292
00:15:13.982 --> 00:15:17.798
— but even if anyone was still watching then,
it's impossible to look at those credits
293
00:15:17.798 --> 00:15:20.691
and tell how much payment
or control there was, if any.
294
00:15:20.691 --> 00:15:24.030
The only reason I can be sure about it
is because of all the news articles that cover it.
295
00:15:24.030 --> 00:15:28.697
The actual agreements are private between the filmmaker,
the companies, and their accountants.
296
00:15:28.697 --> 00:15:32.635
Regulators all around the world,
they're all fine with that.
297
00:15:32.635 --> 00:15:35.309
Product placement, you could say,
is not a lie.
298
00:15:35.309 --> 00:15:37.076
It's not deceptive or fraudulent.
299
00:15:37.076 --> 00:15:41.540
even with a full-on endorsement, it's just
a brand name appearing in entertainment.
300
00:15:41.540 --> 00:15:45.977
Sure, it is an advert, but maybe there's a difference
because influencers are more trusted.
301
00:15:45.977 --> 00:15:48.899
There can be this awful
parasocial relationship online
302
00:15:48.899 --> 00:15:51.327
where viewers think
they're the performer's friend.
303
00:15:51.327 --> 00:15:55.337
So when an influencer endorses a product,
it sounds like a personal recommendation,
304
00:15:55.337 --> 00:15:57.988
and therefore: that's a fraudulent claim.
305
00:15:57.988 --> 00:16:00.970
But a character on a TV show?
Not the same, goes the argument.
306
00:16:00.970 --> 00:16:02.476
No-one's going to be confused there.
307
00:16:03.119 --> 00:16:05.410
I don't think it's so clear-cut.
308
00:16:05.410 --> 00:16:07.676
First, you've got those
reality TV stars on The Hills.
309
00:16:07.676 --> 00:16:10.649
They are absolutely "influencers",
no matter where they appear —
310
00:16:10.649 --> 00:16:12.963
but the rules only apply to their social media.
311
00:16:12.963 --> 00:16:16.717
And I'd argue that a character in a James Bond movie
saying that a watch is...
312
00:16:16.717 --> 00:16:18.603
beautiful...
...is still an endorsement.
313
00:16:18.603 --> 00:16:21.869
That character is portrayed as someone
who should be trusted about things like that.
314
00:16:21.869 --> 00:16:24.604
If characters expressing opinions
didn't influence people,
315
00:16:24.604 --> 00:16:26.627
companies wouldn't pay for the placement.
316
00:16:26.627 --> 00:16:27.805
And after all...
317
00:16:27.805 --> 00:16:30.523
I'm a character.
This persona is fictional.
318
00:16:30.523 --> 00:16:33.566
Self-aware, sure, and based on
the real version, but fictional.
319
00:16:33.566 --> 00:16:36.672
Tom Scott, the actual person,
is not like this off camera.
320
00:16:36.672 --> 00:16:38.836
Could someone get around
the influencer regulations
321
00:16:38.836 --> 00:16:42.819
by arguing that if they or their company
takes money to provide an endorsement,
322
00:16:42.819 --> 00:16:45.000
it doesn't need to be declared
because on-screen,
323
00:16:45.000 --> 00:16:49.360
they are playing an exaggerated character
who happens to have the same name?
324
00:16:49.360 --> 00:16:50.825
That sounds ridiculous,
325
00:16:50.825 --> 00:16:56.865
but British TV presenter Lorraine Kelly once won
a court case over a million-pound tax bill that way.
326
00:16:56.865 --> 00:17:01.472
Her lawyers successfully argued that she wasn't
being hired to present TV shows as herself,
327
00:17:01.472 --> 00:17:04.664
but as a performer portraying
a character with the same name,
328
00:17:04.664 --> 00:17:08.320
and thus the contracts fell under
a different set of tax rules.
329
00:17:08.320 --> 00:17:11.481
Yes, there is an obvious,
clear difference between:
330
00:17:11.481 --> 00:17:14.491
"putting a brand logo in the background
of a TV show" and
331
00:17:14.491 --> 00:17:17.912
"this fake-friend has said that a thing is good,
and you should buy it".
332
00:17:17.912 --> 00:17:20.375
If it was just those two clear,
distinct examples,
333
00:17:20.375 --> 00:17:22.633
I think I'd agree with
the way things are right now.
334
00:17:22.633 --> 00:17:25.363
But it's not that clear.
There are a lot of edge cases.
335
00:17:25.363 --> 00:17:28.451
And the rules differ massively
based on the medium.
336
00:17:28.451 --> 00:17:32.720
If you thought you were watching an entertainment show,
and it was actually advertising...
337
00:17:32.720 --> 00:17:35.020
Is that fraudulent?
Is that deceptive?
338
00:17:35.020 --> 00:17:39.714
And even if it isn't, is that something worth
keeping in check for the good of society?
339
00:17:39.714 --> 00:17:43.179
The American government says no.
I'll talk more about that shortly.
340
00:17:43.179 --> 00:17:46.790
But the UK, and most Western European
governments, say yes.
341
00:17:46.790 --> 00:17:49.091
Television shows imported here
over the Atlantic
342
00:17:49.091 --> 00:17:52.398
sometimes need to have product placements
edited or blurred out,
343
00:17:52.398 --> 00:17:54.978
because our rules are much more strict.
344
00:17:54.978 --> 00:18:00.281
Except, I'm not sure those rules are always being followed
quite as much as they should be.
345
00:18:00.281 --> 00:18:03.070
There is one more example I need to talk about.
346
00:18:06.312 --> 00:18:09.239
Hey, folks! We're having a great time
here at Asbestos Land.
347
00:18:09.239 --> 00:18:12.186
I've left the wife and kids
to go on the boat ride through Dusty Town,
348
00:18:12.186 --> 00:18:14.270
[wheezing] I'm off to the
live mining demonstration.
349
00:18:14.270 --> 00:18:17.755
It's a brilliant theme park.
It is [cough] 100% safe.
350
00:18:17.755 --> 00:18:21.058
Kids, go steal your parents' credit cards.
Buy some tickets.
351
00:18:21.058 --> 00:18:24.307
Thank you very much
[coughs intensify] to Asbestos Land for inviting...
352
00:18:24.307 --> 00:18:26.837
Disney's theme parks
have an "influencer program".
353
00:18:26.837 --> 00:18:28.406
If you post about Disney World a lot,
354
00:18:28.406 --> 00:18:31.726
they might give you free passes
and invitations to special media events.
355
00:18:31.726 --> 00:18:35.631
They even have an annual Moms Conference
for their top influencers.
356
00:18:35.631 --> 00:18:40.785
All that sponsorship has to be declared, of course.
Particularly under the UK's strict rules.
357
00:18:40.785 --> 00:18:44.719
There's absolutely no way that any influencer
could take large amounts of free stuff
358
00:18:44.719 --> 00:18:49.903
and get special access like that
and not declare it very, very clearly.
359
00:18:49.903 --> 00:18:53.881
Right?
♪ Saturday! ♪
360
00:18:53.881 --> 00:18:57.917
Ant and Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway
is the last of the great British variety shows.
361
00:18:57.917 --> 00:19:00.050
It's been running on and off
for nearly twenty years,
362
00:19:00.050 --> 00:19:03.500
but it's part of a UK broadcasting tradition
that goes back to the 1950s.
363
00:19:03.500 --> 00:19:09.183
Stunts, skits, competitions, musical performances,
all in a shiny-floor studio, broadcast live.
364
00:19:09.183 --> 00:19:12.673
It regularly attracts six or seven million viewers,
including a lot of families:
365
00:19:12.673 --> 00:19:15.286
that's about one in ten
of the British population.
366
00:19:15.286 --> 00:19:17.364
The hosts, Ant and Dec, are so well-liked
367
00:19:17.364 --> 00:19:20.773
that they've jointly won the British National Television Award
for best entertainment presenter
368
00:19:20.773 --> 00:19:22.956
nineteen years in a row.
369
00:19:22.956 --> 00:19:25.119
In the first episode of the show's 2020 run,
370
00:19:25.119 --> 00:19:28.764
they announced that the season finale
would be broadcast live from Disney World.
371
00:19:28.764 --> 00:19:30.899
It wasn't, in the end, obviously,
the whole pandemic thing,
372
00:19:30.899 --> 00:19:33.537
but they were planning to broadcast
live from Disney World.
373
00:19:33.537 --> 00:19:37.988
Actually, they were sure to say the exact official name,
it'd be broadcast from...
374
00:19:37.988 --> 00:19:42.241
Walt Disney World Resort in Florida!
375
00:19:42.241 --> 00:19:43.409
[audience cheers]
376
00:19:43.409 --> 00:19:45.376
It's not the first time they've done that.
377
00:19:45.376 --> 00:19:47.986
Their 2017 season finale
was also from Disney World,
378
00:19:47.986 --> 00:19:50.461
and that time,
Disney provided a huge stage
379
00:19:50.461 --> 00:19:53.322
in the middle of the Town Square
of Main Street USA.
380
00:19:53.322 --> 00:19:56.605
That stage construction obstructed
the famous view of Cinderella Castle,
381
00:19:56.605 --> 00:19:59.367
while the park was open, for days.
382
00:19:59.367 --> 00:20:03.455
That is such a rare event that I can't actually find
any other example of when that's happened.
383
00:20:03.455 --> 00:20:06.406
The production may not have been given
actual, cash-money profit
384
00:20:06.406 --> 00:20:08.727
from Disney or
their other sponsor, Virgin Holidays,
385
00:20:08.727 --> 00:20:13.080
but clearly they got a huge amount of
free stuff and production support.
386
00:20:13.080 --> 00:20:16.584
they had hundreds of vacation packages
to give away as competition prizes,
387
00:20:16.584 --> 00:20:21.231
so they're clearly getting some form of payment
from their sponsors, and a lot of it.
388
00:20:21.231 --> 00:20:25.293
This is the biggest ever giveaway
on British television.
389
00:20:25.293 --> 00:20:29.378
You heard me, madam, the biggest ever
giveaway on British television.
390
00:20:29.378 --> 00:20:33.876
Now, the UK regulations on product placement
are much, much more strict than the US.
391
00:20:33.876 --> 00:20:37.342
There's no product placement in news
or children's programming allowed at all.
392
00:20:37.342 --> 00:20:41.705
And on shows made in the UK,
you can't product-place alcohol or unhealthy food.
393
00:20:41.705 --> 00:20:44.967
And there are also rules about
the way you can place products.
394
00:20:44.967 --> 00:20:48.889
The content of programmes shouldn't seem
to be created or distorted,
395
00:20:48.889 --> 00:20:50.998
just to feature the placed products.
396
00:20:50.998 --> 00:20:54.401
So you can't create an entire show
just to sell Disney World tickets.
397
00:20:54.401 --> 00:20:56.237
Okay, so let's give them the benefit of the doubt,
398
00:20:56.237 --> 00:20:59.640
maybe the producers were looking for
somewhere spectacular for the season finale,
399
00:20:59.640 --> 00:21:01.327
and Disney stepped up.
400
00:21:01.327 --> 00:21:05.922
Programmes also can't promote placed products
or give them too much prominence.
401
00:21:05.922 --> 00:21:09.791
There shouldn't be any claims made about
how good a placed product is.
402
00:21:09.791 --> 00:21:14.224
So on British television, you're not allowed to
make product placement unduly prominent,
403
00:21:14.224 --> 00:21:16.230
and you can't endorse the product.
404
00:21:18.580 --> 00:21:21.227
That's an endorsement
in the first minute of the show.
405
00:21:21.227 --> 00:21:23.924
And I think the product placement
is quite prominent
406
00:21:23.924 --> 00:21:28.208
when they have a segment where they show off
the presenters having fun on the rides,
407
00:21:28.208 --> 00:21:33.361
and another segment where their two junior presenters,
Little Ant and Dec, show off different rides.
408
00:21:33.361 --> 00:21:36.593
Disney even put on a special parade
just for the show.
409
00:21:36.593 --> 00:21:39.419
That sounds like a lot of
very promotional references to me.
410
00:21:39.419 --> 00:21:42.550
It also sounds significantly off-beat,
but that's live broadcasting for you.
411
00:21:42.550 --> 00:21:45.951
♪♪ ["Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"
sung increasingly out-of-sync]
412
00:21:45.951 --> 00:21:49.733
Those are trusted presenters,
having a great time at Disney World,
413
00:21:49.733 --> 00:21:53.332
endorsing the theme parks to
the families watching, including a lot of kids.
414
00:21:53.868 --> 00:21:55.564
But they're on television.
415
00:21:55.564 --> 00:21:58.707
so despite the UK's strict rules,
they didn't have to give a heads-up at the start,
416
00:21:58.707 --> 00:22:02.859
or label the whole show #ad,
or make it clear that all this was advertising.
417
00:22:02.859 --> 00:22:05.687
Many years ago, I made a video
about the UK's product placement rules,
418
00:22:05.687 --> 00:22:08.174
and I said back then
how strict those rules were.
419
00:22:08.174 --> 00:22:12.113
And yes, they are a bit more strict than the US,
but clearly not as much as I thought.
420
00:22:12.113 --> 00:22:14.786
The show did have to do one thing,
under the UK rules.
421
00:22:14.786 --> 00:22:17.568
In the first few seconds,
they did declare their product placement here.
422
00:22:17.568 --> 00:22:19.929
You can see it in that first 2020 episode.
423
00:22:20.411 --> 00:22:23.635
It's the little P logo that was in the corner
of the screen for just a few seconds.
424
00:22:23.635 --> 00:22:26.230
That's the UK's official product placement
declaration for TV.
425
00:22:26.230 --> 00:22:29.688
That's all they needed to do.
Even under the supposedly strict British rules...
426
00:22:29.688 --> 00:22:32.279
they just put that logo on,
and all that was fine.
427
00:22:32.279 --> 00:22:34.057
I don't think that counts as a declaration.
428
00:22:34.057 --> 00:22:36.024
How many kids told their parents
they wanted to go to Disney World
429
00:22:36.024 --> 00:22:37.673
after seeing that show?
430
00:22:37.673 --> 00:22:41.362
How many big, expensive Virgin Holidays
vacation packages were sold
431
00:22:41.362 --> 00:22:44.264
to the millions of viewers
who didn't win the competitions?
432
00:22:44.264 --> 00:22:48.499
How much did that 2017 show
"influence" the audience at home?
433
00:22:48.499 --> 00:22:50.089
Well, we can answer that at least vaguely:
434
00:22:50.089 --> 00:22:53.318
It must have had quite a bit of influence,
because three years later, Disney said:
435
00:22:53.318 --> 00:22:55.734
"That was worth it, let's do it again."
436
00:22:56.216 --> 00:22:59.499
But you could argue:
well, it's clear how this works.
437
00:22:59.499 --> 00:23:04.258
obviously it's a—a collaboration with Disney.
The audience understands it.
438
00:23:04.258 --> 00:23:09.781
But... that's before you start talking about
all the other products mentioned in an average show.
439
00:23:09.781 --> 00:23:11.982
From the first episode of their 2020 run:
440
00:23:11.982 --> 00:23:13.687
VARIOUS: Bellway.
Bad Axe.
441
00:23:13.687 --> 00:23:15.001
...and his own restaurant.
442
00:23:15.001 --> 00:23:16.425
Hyundai. Motorpoint.
443
00:23:16.425 --> 00:23:18.829
On the Beach. Villa Plus.
Sofology. TalkTalk.
444
00:23:18.829 --> 00:23:20.954
Sonic the Hedgehog movie.
Google. Furniture Village.
445
00:23:20.954 --> 00:23:23.827
Confused.com. Specsavers.
Pukka Pies.
446
00:23:23.827 --> 00:23:25.343
Deliveroo vouchers for you,
447
00:23:25.343 --> 00:23:28.268
and for the first time ever,
our studio audience!
448
00:23:28.268 --> 00:23:31.878
How many of those companies paid?
How many of them had control?
449
00:23:31.878 --> 00:23:34.069
I don't know.
They don't need to say.
450
00:23:34.069 --> 00:23:36.693
To be clear, I'm not saying
the show broke any regulations.
451
00:23:36.693 --> 00:23:40.949
They weren't investigated, and I can't find any
serious complaints about any of the episodes,
452
00:23:40.949 --> 00:23:44.979
other than one article on a tabloid web site
that aggregated a few forum posts.
453
00:23:44.979 --> 00:23:49.715
If Ant and Dec were online influencers
rather than television personalities,
454
00:23:49.715 --> 00:23:54.233
that whole Disney World show would have needed
a clear advertising disclosure,
455
00:23:54.233 --> 00:23:57.428
possibly even a #ad
in the title of the video or in the thumbnail,
456
00:23:57.428 --> 00:24:01.084
because Disney must have approved
and checked through what was going on.
457
00:24:01.084 --> 00:24:06.286
I don't think Disney would have provided cast members
to perform classic songs with rewritten lyrics,
458
00:24:06.286 --> 00:24:08.617
without having a sign-off
on what they were singing.
459
00:24:08.617 --> 00:24:12.795
♪♪ [in the tune of "Be Our Guest"]
460
00:24:12.795 --> 00:24:17.281
So we've got payment,
and control, and endorsement.
461
00:24:17.281 --> 00:24:20.806
But they're on TV.
So one barely-visible letter P is enough.
462
00:24:20.806 --> 00:24:25.735
Around the world, the regulations are more strict
for online influencers than they are for any other medium.
463
00:24:25.735 --> 00:24:29.427
And normally, around this point in a video like this,
I would switch from "fact" to "opinion",
464
00:24:29.427 --> 00:24:32.372
and talk about how we could fix this,
how we could make it consistent,
465
00:24:32.372 --> 00:24:33.821
and what we need to do.
466
00:24:33.821 --> 00:24:36.666
And yeah, I am now going to switch partly
from fact to opinion.
467
00:24:36.666 --> 00:24:40.593
But actually resolving the question,
talking about why it's this way,
468
00:24:40.593 --> 00:24:43.354
and how to fix it,
is a bit difficult.
469
00:24:43.354 --> 00:24:46.645
And to explain that,
I have to talk about America.
470
00:24:50.230 --> 00:24:54.383
Hi kids! Today we're looking at 301
amazing things about some '90s cartoon series.
471
00:24:54.383 --> 00:24:57.858
You won't remember it afterwards,
and an hour of your life will have been completely wasted!
472
00:24:57.858 --> 00:25:01.303
But before that, here's how I keep my family safe:
with The Ring Doorbell.
473
00:25:01.303 --> 00:25:03.320
Not Ring doorbell,
The Ring Doorbell.
474
00:25:03.320 --> 00:25:05.232
If someone tries to steal
a package from your porch,
475
00:25:05.232 --> 00:25:07.518
it'll play them a tape that says
they'll die in seven days.
476
00:25:07.518 --> 00:25:10.858
Then a creepy ghost girl will burst
out of the doorbell and chase them away.
477
00:25:10.858 --> 00:25:13.713
The Ring Doorbell is available from that weird shop
that you're certain wasn't there
478
00:25:13.713 --> 00:25:15.200
last time you walked
through the neighbourhood.
479
00:25:15.200 --> 00:25:18.208
Also it sends a constant live feed
to the local police department.
480
00:25:18.208 --> 00:25:19.787
The US Federal Communications Commission,
481
00:25:19.787 --> 00:25:22.727
who regulate over-the-air broadcasts —
among other things — says that:
482
00:25:22.727 --> 00:25:28.724
Expressions of views that do not involve a
"clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil"
483
00:25:28.724 --> 00:25:31.335
come under the protection of the Constitution.
484
00:25:31.335 --> 00:25:35.230
Freedom of speech is a very, very sensitive
subject for a lot of Americans.
485
00:25:35.230 --> 00:25:39.955
Because the right to freedom of speech is part of
the First Amendment, part of their Constitution,
486
00:25:39.955 --> 00:25:43.023
which often feels like
it's taken as a religious text.
526
00:25:43.023 --> 00:25:47.962
Congress shall make no law...
abridging the freedom of speech...
488
00:25:47.962 --> 00:25:51.270
America has "the land of the free"
in their national anthem,
489
00:25:51.270 --> 00:25:53.943
and that includes the freedom
to say whatever you want,
490
00:25:53.943 --> 00:25:56.572
and spend as much money
saying it as you want.
491
00:25:56.572 --> 00:26:00.904
But despite the reputation,
America does not have complete freedom of speech.
492
00:26:00.904 --> 00:26:02.556
There are a lot of limits to it.
493
00:26:02.556 --> 00:26:06.015
Here's a list of just some of the things
that you cannot do in America,
494
00:26:06.015 --> 00:26:09.403
despite the fact that these are technically
limits on freedom of speech.
495
00:26:09.403 --> 00:26:12.574
Yes, there is "serious evil" in that list.
496
00:26:12.574 --> 00:26:16.740
But I'm not convinced that someone dropping an F-bomb
on Good Morning America meets that threshold.
497
00:26:16.740 --> 00:26:20.445
So sure, in the US you cannot lie
in order to sell a product.
498
00:26:20.445 --> 00:26:22.993
That falls under "commercial speech",
which the courts say
499
00:26:22.993 --> 00:26:25.627
doesn't have quite the same protections
under the First Amendment.
500
00:26:25.627 --> 00:26:28.398
If you are endorsing something
as an "influencer"
501
00:26:28.398 --> 00:26:30.859
and not telling the audience
that you've taken money to do it...
502
00:26:30.859 --> 00:26:34.345
It is lying to sell something.
That should be regulated.
503
00:26:34.345 --> 00:26:39.744
That is a restriction on freedom of speech,
but it seems acceptable to pretty much everyone.
504
00:26:39.744 --> 00:26:45.278
But because product placement is not a clear
and present danger of serious, substantive evil,
505
00:26:45.278 --> 00:26:48.470
and not fraudulent,
in the US it's allowed by default.
506
00:26:48.470 --> 00:26:51.898
The First Amendment sets a really high bar
for government regulation of speech,
507
00:26:51.898 --> 00:26:55.117
and something just being "confusing"
doesn't clear it.
508
00:26:55.117 --> 00:26:58.420
I don't believe that the US regulators
would ever ask TV or film productions
509
00:26:58.420 --> 00:27:00.822
to declare their product placement
clearly and up-front.
510
00:27:00.822 --> 00:27:05.110
And even if they did, I'm pretty sure the courts
would strike it down as Unconstitutional
511
00:27:05.110 --> 00:27:07.962
the first time one of the broadcasters
challenged it.
512
00:27:07.962 --> 00:27:12.121
I think the only reason those regulations
still apply to online influencers...
513
00:27:12.121 --> 00:27:17.113
might be because no individual has the time or money
to file a lawsuit challenging them.
514
00:27:17.113 --> 00:27:20.211
If the US regulators wanted to be consistent
with the Constitution,
515
00:27:20.211 --> 00:27:22.368
and consistent across all media...
516
00:27:22.368 --> 00:27:25.236
they'd have to massively loosen
the restrictions on influencers,
517
00:27:25.236 --> 00:27:28.567
to the point where in many cases,
no declarations would be needed at all.
518
00:27:28.567 --> 00:27:31.385
Or maybe you'd just have to put
a tiny mention of the sponsorship
519
00:27:31.385 --> 00:27:35.244
at the end of the video where no-one would notice,
or down at the bottom of the description.
520
00:27:35.244 --> 00:27:38.543
I think that's a terrible idea.
I don't think it'd make the world a better place.
521
00:27:38.543 --> 00:27:42.416
Although it's worth noting that on YouTube,
the platform's regulations would still apply:
522
00:27:42.416 --> 00:27:45.958
they're a private company, so they can require
whatever declarations they want.
523
00:27:45.958 --> 00:27:47.702
And I think they should.
524
00:27:47.702 --> 00:27:51.588
But that wouldn't affect Instagram, or TikTok,
or Twitter, or anywhere else.
525
00:27:51.588 --> 00:25:43.023
Short of tearing down the Constitution
and starting over again...
526
00:25:43.023 --> 00:25:47.962
Congress shall make no law...
abridging the freedom of speech...
527
00:27:59.851 --> 00:28:02.646
...except for that of corporations.
528
00:28:02.646 --> 00:28:06.106
[air horns]
529
00:28:06.106 --> 00:28:08.544
But, on this side of the Atlantic,
530
00:28:08.544 --> 00:28:13.134
the default starting point is that free speech
should ideally happen on a level playing field.
531
00:28:13.134 --> 00:28:18.404
Lawmakers and regulators understand that
money can distort public opinion in terrible ways.
532
00:28:18.404 --> 00:28:23.954
Britain puts strict financial limits on political campaigns,
and bans political ads from television entirely.
533
00:28:23.954 --> 00:28:28.039
Those bans have been challenged in court,
and the challenge failed. The restrictions stand.
534
00:28:28.039 --> 00:28:30.223
Yes, they're a limitation on freedom of speech,
535
00:28:30.223 --> 00:28:32.515
but the British courts — and European courts —
536
00:28:32.515 --> 00:28:35.980
say that letting the people
with money and power say the most
537
00:28:35.980 --> 00:28:40.813
isn't necessarily protecting everyone's free speech —
it might be doing the opposite.
538
00:28:40.813 --> 00:28:45.660
The ideal over here, according to the regulators,
is meant to be: for-the-good-of-all.
539
00:28:45.660 --> 00:28:49.987
Sneaky advertising like product placement
might not be fair or good for society.
540
00:28:49.987 --> 00:28:54.073
And over here, it's generally seen as okay to regulate
things like that for the benefit of everyone.
541
00:28:54.073 --> 00:28:58.205
You should have the right to know
when you're being advertised to.
542
00:28:58.205 --> 00:29:00.342
Otherwise, you risk
very rich people and companies
543
00:29:00.342 --> 00:29:02.680
being able to quietly
influence the world in their favour,
544
00:29:02.680 --> 00:29:04.889
even more than they already do.
545
00:29:04.889 --> 00:29:08.203
Those are all obviously
massive simplifications.
546
00:29:08.203 --> 00:29:10.251
Legal scholars will no doubt
be angry at me,
547
00:29:10.251 --> 00:29:14.609
and anyone who has strong views either way
will be certain that the other side is wrong.
548
00:29:14.609 --> 00:29:18.631
But in the UK, if it's not very, very obvious
that something is an advert,
549
00:29:18.631 --> 00:29:19.913
it must be clearly marked.
550
00:29:19.913 --> 00:29:24.223
The rules here used to be that you absolutely
could not mix advertising and content.
551
00:29:24.223 --> 00:29:26.704
That's not the case anymore,
but now at least,
552
00:29:26.704 --> 00:29:29.093
if people could be confused
whether something's an advert,
553
00:29:29.093 --> 00:29:30.915
you have to make it clear.
554
00:29:30.915 --> 00:29:32.850
If a British YouTube video
has product placement,
555
00:29:32.850 --> 00:29:35.173
even just something sitting
in the background of the shot,
556
00:29:35.173 --> 00:29:39.921
the government requires the creator to disclose it,
clearly and up front.
557
00:29:40.560 --> 00:29:44.837
If the UK regulators wanted to make those rules
consistent across all media...
558
00:29:44.837 --> 00:29:48.660
then they'd have to require that
product placement in movies and television
559
00:29:48.660 --> 00:29:52.442
also had a clear advertising disclaimer
at the start.
560
00:29:52.442 --> 00:29:54.238
Which seems ridiculous, right?
561
00:29:54.238 --> 00:29:57.824
As I wrote those words into this script,
it felt ridiculous to me.
562
00:29:57.824 --> 00:30:01.394
And then I thought about it a bit,
and I realised that actually...
563
00:30:01.394 --> 00:30:03.373
I don't think I have a problem with that.
564
00:30:03.373 --> 00:30:05.337
We already have a ratings system
for movies here.
565
00:30:05.337 --> 00:30:08.185
If you watch a film in a British cinema,
the distributor is already required
566
00:30:08.185 --> 00:30:11.835
to add what's called a "black card"
for five seconds just before it starts,
567
00:30:11.835 --> 00:30:15.447
showing the age rating and the ID number
of the film given by the ratings board.
568
00:30:15.447 --> 00:30:16.837
We've got precedent for this.
569
00:30:16.837 --> 00:30:20.899
If the regulators wanted to make
advertising disclosures consistent across all media,
570
00:30:20.899 --> 00:30:24.620
if they thought that the public should know
when they're being advertised to,
571
00:30:24.620 --> 00:30:27.038
as is apparently their goal for influencers...
572
00:30:27.038 --> 00:30:32.006
then they should also require a slate that says:
"This film contains advertising from these companies."
573
00:30:32.006 --> 00:30:35.173
And on television, you could change
that tiny, invisible capital-P logo
574
00:30:35.173 --> 00:30:37.121
to be a disclaimer
that can actually be understood.
575
00:30:37.121 --> 00:30:39.856
Germany's already there:
they don't need the show to name advertisers,
576
00:30:39.856 --> 00:30:42.538
but they do have to
make it very, very clear.
577
00:30:42.538 --> 00:30:46.220
So I'm not asking for the regulations
on influencers to be loosened,
578
00:30:46.220 --> 00:30:47.602
because I don't think they should be.
579
00:30:47.602 --> 00:30:50.930
I think it is misleading if you think
you're watching an entertainment show,
580
00:30:50.930 --> 00:30:53.221
but you're actually watching an advert.
581
00:30:53.221 --> 00:30:56.858
I think you should have the right to know
when you're being advertised to,
582
00:30:56.858 --> 00:31:00.001
and that being clear about
who's paying for you to hear things
583
00:31:00.001 --> 00:31:02.408
helps democracy and society to work.
584
00:31:02.408 --> 00:31:06.418
I absolutely agree that anyone
making stuff for the internet, myself included,
585
00:31:06.418 --> 00:31:09.786
should have to declare when we've
taken payment to say something.
586
00:31:10.429 --> 00:31:15.440
I just want the folks who publish offline
to play by the same rules.
587
00:31:15.440 --> 00:31:18.244
♪♪ [orchestral version of
Does The Spearmint Lose Its Flavor]
588
00:31:18.244 --> 00:31:26.470
[Caption+ by JS*
https://caption.plus]
589
00:31:34.989 --> 00:31:37.998
[coughs profusely]
590
00:31:37.998 --> 00:31:40.525
Oh, that is awful.
591
00:31:41.543 --> 00:31:43.093
Don't vape, kids.
592
00:31:43.093 --> 00:31:44.606
♪♪ [music ends]