February 14, 2009

My Covert Mission to Undermine Unethical Facebook Ads and Save the World From Communism

Here's the objection I have to ads on Facebook like the ones you see here: They're unethical.

Because they're unethical, it is my opinion that Facebook should not allow them. Someone at Facebook screens all ads before giving the go-ahead to allow them to be posted, but they don't seem to consider these ads impermissible. I do, and so should you.

Why are they unethical? Because the advertiser has not licensed — that is, paid for the right to use — Julia Roberts's image. Or Jennifer Aniston's. Or Sandra Bullock's. Or Kelly Ripa's. You might be thinking, oh, who cares, they're big celebrities, they have lots of money, so it's OK for a small business to steal their image and use it for their own purposes.

You are wrong. Here's why.

To any professional who knows anything about business, marketing, or advertising, these ads positively scream amateur! Because professionals know that you can't just appropriate the image of Mickey Mouse or Homer Simpson for use in your promotional materials. You have to negotiate, and pay for it. Jennifer Aniston's people may not be patrolling the Internet for the unauthorized use of her image, but I dare you to try using a Disney character without permission. (Go ahead, try it. You'll be shocked at how quickly the Disney people will come down on you.)

The advertisers that post these unethical, amateur-style Facebook ads are using a technique called manufactured credibility, which is something professional marketers do when they don't have any real credibility. If you can't get a doctor to be an official spokesperson for your vitamin supplement, hire an actor and dress him in a white coat. Manufacture credibility. There's nothing unethical about this technique, so long as the actor doesn't actually say, "I am a doctor." You can't outright lie in advertising, but you can mislead like hell.

The snake-oil salesmen behind these Facebook ads are attempting to mislead you into believing that these celebrities use their products. If you believe that, even a little bit, then you are a moron.

Finally, consider this: Philosophically speaking, the idea that any artist's images, or words, or art, should be free for all to use for any commercial purpose is, essentially, communistic. This is America. Is that really how you want to roll?

So, what is my covert mission? Every time I see one of these ads on my Facebook page, I click on it ten times. The advertiser pays per click, which means every time I click on it, it's costing them money, and they're getting nothing for it because I'm not following through to purchase their miracle diet products or wrinkle cream.

I encourage you to join me in my mission.

8 comments:

Tracy Lynn said...

I was just thinking this morning, when I saw an ad with Katie Holmes and her daughter that asked Why do some celebs look so young? And I thought to myself, because they ARE.

It made me want to stand on my porch and shake my fist at whoever wrote that.

People are morons.

Lilly Buchwitz said...

Shake your fist with one hand, click like mad with the other!

Anonymous said...

Sure, celebrities enjoy certain legal rights to control their images, just like anyone else. You're right. But I'm much more concerned about your second argument, that these ads are promoting fraudulent snake-oil beauty products that bilk innocent consumers out of their money using exaggerated or false claims. "Morons" or not, the public deserves protection from intentional deception from predatory marketers. These victims are far more numerous and collectively have more to lose than all the movie stars in Hollywood.

Lilly Buchwitz said...

Michael: I'm not sure I agree that stupid people need to be protected from believing that acai berries (whatever they are) are a miracle weight loss product, or from believing that they are "Rachael Ray's diet secret," however, if you agree with me that Facebook should do a better job of judging the appropriateness of the ads they run, do please join me in my not-so-covert mission! (Are you on Facebook?)

Chris MacDonald said...

Isn't multiple-clicking a kind of click-fraud?

And I don't think "communism" is the word you're looking for. Maybe closer to "anarchism."

Lilly Buchwitz said...

Sorry, Chris, but communism is exactly what it is. In China, they have an utter disregard for intellectual property rights. That's why they all wear watches that say Rolex, and why you can buy software and DVDs for a couple of dollars. I lived there for a time; they truly believe that anything anyone creates belongs to the masses.

As for the click fraud, my understanding of that is when advertisers get their friends to click on their ads so that they give the appearance of being more successful, which helps in Google rankings.

On Facebook, advertisers PAY per click. So by clicking on these unethical ads I am costing the snake-oil salesmen money. They don't like that.

Chris MacDonald said...

Lilly:

Lots of things happen in China. Not all of them are rooted in Communism.

I agree that "click fraud" is generally perpetrated by companies, not consumers. But this is akin to that.
What you're suggesting is the intentional imposing of unconsented-to costs, We could call it "theft" instead, if you like. The person clicking isn't benefitting, but is effectively transferring money from one party to another...without consent.

Chris.

Lilly Buchwitz said...

Unconsented-to costs? Hmn; there's a new one. :-)