The Ethics of #SponCon in the Wrong Hands

In the last decade, the internet, technology, and social media have become a way of life for virtually everyone– a second home, if you will. With this mass migration toward all-things-digital, we’ve witnessed fascinating innovations, like AI virtual assistants, virtual reality, and widespread connection to people and information, far and wide. We’ve also seen the uglier side of things. Leaks, hacks, doxxing. We’ve witnessed the power of media –real and fake– and its influence over people.

Any platform, brand, or big name, therefore holds responsibility, whether they know it or even like it.

Advertisers hold a lot of weight, especially in our digital landscape. Social media, advertisers, and consumers have a symbiotic relationship. Without one, the others would not have a leg to stand on. And as content marketing changes over time, so do we. One major component of advertising these days is branded content, otherwise known as sponsored content, or #SponCon.

These are not traditional ads – they rely on storytelling and outsourced talent – typically in the form of a celebrity or influencer. Branded content is everywhere, these days, and most influencers are transparent about which posts of theirs are #ads. Companies don’t have to find more budget for production and travel costs for expensive celebrities to appear in commercials anymore, they can simply arrange their ads from afar, leaving the rest to the talent.

Remember when sugarbearhair gummies ruled Instagram for a minute?

Who Gets to Use Branded Content?

Ulrike Gretzel, director of research at Netnografica, wrote an article for USC Annenberg’s Relevance Report,about the ethics of branded content, along with the feedback of PR professionals. One of the statistics revealed that 47% of PR professionals believe that certain industries and organizations should not be able to use branded content.

But which ones? The responses include tobacco, hate groups, political organizations, alcohol, and firearms industries. When asked if I thought preventing these groups and companies from using branded content was ethical, it felt like a trick question, given the nature of the internet and the obvious harm these different organizations and industries cause.

We have seen how divisive and inflammatory individuals’ posts can get without the help of sponsors. In a 2018 Quartz article, UC Berkeley electrical engineering & computer science professor, Hany Farid, eloquently lays out the responsibility advertisers have,

“If fake news is the virus and social media is the host, then advertisers are the vaccine. Social media platforms survive because of advertising dollars. The corporate titans of the world have tremendous power to effect change by withholding advertising dollars until these platforms operate in a more socially responsible way. If they want to partake in the solution, then they should wield this power.”

Hany Farid, “Fake news, photos, and videos will be the new reality in the future of media”

Farid makes a great point in saying that advertisers should “partake in the solution” and “wield this power. ” However, the companies wielding said “power” should not be a danger to society. The industries mentioned above, often pose a threat to people’s health, safety, and overall wellbeing. Political and hate groups sponsoring influencers is nothing but propaganda, which further tears the fabric of the already torn pseudo-democracy we live in today.

But what exactly is ethical by the internet’s standards?

In Jamie Indigo’s article, “What Is Ethical SEO?” she breaks down the complexities of including ethics in our search engine’s capabilities.

We can only expect computers and algorithms to process the information given to them, and hope for the best. A computer has no moral compass, and it certainly has no nuance. So it’s up to humans to monitor and determine what is “ethical.”

The problem we run into, as Indigo puts it,

“In general, ethical questions don’t have a right or wrong answer. Instead, it’s about the thought experiment of taking a situation and holding it against a moral framework.”

So, there’s no real ethical argument to prevent these previously mentioned industries and organizations from advertising as they please. I was tempted to put a question mark next to that sentence; that’s how much I don’t want it to be true.

Ethics are not only subjective to each person’s moral compass, but they aren’t the law, which doesn’t do much to stop this either. First Amendment rights still protect hate speech, and regulations all over the internet are a mixed bag. Platforms use their own algorithms and criteria to measure what is deemed inappropriate or not, but there is no universal rule. We take it upon ourselves to stay sharp and cognisant of the information that is presented to us. It’s not enough. Laypeople are not trained journalists, and do not know how to fact check their media, and find reliable resources.

We will continue to see dangerous groups and companies, abuse these practices and profit.

Resources:

Farid, H. (n.d.). The dystopian digital future of fake media. Retrieved April 15, 2021, from https://qz.com/1383619/the-dystopian-digital-future-of-fake-media/

Gretzel, U. (2018, December 10). What is branded content and is it ethical?https://annenberg.usc.edu/research/center-public-relations/usc-annenberg-relevance-report/what-branded-content-and-it-ethical

Indigo, J. (2019, August 20). What is ethical seo? https://www.searchenginejournal.com/what-is-ethical-seo/318483/#disallow

O’Brien, T. (1968, January 01). Hate speech and ethics: A 3-dimensional issue. https://prsay.prsa.org/2019/09/18/hate-speech-and-ethics-a-3-dimensional-issue/#respond