Being paid a whole lot of money to not talk about something isn't remotely similar to paying someone a few dollars an hour. It's not morally similar, it's not legally similar and it's not treated similarly by anyone who deals with these matters and has a clue what they are doing.
That’s not the argument either. Again, it’s just that they need to disclose the fact of having been paid to promote it, if and when they talk about it in another context.
True. I was referring to the specific context of pay as an inducement to break confidentiality agreements, as opposed to paying to interview a famous actor or something like People magazine.
Why? You have the rose colored glasses of getting paid by someone. I don't doubt that your first hand interactions have told you plenty about who he chooses to socially signal that he is. But that can be even more misleading than 2nd and 3rd hand accounts.
I do assume. But my point is I think most people would probably sacrifice their credibility for a lump sum, especially if they knew the person wasn't going to be able to convince the public.
Does there need to be money changing hands to refute promoted content ?
Companies providing perks, quid pro quo services, pre-written news stories and other non financial advantages are part of the game. None of those would trigger any of what would be labled as paid placement, but are still promoted placement.
If that's a concern for companies, they can bake measurable minimums (referrals, converted referrals, etc) into their endorsement deals. Any person with a bevy of fake-ness won't meet them and thus won't get paid.
reply