Reality Check: TINA.org Calls on FTC to Address Virtual Influencers
Virtual influencers (also known as CGI or computer-generated imagery influencers) are like human influencers without all the baggage. Like human influencers, they promote brands and their value is measured in followers and “likes.” But compared to their human counterparts, these “carefully curated” personas are easier to control, cheaper and less regulated — at least for now.
 
The term “virtual influencer” does not appear in the FTC’s Endorsement Guides, which the agency uses to tackle deceptive influencer marketing — ranging from undisclosed ads to the promotion of products the influencer doesn’t actually use — among other things. Last year, in a statement to the New York Times, the FTC acknowledged that it “hasn’t yet specifically addressed the use of virtual influencers.” The good news is the guides, which were first enacted in 1980 and updated in 2009, are up for review this year. As part of the review process, TINA.org has submitted a comment to the agency suggesting several updates and additions, including that the FTC confront this latest trend in social media endorsements.
 
This comes after TINA.org conducted a review of more than two dozen virtual influencer Instagram accounts, identifying a number of potential legal issues posed by these brand-loving bots. But before we get into those, a little more on the recent rise of virtual influencers.
 
Influencer fatigue
For many, “influencer” has become a dirty word. It conjures up a person who takes orders blindly from multiple brands (sometimes mistakenly copy and pasting those orders in the sponsored post itself) and who may not even use the products they’re promoting (which is a violation of the FTC’s Endorsement Guides). So perhaps it’s not surprising that a 2019 study titled “Can CGI Influencers Have Real Influence?” found so little separating the perceived authenticity of a computer-generated character and that of an actual living and breathing human being. The study, conducted by the social content company Fullscreen, found that while 42 percent of those surveyed said they had never heard of CGI influencers before, 23 percent said they would describe a CGI influencer as “authentic.” Only 18 percent more — 41 percent — said they would describe a human influencer as “authentic.”
 
Mukta Chowdhary, director of strategy and cultural forecasting at Fullscreen, who led the study, said this indicates “two major shifts.”
 
“First, younger generations (the survey canvassed Gen Z and millennials) are open to developing relationships with bots and AI, and to some, that bot relationship can fill the need for human connection,” she said in an email. “Second, we have been ‘botting’ ourselves with filters and photo-editing and turning ourselves into avatars and some celebrities look practically like CGIs themselves, so we can understand how a CGI could feel authentic.”
 
The Fullscreen survey also found that 42 percent of respondents followed a virtual influencer without knowing the account was a virtual influencer, which is understandable when you see how realistic some of the virtual influencers in TINA.org’s sampling look.
 
Playing the part
And not only do some virtual influencers look human, they act human. A handful in TINA.org’s sampling have the ability not only to move but to dance, talk, eat ice cream, decorate cookies at Christmas (even if they’re not religious) and hang out with humans. Some even have boyfriends, New Year’s resolutions and “Life Hacks.” Others have dreams and support worthy causes like cancer research. And like us, they’ve been trying to make the best of the situation when it comes to being “housebound” due to COVID-19.
 
Skipping over the legal issue of whether these “lifestyle” posts are commercial speech or not, such posts boost the marketing value of virtual influencers by making them appear more real and popular. And for those virtual influencers created for the primary purpose of monetizing posts by promoting brands, lifestyle posts may be specifically designed to increase the monetary value of the virtual influencer.
 
Virtual influencers also emulate human influencers — posing in fashionable clothes next to expensive cars, going to red-carpet events like the Grammys and the British Academy Film Awards and forgetting to #ad it in sponsored posts — to the point where it can be difficult to tell them apart. (See slideshow below comparing virtual influencers’ posts on the left with human influencers’ posts on the right.) It’s no wonder that numerous big-name companies — including Amazon, Puma, Lexus, Samsung, Dior, Toyota, Dr. Pepper, Porsche, Calvin Klein and KFC — have incorporated bots into their marketing campaigns.
 
Better than the original?
But unlike with human influencers, brands don’t have to worry about virtual influencers missing photo shoots or coming to the sudden realization that they are a Pepsi person instead of a Coke person. (Fun fact: In 2016, the most-liked Instagram post at the time with 5.5 million “likes” was an undisclosed Coke ad, which later became a disclosed ad after TINA.org contacted Coca-Cola.) Air Asia can send its homemade virtual influencer Miss Ava wherever it wants — what else does she have going on? Likewise, KFC can share its handsome, computer-generated Colonel Sanders with brands like Casper and Dr. Pepper. Would the previous human versions of the KFC spokesman played by comedians like Jim Gaffigan have agreed to be used for such purposes? Based on Gaffigan’s sunny take on “why summer vacations stink,” we’re not so sure.
 
Virtual influencers — some created by the promoted companies themselves and others created by independent third parties — are also generally perceived as cheaper than their human counterparts. While some virtual influencers are backed by big money — and in the case of Lil Miquela, Silicon Valley money — the cost to use them isn’t likely to come close to the hundreds of thousands of dollars human influencers with large followings can charge per post.
 
However, the rise of virtual influencers has not come without controversy. Last year, Calvin Klein apologized for “queerbaiting” after airing a 30-second online ad that showed real-life supermodel Bella Hadid, who identifies as a heterosexual, kissing “female” virtual influencer Lil Miquela. Lil Miquela was also criticized in 2019 for posting a vlog that described her being the victim of a sexual assault in a rideshare. Meanwhile, Shudu (whose posts claim in easy-to-miss hashtags that she is the world’s first digital supermodel) has been cast as a “white man’s digital projection of real-life black womanhood.”
 
But by all accounts these public controversies have done little to dissuade brands from using virtual influencers. And the biggest benefit for brands may be that virtual influencers are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as human influencers. But that can change — and soon.
 
The issues the FTC needs to address
First, the FTC’s Endorsement Guides should expand the definition of “endorsement” to specifically include virtual influencers. A failure to do so could be taken as an indication that the guides don’t apply to virtual influencers (and the companies behind them).
Second, the guides should make clear that virtual influencers that promote products or services are subject to the same “material connection” disclosure requirements that humans are. That is, if a material connection exists between the creator and/or owner of the virtual influencer and the promoted brand — which, under current guidelines, can range from the gift of a free product to a lucrative endorsement deal — that must be clearly and conspicuously disclosed.
 
Third, because virtual influencers do not have opinions, beliefs or real-life experiences and cannot generally be genuine users of the products and services they promote, the guides should address the type of disclosure(s) necessary for these virtual influencers if they are permitted to ignore the principles established in the guides — which require that the endorsement reflect the honest opinions of the influencer and that the influencer be a “bona fide” or genuine user of the product at the time the endorsement was made. This issue arises frequently when virtual influencers promote products that are meant to impact or change a human’s appearance such as the application of makeup.
 
Finally, to avoid consumer confusion and the risk of deception, the guides should require virtual influencers engaged in influencer marketing to disclose that they are not human. Specifically, the FTC should require virtual influencers to clearly and conspicuously disclose that they are bots in all promotional posts. And while research is likely needed to determine how best to convey that to consumers (for example, a hashtag such as #bot may not be enough), virtual influencers should not go two years before being “outed,” as was the case with Lil Miquela.
 
Time to act
It has been over a decade since the FTC’s Endorsement Guides were updated in 2009. When the FTC last updated the guides, not only did virtual influencers not exist, but the platforms on which they have recently thrived, such as Instagram and Snapchat, had yet to launch.
Now, in a COVID-19 world, the use of virtual influencers who are unaffected by travel restrictions, stay-at-home orders and the basic truths of mortality will likely continue to rise. The multibillion-dollar influencer marketing industry has already proven itself a driver of sales. There’s every sign that the emergence of virtual influencers will only amplify that.
 
Simply put, the use of virtual influencer marketing demands the FTC’s attention. The time for the agency to act is now.
 
This article was updated on 6/23/20.
 
 
  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

    User 

    Diesel burns hole in pocket, surpasses petrol in Delhi
    Diesel has become the most expensive auto-fuel in the country overtaking petrol for the first time in a long while as the oil marketing companies on Wednesday raised its pump prices by 48 paisa while keeping the price of the other fuel unchanged.
     
    In the Capital, diesel is now priced at Rs 79.88 per litre while petrol prices remains at Tuesday level of Rs 79.76 a litre. This makes diesel the most expensive auto fuel in the basket for the first time in the Capital.
     
    IANS wrote on Tuesday that Diesel is expected to surpass petrol prices this week.
     
    In other metros, however, diesel maintains the tag of cheaper of the auto fuels with price differential between diesel and petrol prices remaining at about Rs 8 litre in Mumbai, Rs 6 a litre in Chennai and Kolkata.
     
    Due to differential taxation structure at both Centre and the states, diesel prices in the country has always remained much cheaper than petrol. Globally though, diesel is the expensive of the auto fuels as the product has higher cost of production.
     
    What has now made diesel prices higher in the capital is the Delhi government's decision early May to increase Value Added Tax on diesel from 16.75 per cent to 30 per cent and on petrol from 27 per cent to 30 per cent. This increased the retail price of Diesel and petrol in Delhi by Rs 7.10 and Rs 1.67 a litre, respectively. 
     
    With central taxes on the two products already reaching identical levels, the Delhi governments move hastened price parity between petrol and diesel. Currently, the central excise on petrol is Rs 32.98 a litre while that on diesel it is Rs 31.83 a litre. VAT on petrol in Delhi is Rs 17.71 a litre that on diesel is Rs 17.60.
     
    "Diesel price movement is sharper in international market and if oil companies follow the global price trend, diesel prices will remain higher. It is after many years that this happened and is expected to sustain for some time unless government changes the tax structure on petroleum products again," said an oil sector expert from one of the big four audit and advisory firm asking not to be named.
     
    Interestingly, even in India the base price of diesel is expensive than petrol. According to Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), while base price of petrol in Delhi currently comes to Rs 22.11 per litre, the same for diesel is higher at Rs 22.93 per litre (effective from June 16, 2020). This has been the case for a long time but retail prices of petrol came higher than diesel due to central and state taxes.
     
    While movement of retail pricing is being seen with a sigh of relief by vehicle owners whose cars run on petrol, those buying the relatively expensive diesel cars are now repenting on their decision. The development is also being seen with caution by automobile companies who have spent millions to ramp up their facilities for diesel run vehicles. The expectation is that demand for such cars will now fall causing more damage to companies where sales are already impacted due to persistent economic slowdown and now the spread of COVID-19 pandemic.
     
    "The pricing development would push automobile companies to apply strategies being followed by companies in western markets where diesel run cars are not sold on fuel pricing differential but on overall make and quality that puts them ahead of petrol run cars," the the expert quoted earlier.
     
    Yes, but for commercial vehicle sector the rising price of diesel had not been welcomed. In fact, the commercial transport sector had time and again threatened strike against the move to raise fuel prices.
     
    Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.
  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

    User 

    Petrol, Diesel Prices Rise Continues for 16th Straight Day
    Petrol and diesel prices continued to rise with the two auto fuels getting dearer by 33 paise and 58 paise per litre respectively on Monday.
     
    This is the 16th day of fuel price rise since June 7 when oil companies began the daily price revision mechanism after a hiatus of 83 days during the lockdown.
     
    With the latest increase, petrol is being retailed at Rs79.56 per litre and diesel at Rs78.85 a litre in Delhi. This is an increase of Rs8.30 in the the price of petrol per litre since June 7. Similarly, diesel prices have gone up highly by Rs9.46 per litre during the 16 day period.
     
    The good news is that auto fuel price rise may either stop or the quantum of increase could fall in the coming week as oil companies have now priced the products closer to international benchmark rates. There could be days when prices are not changed by oil companies. Already, the daily increase in price of petrol has fallen to 33 paise per litre level.
     
    Sources in oil marketing companies, however, said that price rise could continue for few more days as global product prices are firming up with a pick up in demand following opening up of economies across the globe post COVID-19 related lockdown. Even global crude prices have more than doubled from April levels to over $42 a barrel level.
     
    Also, OMCs are catching up on price levels that bring the product prices closer to international benchmark rates. The price freeze of 83 days even with a substantial increase in excise duty on petrol and diesel by the Centre, has increased the price gap resulting in losses on sale of product for OMCs.
     
    Prices of transportation fuel were last revised under the dynamic pricing policy on 16th March and there were few instances of price hike later only when the respective state governments hiked VAT (value added tax) or cess.
     
    Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.
  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

    User 

    COMMENTS

    rs235m

    2 months ago

    Reducing the interest rates on fixed deposits of banks and post offices and raising petrol diesel prices seem to be the easy ways to fill government coffers.To cover Covid expenses, government should have taken loan from world bank or IMF and repay over the next 5years.If black money from Switzerland was brought as promised,there would not have been any necessity to put the burden on common man. Why should public bear the burden of NPA, bank loot,Covid ,flood ,famine, earthquake etc?

    Ramesh Popat

    2 months ago

    indirect covid attack! inflation will show its ugly face shortly!
    will move middle class to corner!

    REPLY

    rs235m

    In Reply to Ramesh Popat 2 months ago

    Reliance is the biggest beneficiary of rock bottom crude price and fleecing of common man

    We are listening!

    Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
      Loading...
    Close

    To continue


    Please
    Sign Up or Sign In
    with

    Email
    Close

    To continue


    Please
    Sign Up or Sign In
    with

    Email

    BUY NOW

    online financial advisory
    Pathbreakers
    Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.
    online financia advisory
    The Scam
    24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
    Moneylife Online Magazine
    Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
    financial magazines online
    Stockletters in 3 Flavours
    Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
    financial magazines in india
    MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
    (Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)
    FREE: Your Complete Family Record Book
    Keep all the Personal and Financial Details of You & Your Family. In One Place So That`s Its Easy for Anyone to Find Anytime
    We promise not to share your email id with anyone