Anti-Trump TikTokkers not declaring paid content
TikTok creators have been making anti-Trump videos without disclosing they were paid for.
www.bbc.co.uk
Anti-Trump Tik Tokkers were being paid by marketing agency and failed to disclose it.
- Thread starter Dwarvenhobble
- Start date
USA
(From your link)
"Under Federal Election Commission rules, paid-for material to get out the vote is not classified as political and does not need to be disclosed - but this relies on content being non-partisan.
Bigtent Creative argues the material they pay for does not qualify as political advertising, but some of the creators they funded have been making anti-Trump material - which in TikTok's eyes has been deemed political advertising"
"Ysiad Ferreiras, Bigtent Creative's CEO, said: "Our work is not consistent with the platform's definition of an advertisement. Our creators make their own content as digital organisers, they're advocating for non-partisan action the same way paid canvassers and organisers working for non-profits do."
But the line between partisan and non-partisan in these videos are often blurred - and the company told the BBC it discourages partners to use #ad because they want the videos to appear authentic."
In one series of videos Bigtent Creative supported, a number of prominent TikTok accounts duetted with each other to promote a non-partisan voter registration link. But some of the users in this so-called "vote chain" included anti-Trump messages such as: "Trump is trying to ban TikTok again...can we please vote him out?"
"When we showed some of these TikToks to Bigtent Creative, a member of their team said the videos had non-partisan funding, and as such should not have included anti-Trump statements "
So to be clear, it sounds like they were paid to tell people to vote, and THEN the tik tokkers chose to add their personal dislike of Trump to the ad, thus changing the messaging. That isn't being paid to make anti trump ads, that means they were paid to make get out the vote messages and then because they put their opinions in it changed the message on their own, but that was not what they were paid to do. You make it sound like they were paid to say they dislike Trump, it sounds like they were paid to make a get out the vote ad and their dislike of Trump was genuine however.
So tik tokeers weren't actually paid to make anti trump ads from what they have stated here. The part they were paid for was "the get out the vote" not their personal dislike for Trump they expressed. If they had kept their opinions in separate posts, then their ads would have been fine. Tik Tokkers choosing to add their own beliefs toi the ad =\= being paid to make anti trump ads. To state such is misleading. Those Tik Tokkers may have to reimburse the money they were paid for adding the sentiments in the first place.
"Under Federal Election Commission rules, paid-for material to get out the vote is not classified as political and does not need to be disclosed - but this relies on content being non-partisan.
Bigtent Creative argues the material they pay for does not qualify as political advertising, but some of the creators they funded have been making anti-Trump material - which in TikTok's eyes has been deemed political advertising"
"Ysiad Ferreiras, Bigtent Creative's CEO, said: "Our work is not consistent with the platform's definition of an advertisement. Our creators make their own content as digital organisers, they're advocating for non-partisan action the same way paid canvassers and organisers working for non-profits do."
But the line between partisan and non-partisan in these videos are often blurred - and the company told the BBC it discourages partners to use #ad because they want the videos to appear authentic."
In one series of videos Bigtent Creative supported, a number of prominent TikTok accounts duetted with each other to promote a non-partisan voter registration link. But some of the users in this so-called "vote chain" included anti-Trump messages such as: "Trump is trying to ban TikTok again...can we please vote him out?"
"When we showed some of these TikToks to Bigtent Creative, a member of their team said the videos had non-partisan funding, and as such should not have included anti-Trump statements "
So to be clear, it sounds like they were paid to tell people to vote, and THEN the tik tokkers chose to add their personal dislike of Trump to the ad, thus changing the messaging. That isn't being paid to make anti trump ads, that means they were paid to make get out the vote messages and then because they put their opinions in it changed the message on their own, but that was not what they were paid to do. You make it sound like they were paid to say they dislike Trump, it sounds like they were paid to make a get out the vote ad and their dislike of Trump was genuine however.
So tik tokeers weren't actually paid to make anti trump ads from what they have stated here. The part they were paid for was "the get out the vote" not their personal dislike for Trump they expressed. If they had kept their opinions in separate posts, then their ads would have been fine. Tik Tokkers choosing to add their own beliefs toi the ad =\= being paid to make anti trump ads. To state such is misleading. Those Tik Tokkers may have to reimburse the money they were paid for adding the sentiments in the first place.
Last edited:
This is why social media influencers are dumb. They're all a bunch of dumb ass kids too thick to have someone who knows better look over contracts or check their work to make sure it doesn't break the fucking law. As much as I hate tik tok these morons should be sued for breach of contract.
But they weren't paid for Anti trump ads, according to the article in the OP. The article in the OP states:
"When we showed some of these TikToks to Bigtent Creative, a member of their team said the videos had non-partisan funding, and as such should not have included anti-Trump statements "
The tik tokkers were supposed to just tell people to vote. They added their own feelings on trump to the ads, which may make them have to give the money they were paid back.
*Wonders If they pay the money back, then it no longer is a paid ad at all then right?
I agree, if they wanted to add their personal feelings, they can do that on their own posts, not the ones they were paid to tell people to vote. They should have to reimburse the people who paid them. Their other posts about Trump though can stay up since they weren't being paid for those.
The title is misleading though because it makes it sound like they were paid to make anti trump ads, but the article itself says that was specifically not the case at all. They added their own feelings to the ads, but they were not paid to do that.
Ah, in that case, fuck em, those tiktokkers were indeed the dumbasess. Should've read their contracts.
I added *Wonders If they pay the money back, then it no longer is a paid ad at all then right?
They screwed up so should have to pay the money back then I wonder if that changes the status of the ad itself. They could just make another ad done the right way to make up for the one they screwed up though.
Assuming the ad agency would still want to work with those influencers, partly because of the lapse in professionalism, partly because their credibility is now diminished.
Yea, they pretty much threw their bipartisanship out there so it isn't like they could be seen that way after that.
Well, seeing how it's for Trump's best interests if fewer people vote; an ad telling people to vote is technically an anti-Trump ad.
I suppose there were no editors or approval processes or oversight with these ads? They just wrote TikTokkers a check and wrote in the memo line "please tell people to go vote?"
That's not very responsible at all.
Kind of like giving people free bricks during a riot and then claiming you aren't responsible for the damage.
You've... never worked as a independent contractor, have you? Like, a major part of being an IC is minimal oversight because too much oversight tips their classification into employee.
If the substantive part of the contract is "do X videos a day/week encouraging people to vote" then, to some degree, that's all that fundamentally required in a contract. Yeah, you can certainly have more details, but that it is not a requirement. Hell, a lot of vendor contracts I have reviewed and drafted will sometimes boil down the exchange to "contractor shall provide services, and client shall pay for said services" with the specifics either defined separately or sometimes not at all (generally for more ongoing matters where possible work covers a sizable amount of possible tasks.
Except instead of bricks, it's compensation for specific work you requested and the contractor not doing the work as expected. One could argue that the company in question should have known or expected the result, but, more likely than not, their hands are clean and their contractors didn't do the work they were contracted to do.
Tik Tok could certainly do... something (what, I'm unsure of as I have no idea how monetization works on the platform and outright banning them would likely have a bigger blowback), but unless the contractors did something that would justify a criminal investigation (which is debatable), the only party with a claim against them is the firm that paid them, and I suspect they didn't pay enough to justify a breach of contract claim, not to mention having the black mark of suing your contractors for anything short of a serious breach of contract.
An awful lot on social media in this sort of area appears to be low on responsibility. In fact, my first thought on reading the thread title is "Why bother?" because this sort of thing is absolutely endemic to social media, without even including the deliberate misinformation campaigns, which not only come from places like Russia and dodgy PACs but political leaders themselves.
And why not run a simple op like this? Just chuck money at people and they'll do stuff - I'm guessing the company didn't exactly pay big money for high follower "influencers", and they got what they paid for. It potentially costs more to check than it does to accept potential errors. They hit a snag this time, they'll know better next time.
They are not hippies, they just have different concerns and interests from earlier generations. They are in savvy in the areas their lives move in, and less so in ways older generations were more interested in.
I currently work as an independent contractor. People check my work, and I check other people's work, and then we have levels of QA on top of that to ensure that the work is good and tested before it goes live.
Maybe what you say is true, and an IRS audit would find that I should actually be classified as an employee instead, but my experience, and common sense should dictate that you should check people's work unless you want them to ruin your project. Case in point.
True. If you're already going to do it, at least get paid for it.
Except if your project is literally "send this message in a convincing and authentic way like you do already on your channel" you're not going to have that level of control and keep the "authenticity" you're paying for.
Like, I get what you're saying, but part of paying influencers is largely outsourcing those editorial issues to them because they can respond with a authentic-looking video in fifteen minutes, whereas if they have to run even a script by you, that adds time, and a lot of it by social media standards (and that's just a time issue and not getting into the labor costs of having to review everything). Just because you have QA for your work (which I have no doubt is reasonable for whatever you do) doesn't mean all (or even most) contractors do.
Now if they were doing something where the influencer was promoting a product, then that changes. More often then not, the influencer is given a specific sponsor script and they're told to just read it verbatim and if you listen to podcasts or watch certain youtube channels, they're very easy to spot (Raid: Shadow Legends is a meme for a reason).
But if your firm is hired to just go a non-partisan GOTV campaign, well, then you're literally going to put the absolute most content for the least cost, and review and sign off is a great place to cut costs. And if the influencer doesn't do the job right or makes themselves look less influential, well, there's literally an near-infinite number of creators and channels to replace them with for the next series of buys.