16443: Social Media Puts Honesty On The Back Burner.

 

The latest Digiday confessions series installment presented an actual confession, as a social media supervisor admitted to being pressured by their boss to create burner accounts to respond to negative press and criticism aimed at a client’s product.

 

While celebrities, entertainment CEOs, and stalkers utilize burner accounts for a variety of sneaky motivations, how can the maneuver possibly be okay in the service of brands?

 

Advertisements and sponsored content must clearly be indicated as such; plus, regulated messages like pharmaceutical marketing are required to carry disclaimers regarding results and patient depictions. Even basic campaigns undergo scrutiny by legal departments—as well as entities such as the FDA and FCC.

 

Knowingly fabricating defensive statements in an anonymous and underhanded style constitutes deliberately deceptive communications, no?

 

If burner accounts are a common practice for brand management, why did the revelation happen in Digiday’s confessional?

 

Honestly, Adland and its practitioners regularly rank high on lists for least trusted professions. Is it really necessary to maintain dominance in distrust?

 

Perhaps social media firms will create executive titles like Burner Account Director.

 

‘I felt like I had committed a crime’: Confessions of a social media lead on negative press and burner accounts

 

By Julian Cannon

 

Social media management requires navigating the constantly vigilant eyes of the digital world. The task often involves monitoring brand mentions, comments and discussions across various social media platforms, as well as handling crises if bad press surfaces. Due to social media’s fast and widespread impact, social media managers are crucial to determining a brand’s response to adverse situations, protecting its reputation and maintaining transparent communication with its audience.

 

However, rather than crafting authentic statements to address its audience, some organizations take an alternative approach to deal with critics, with some going as far as creating fake or “burner” accounts to respond to criticism.

 

In this latest installment of Digiday’s Confessions series, in which we exchange anonymity for candor, a social media supervisor details what using burner accounts for a brand is like and why he wouldn’t do it again.

 

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

 

Responding to critics through burner accounts made headlines this week. As a social media lead for an entertainment company, have you ever dealt with a request like that? If so, what was that like?

 

Yes I did. And I hope it is the last time I ever get that request. It was for a recent video game that came out not too long ago. I first thought it was odd because my CEO does not usually give into the social media storm. But because this game was highly anticipated and got negative reviews, they asked me how good I was at cleaning up a mess. I thought at the time it was a joke but he was serious.

 

After getting the request, what happened next?

 

I was flying back from TwitchCon when I was alerted that I needed to do this. I kept getting Slack messages while I was on the airplane to go on the Microsoft Teams video call and my CEO told me that I needed to fire back at the critics. I thought it was not worth it. But the company went through a round of layoffs [this year] and [I thought] if I don’t do this, I would be let go.

 

How did you create the burner accounts? Were the accounts already in existence, and were there any guidelines you followed as you created the accounts and started posting?

 

The accounts did not exist prior. I had to use the time for the rest of my flight to come up with names and bios that could not trace back to names of real life people. I was told to create three burner accounts for each platform like Reddit, X, Instagram and also a few gaming forums. For accounts with pictures, I used icons from scrapped freelance projects. After I created the template profiles of each account, I shared them with the CEO for approval and within a few minutes, the CEO said it was good to go. Once I landed and went home, the chaos began.

 

What happened?

 

Managing the accounts is like managing a fast food restaurant with difficult employees. No matter what you do, you have to act quick. I asked the CEO if I can go to the office to take a few desktop screens home so I would not have to lose my anxiety or focus on looking at everything on one screen. For X, I had to make sure that none of those three accounts were responding to each other. I had one account responding to tweets on big-name outlets that panned the game, one account responding to streamers and the final one doing this to general fans.

 

The CEO also paid for verification checkmarks on all of the X accounts to increase visibility of them. I will say that it was much easier to manage X until they removed TweetDeck so I had to use multiple tabs. As for Reddit and Instagram, the process was similar, but I had to wait for at least a day or two to engage on the platforms or else the accounts would be flagged for spamming. I also had to purchase a VPN before attempting to engage, so that no trace of my activity would be traced back to me.

 

Every response I had to do for every account on each platform needed to be different and the CEO told me that [nothing] is off limits as long as I do not use any slurs, racist language or excessive swearing. I had to come up with responses in real time with no approval processes. I also could not create or generate any social posts with artificial intelligence. Everything had to be organic just to respond to people without coming off as the accounts promoted the game. Of all the platforms, I found Reddit to be [the most] challenging since I got messages from users asking me why I liked the game. Instagram was the easiest because comments on any post cannot be filtered.

 

Why do you think the company wanted to respond to critics with burner accounts?

 

I think because of the layoffs and the state of transparency in the gaming industry as a whole, the company did not want to hire a crisis communications person [to manage the negative press] after they just fired one not too long ago. I believe that it was a cost effective move to put someone like me in a position that I was not qualified to handle. It is one thing where you have to make a social media statement and move on like other companies would do. But this, to me, did nothing but put more stress on me. I initially thought that I would do this for one day and move on. Nope, the CEO wanted me to do this until the heat died down at a time when all he cared about was filling a quota of gaming sales. It was a massive distraction because I was also making graphics and social copies that are scheduled for this month to get approved at the same time.

 

Did you have any reservations about creating burner accounts to respond to criticism? Did you worry people might figure out what was going on?

 

Immediately after being asked to do this, I felt like I had committed a crime. I figured that there would be some overtime for it, but I did not expect to go past 10 p.m. at night to keep up with the pace. If I was caught, I would have wondered what it would do to my career if I would want to work for a bigger company. I was worried if I would be caught by someone I am connected with. And I was worried if I would get blacklisted from the industry. I think social media managers should not accept requests like this because you will be pressured to act on behalf of the company, to accept all the negative attention.

 

Is there anything that you wish your managers or supervisors understood about this practice?

 

I wish they understood that social media leads, managers and anyone else in that role are constantly working under pressure to deliver and maintain a company’s image. The whole time I was doing this for them, I could not help but feel that if this company were to get caught, the backlash would exceed the actual game.

 

Would you do it again?

 

It’s not something I’ll do again. And to add to your last question, I also wish they understood that not every video game is going to be a smash hit. Although the public perception is going to criticize it anyway it can, the CEO’s decision to do this should not have been made or conceptualized. All of this time and energy should have been towards how we could have fixed this [game] over fighting with random strangers, public figures and outlets online.

14267: ComedyWire Is A Joke.

ComedyWire is the Victors & Spoils of comedic crowdsourcing. The comics behind the company are being funny with the truth too. For example, the website presents the impression that projects are being handled by late-night TV show staffers. But it’s more likely the “writers” are late-night TV show viewers. After all, the job listing below seeks part-time help from any clown with computer access.

12454: POM Is Wonderful Liar.

From The Los Angeles Times…

Pom Wonderful loses appeal of FTC’s deceptive advertising ruling

By Andrew Khouri

A federal appeals court has upheld a ruling that pomegranate juice seller Pom Wonderful falsely claimed in its advertising that its products could treat heart disease, prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction.

The decision Friday affirmed a Federal Trade Commission ruling against the Los Angeles company owned by billionaires Lynda and Stewart Resnick. That decision ordered Pom to stop “making misleading and inadequately supported claims about the health benefits of POM products.”

“The FTC Act proscribes — and the 1st Amendment does not protect — deceptive and misleading advertisements,” U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Sri Srinivasan wrote in the ruling.

The Resnicks helped make pomegranate juice popular by selling it in unique, curvaceous bottles and promoting its ability to fight disease and even, as one advertisement said, help consumers “cheat death.”

The ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, however, did not uphold all of the FTC’s order.

The three-judge panel said the company must cite only one “randomized, controlled, human clinical trial” as evidence before asserting its products can fight diseases.

The commission had required at least two.

Pom, in a statement, said that it was pleased with that reduction and that the company “has always communicated with consumers in a transparent, honest manner, delivering valuable information about the potential health benefits of our products.”

Staff writer Stuart Pfeifer contributed to this report.

12434: No Más Salt, Taco Bell!

USA TODAY reported on the quiet campaign from Taco Bell to reduce the salt in menu items. It certainly is a quiet campaign when viewed alongside loud promotions for food-like stuff featuring Doritos and Fritos.

“We have done the right thing. We have done the moral thing,” proclaimed Taco Bell CEO Greg Creed. “What we haven’t done is toot our horn. No one out there suspects we have done it because we haven’t changed the taste.” Hmmm. There are lots of contradictions in Creed’s statement. The CEO said Taco Bell didn’t “toot our horn,” which implies being humble; yet he also said, “No one out there suspects…” which implies being deceitful. Is it possible to do “the moral thing” without being honest? Plus, why act with such grandiosity when “the right thing” is essentially conforming to recommended standards? Creed admits it’s tough for fast feeders to sell healthy food and make a profit. On the flipside, why should places like Taco Bell be allowed to knowingly sell unhealthy food without facing public and even legal scrutiny?

The Fourth Meal fans will undoubtedly argue that people have the inalienable right to consume whatever they wish—oblivious to the scientific evidence proving salt is addictive. Fast-food restaurants that offer healthy menu items in addition to the unhealthy fare are not much different than Big Tobacco financing anti-smoking campaigns and Big Booze financing drunk-driving campaigns. Indeed, at some point, Taco Bell and its peers should be forced to develop healthy eating campaigns—and the messages better not be quiet.

Taco Bell reduces salt in quiet campaign

By Jere Downs, The (Louisville, Ky.) Courier-Journal

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Taco Bell’s menu is packing less salt, 15 percent less on average since 2009, the result of a stealthy campaign by Yum! Brands CEO Greg Creed.

“We have done the right thing. We have done the moral thing,” Creed said when asked how Yum! is responding to consumer demand for healthier fare. “What we haven’t done is toot our horn. No one out there suspects we have done it because we haven’t changed the taste.”

Taco Bell’s sodium reduction was part of a Yum effort to make 15 percent of its menu items at the chain — as well as at Pizza Hut and KFC — conform to recommended mealtime limits for it, sugar and fats by the end of the year.

And by 2020, Yum wants 20 percent of its menu items to land at or below the limits, chief nutrition officer Jonathan Blum said. The idea is that if consumers eat three meals per day, one of those three meals at a KFC, Taco Bell or Pizza Hut can satisfy one third of the recommended daily allowances.

The initiative “is a bold goal across the globe,” Blum said, adding that the objective is to reduce salt without losing flavor or market share.

“We don’t want it to be perceptible,” he said. “We just want to improve ingredients.”

The increasing public debate about the health consequences of fast food appears to be driving sodium down at other chains. At McDonald’s, for instance, the Big Mac and Quarter Pounder with Cheese sandwiches have dropped their sodium levels between 7 percent and 8 percent, respectively, since 2011. Each McDonald’s burger contains five salt packets each, at 960 and 1,100 milligrams respectively.

But critics say that in some instances, Taco Bell’s efforts fall short. Even though the Steak Burrito Supreme now stands at 1,090 milligrams of sodium instead of 1,340, that much salt in a single blast is still not good for you, said Michael Jacobson, co-founder and executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest.

The Steak Burrito Supreme “has a long way to go to get to a healthy level,” Jacobson said.

The human body requires just 200 milligrams of sodium daily to balance electrolytes and other bodily functions, according to the American Heart Association. But Americans take in 3,463 milligrams of sodium daily, or about 1½ teaspoons of salt, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Yum’s nutrition goals for 2015 and 2020 are “not terribly ambitious,” Jacobson added. “Couldn’t a restaurant have at least half of its products be reasonably healthy?

“At least nutrition is on their radar screen,” he said, adding Taco Bell’s progress is an example of “creeping awareness into the sector.”

Creed, who became Yum’s CEO following a long stint as Taco Bell’s chief, said consumers may shun foods if they are advertised as low salt or otherwise good for you.

“People don’t want the taste to change,” Creed said in an interview this month. “If I came out and said ‘new low sodium Taco Bell,’ some people will think it will taste like you know what, and they are not going to come.”

And for most diners at a Louisville-area Taco Bell on Tuesday, salt wasn’t a concern.

“I like the Gordita Crunch. The sauce is really good,” said Anthony Gardner, 26, of Radcliffe. “It tastes good, so I eat it.”

“I like the salt,” said his brother, Michael Gardner, 32, adding that the pair eat lunch at Taco Bell three or four times a month. “I will probably care about salt a little later in life.”

Exactly how and where the salt has come off Taco Bell’s menu remains a trade secret. During his tenure at the helm of Taco Bell, Creed said he scrutinized all ingredient categories.

“We pulled sodium out of everything, tortillas, beef, marinade for chicken, fire sauce,” he said. “There is not an ingredient that we haven’t pulled sodium out of.”

The numbers show Taco Bell cut salt by one third in 33 menu items between 2009 to 2015. That includes the Grilled Steak Soft Taco, which has 490 milligrams of sodium, a 31 percent decline from its 710 milligrams in 2009, and the Cheesy Bean & Rice Burrito, which has 490 milligrams of sodium, a 32 percent decrease from 1,370 six years ago.

Foods dramatically reduced in sodium at Taco Bell also seem to have a soft tortilla. They include the Fresco Grilled Steak Soft Taco (440 milligrams of sodium for a 27 percent drop from 600), and the Chicken Burrito, (960 milligrams of sodium, a 24 percent change from 1,260.)

And while overall progress takes place at Taco Bell, some new menu additions go the other way. The Doritos Cheesy Gordita Crunch line, for example, contains nearly 900 milligrams of sodium in each variation.

Blum, Yum’s nutrition chief, said high-sodium items like the Doritos Gorditas at Taco Bell, or other salty fare at KFC or Pizza Hut “are absolutely delicious and products I love to eat.” Consumers can be applauded, he added, “for the choices that they make, as long as they have the information and education about what to consume.”

Nancy Kuppersmith, a registered dietician with University of Louisville Physicians, took a more jaded view. Patients that she treats for obesity, diabetes and heart disease commonly eat fast food for one meal per day, she said. Extra sodium in fast food menus, she said, just makes them crave more than is good for them.

“It makes the food taste better if you put salt on it. It masks other flavors that might not be so good,” Kuppersmith said. “Will sodium stimulate me to eat more so I might buy more? Absolutely.”

Creed said competing against other fast food chains who may not be lowering sodium, means retaining sodium levels in some favorites while also offering a variety for consumers seeking healthier options, Creed said.

That’s why Taco Bell’s more nutrient-dense, and lower-sodium Fresco and Cantina menu options “are not the best-sellers,” Creed said. “But they need to be available.”

“Our customers are demanding it,” he said. “You don’t have to be Einstein to see this whole trend of transparency and authentic and genuine going forward.”

8422: Not Lovin’ The Lies From Mickey D’s.

The commercial for Mickey D’s Fruit & Maple Oatmeal is such a load of bullshit. The voiceover ends the spot by declaring, “The simple joy of loving what’s good for you. That’s what we’re made of.” Loving what’s good for you? Somebody should remind Mickey D’s that its recent profits have been attributed to sales for coffee and McRib® sandwiches.

7880: Smoking Out Kraft’s Big Tobacco Tactics.

MultiCultClassics has briefly commented on this topic before, but the latest press hype inspires additional ranting.

Kraft Macaroni & Cheese is targeting adults with an advertising campaign, and the effort seems to be spiking sales. This is obscene on a few levels.

First, Kraft allegedly reduced hawking its variety of unhealthy shit directly to kids, feigning concern for the well-being of America’s youngsters. Yet the food maker turns around and pushes its garbage on grownups. As if Kraft doesn’t realize adults will ultimately feed the stuff to children.

This becomes even more sinister when you consider Kraft’s past ties to cigarette maker Philip Morris/Altria. Big Tobacco has always been content with being prohibited from advertising to youth. But only because the companies know the easiest way to woo children is by peddling the addictive products parents. Seems like Kraft is taking a lesson from Big Tobacco—and contributing to the nation’s obesity problems.

Maybe it’s time to place Surgeon General’s Warning labels on Kraft food packages.

7858: The “Facts” Are Dirty.

Lysol preys on parental paranoia over germs, yet consumer and health advocacy groups insist the products are actually hazardous to our households.

6636: Choke And Chew.

Talking trash and assorted garbage in a MultiCultClassics Monologue…

• The Chicago Cubs are partnering with a radio station from Univision to broadcast games in Spanish. The first order of business will involve translating “sucks” and “choke” for listeners.

• Wrigley is taking heat from the Better Business Bureau’s National Advertising Division over claims for its Eclipse gum. The complaints involve messaging hyping the product’s germ-killing abilities that allegedly aren’t backed by scientific evidence. However, you don’t need scientific evidence to see that the spot sucks.

6564: No More Big, Fat Liars.

From The Chicago Tribune…

Federal Trade Commission’s plan to change rules on ad endorsements, testimonials worries marketers

Extreme results, disclaimers to be overhauled by FTC

By Mary Ellen Podmolik

Consumers lured by advertisements promising rock-hard abs, sparkling white teeth and bulging bank accounts soon may get a reality check.

Updated guidelines on ad endorsements and testimonials under final review by the Federal Trade Commission—and widely expected to be adopted—would end marketers’ ability to talk up the extreme benefits of products while carrying disclaimers like “results not typical” or “individual results may vary.”

Instead, companies would be allowed to tout extreme results only if they also spelled out typical outcomes.

“For a good part of the last decade, we have noticed a problem, particularly with consumer testimonials,” said Richard Cleland, assistant director of the FTC’s division of advertising practices. “The use of consumer testimonials had become almost a safe harbor for companies as long as they threw in some sort of disclaimer about results not being typical.”

The changes are sending shudders through companies that worry about their ability to motivate consumers to buy their products if they can’t sell the sizzle.

“There would never be another Jared,” said Julie Coons, president and chief executive of the marketing trade group Electronic Retailing Association, referring to Jared Fogle, who became Subway’s spokesman after losing 245 pounds eating the chain’s sandwiches and exercising. “We’re all going to have to regroup” if the proposals stand.

Fogle’s story is highlighted on Subway’s Web site, accompanied by an asterisk and the text, “Their results are not typical. Your loss, if any, will vary.”

“This is not something we are prepared to comment on at this point,” a spokesman for Subway said of the proposed guidelines.

The tougher rules, the first update to the guidelines since 1980, are designed to make it easier for consumers to judge the credibility of marketers’ claims. The changes would affect all forms of advertising and marketing, including blogs and company Web sites. The FTC could bring legal action against firms that don’t comply.

The final guidelines are expected to be issued later this year.

The revisions have drawn sharp criticism from product manufacturers, advertising agencies and trade groups who say it is the “aspirational” theme of their ads that motivates consumers to purchase their goods. Show less than the ultimate achievement, they say, and consumers are less likely to buy.

What’s more, they say, it’s impossible to determine typical results for many personal-care products because of unique physiological characteristics among humans and the varying levels of effort put into any endeavor.

“A lightbulb, I can give you a typical result,” said Jonathan Gelfand, general counsel for Product Partners LLC, which sells fitness programs, gear and nutritional supplements under the “Beach Body” brand.

“Showing what people start and end with and saying very prominently, ‘Results may vary,’ that is as true as you can make it,” Gelfand said. “If we can’t show a picture and give results, what are we going to do?”

He added, “Someone who can’t fit in an airline seat is not going to pick up the phone for a 10-pound weight change.”

A spokeswoman for weight-loss program provider Jenny Craig Inc.—whose celebrity endorsers have included Kirstie Alley, Valerie Bertinelli and most recently Phylicia Rashad—said it would be premature to comment on the guidelines.

Competitor NutriSystem Inc., which has been touted by Marie Osmond and whose Web site showcases a woman who lost 40 pounds, did not respond to calls for comment.

6289: The King Of Lies.

These kinds of efforts ultimately sabotage the Web 2.0 revolution. Bait-and-switch tactics. Shrouded intentions. Hidden creators. The advertisers backing this stuff are king-sized assholes too.

5072: Unexplained Pain-In-The-Ass.

VYTORIN® has 2 sources of deception: Schering-Plough and Merck & Company.