Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Meter & Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Engage Your Mind
    • Mindful Ads? Vote Your Mind!
  • Expand Your Mind
  • Contact

Artificial Endorsers

7/26/2019

12 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

Have you ever thought you saw someone you knew, went to talk to them, but found it wasn’t them?  That’s embarrassing.  Or, have you ever thought ‘someone’ was a real person, only to realize they weren’t?  This second kind of mistaken identity will become more common if one particular promotional trend continues.
 
In an age of artificial intelligence and deepfakes, it’s not surprising that some brands are promoting themselves using people who aren’t people.  Enter “virtual influencers”—digitally-developed endorsers who plug products not because they like the brand and want the money but because they were programmed to promote.
 
Perhaps the best known virtual spokesperson is someone/thing named Miquela Sousa, or Lil Miquela.  From the splattering of freckles across her youthful face to her complaints of cold temperatures outside, Miquela looks and acts like a real person; however, she’s actually an avatar, the creation of Brud, “a mysterious L.A.-based start-up of ‘engineers, storytellers, and dreamers’ who claim to specialize in artificial intelligence and robotics.”
 
The company crafted Miquela’s persona to be that of a “19-year-old Brazilian-American model, musical artist, and influencer”  who appears to hang out in hip New York and Los Angeles locales, with real-life celebrities.  The avatar’s carefully curated personal brand has made her alluring to millions of real-life fans, including more than 43,000 subscribers on YouTube and over 1.6 million followers on Instagram.
 
That large of a following also makes Miquela highly marketable, which, after all, is her reason for existence.  Although, a computer generated influencer (CGI) can’t really use brands, she showcases ones such as Coach, Balenciaga, Ouai, and Proenza Schouler.  The promotional potential of Miquela and her fellow avatars (e.g., Blawko) certainly is real, as further evidenced by Brud recently raising $6 million in venture capital and Time placing Miquela among its “25 Most Influential People on the Internet” along with the likes of Kayne West and Kylie Jenner.
 
But, potentially big fan-bases are not the only attractive attributes of virtual influencers compared to real ones.  Digital beings don’t need to be paid.  Contrast those zeros to the seven-year $75 million sneaker endorsement deal basketball phenom Zion Williamson just signed with Nike.
 
Virtual influencers also can be precisely controlled to do and say exactly what advertisers desire, ‘on- and off-camera.’  Contrast that certainty with the risk inherent with real human endorsers, such as Tiger Woods, whose 2009 sex scandal caused two of his biggest sponsors, Gatorade and AT&T, to bail.
 
There seems to be real value in using unreal influencers, but as this blog always suggests, just because marketers can, doesn’t necessarily mean that they should.  So, the question:  Is it ethical for organizations to employ virtual influencers?
 
The thought of “employment” raises an immediate concern:  Will digital endorsers put real ones out of work?  It seems that some displacement is inevitable:  If Miquela is promoting Coach, the brand probably doesn’t need as many flesh-and-blood models or actors.
 
On the other hand, there are also now new jobs.  Someone needs to create and manage the digital personas.  So, an argument about unemployment can be countered by the age-old logic that people always need to adapt their job skills in order to keep pace with new technology and not be displaced by it:  To stay employed, people who dug holes with shovels needed to learn to drive backhoes and bulldozers. 
 
For what it’s worth, my prediction is that virtual influencers will proliferate to a point of saturation, after which the pendulum will swing back in the opposite direction, at least somewhat, as consumers reaffirm their appreciation for real people’s authenticity, genuineness, and unmanipulated humanity.
 
For me, the biggest ethical concern surrounding virtual influencers is the potential for deception.  As consumers, it’s critical that we recognize when someone is sharing an objective, unbiased recommendation versus one with some corporate connection.  There’s not necessarily anything wrong with paid endorsement, but consumers need to know when they’re experiencing it so they can raise their perceptual defenses and properly interpret the message.
 
For example, as a college professor, I often speak with prospective students and their families about their college choice.  They expect me to describe my school in a positive light and understand that I can’t be completely objective.  However, if in some social setting I happened to have a conversation with a family, without revealing my association, they might gain an unreasonably favorable impression of my school because they didn’t know that the institution I described was my employer. 
 
For virtual influencers, the potential for deception is different in one way but very similar in another.  For instance, when Prada used Miquela to promote its 2018 collection, people probably recognized the ads as corporate messages, not an average consumer’s unbiased recommendation.  However, to the extent that viewers didn’t realize Miquela was 100% digital, they may have been deceived.
 
The reason is that there’s a reasonable expectation that endorsers, whether paid or unpaid, either use the product they’re promoting or have some special knowledge about it that makes them reliable sources of information.  For example, I earned my bachelor’s degree from Messiah College and have taught there for nearly 20 years, which should give me some credibility as an endorser.  It’s impossible, however, for a virtual influencer to use or otherwise experience the brands they advocate because virtual influencers are not real.
 
When we see a human endorser in an ad, we assume they’re getting paid, which lessens their perceived objectivity.  Still, even if they’re like Zion Williamson and receiving a boatload of money for their support, it’s reasonable to think that they wouldn’t risk their reputation with a brand in which they didn’t believe.  People who can command significant sponsorship dollars usually have various endorsement options and can choose reputable ones.
 
Although Miquela can be pictured wearing or holding Prada products, she can never experience them because she isn’t human.  But, if people believe she is real, they can incorrectly assume that her actual interaction with the brand allows her to make sound judgments about it.  In short, consumers can be deceived.
 
Some may be thinking, “But, virtual endorsers really aren’t new, so hasn’t the potential for deception existed for decades?”
 
It’s true that companies have been using various types of animated endorsers for a long time, e.g., the Pillsbury Dough Boy, Tony the Tiger, the Energizer Bunny.  In the 1950s, Pepsodent created Susy Q, an original cartoon character, to promote its toothpaste.  More recently, some companies are offering to create unique animated spokespeople that even small businesses can afford.
 
The difference is the technology used to create Miquela and similar virtual influencers is much more sophisticated, making it increasingly difficult for consumers to distinguish who’s human and who’s not.  Therein, again, lies the problem. 
 
When we can tell that animated brand ambassadors aren’t real, we’re under no illusion that they use the products.  However, when we believe a spokesperson is human, we assume that they use the product or have some special knowledge about it, which may give us unwarranted confidence in their recommendation. 
 
It’s fine for organizations to use animated beings to promote their products, but they should be careful not to mislead consumers by making the influencers so real that they seem human when they’re not.  That kind of deception may sell products but it is really “Single-Minded Marketing.”


Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
12 Comments
Sarah Blessing
9/13/2019 10:51:08 am

I agree that this is single-minded marketing because there is a level of deception that plays a role when there is an influencer that is made of artificial intelligence. With cartoon characters such as Tony The Tiger, it is obvious that this is just a figure for the brand and was clearly made by marketers as a way to engage with different audiences and further shape the brand. However, when using something that is so lifelike that people mistaken it for a real person, that is where the deception lies. I do agree that it is cheaper and less risky to use something of artificial intelligence to sell a product, however, if the wrong person were to react negatively to this, the brand could take a hit. This is also true when using human influencers such as Tiger Woods. I feel as though humans should be the ones that earn the title of influencers because they can relate more than anything using artificial intelligence can to the human desires and needs. Virtual influencers cannot actually feel the emotions that people can when interacting with the brand and have no moral constructs when in the decision-making process of picking a product. With that being said, if a product was made with something that was not the most environmentally friendly or there was a mistake in manufacturing, artificial intelligence influencers would not pick up on this. They are just programmed to always act like the product they are advertising is the best one out there without error which is another area in which there can be deceit. Overall, I think that it can be ethical to employ virtual influencers to an extent. I think that people can program them to act as an animated endorser and advertise to that extent since virtual influencers are the new age of animated endorsers. However, I think when one is using a virtual influencer to do all of the walking and talking of their brand, this is lazy and allows room for deception of the customers who are getting all of their information from something with simply artificial intelligence and no moral construct.

Reply
Kevin Woleslagle
9/13/2019 12:30:30 pm

I also agree that this is single minded marketing. For stockholders, this could be a very good thing to have, it can promote a brand in a new and exciting way that sells more product. However, it does not uphold societal values because of how deceptive it is. The company is lying to their customer, not by false information, but by a fake opinion created by the company to sell more product. If a company wants to use these fake influencers, they should be allowed to but they should make it known that the "customer" is fake. This however would defeat the purpose of the realistic fake customer and I do not believe many companies would use it. I also think that it could potentially be dangerous. If the company is allowed to hide their fake advertiser from us, what else are they allowed to hide? there could potentially be some major health risks associated with a lot of these products. Also, if a company must resort to fake advertisement to sell their product, they are most likely being beat out by another company, and they need to sell more to be competitive. This causes the real customer to compare the good company with the worse company. The customer could then choose the bad company, hurting the customer by giving them a sub-par product. All around, I think this is a nasty way to do business, but I do believe they should allow it as long as the consumer knows the "customer " is fake.

Reply
April Hooper
9/24/2019 04:27:41 pm

This is definitely an example of single-minded marketing because people make assumptions about the products Miquela is "using" and are deceived into thinking she has actual experience with them. This is why it does not uphold societal values. I had never heard about Miquela before, but as this blog post said, using animated icons to promote products is not new. But as technology has progressed and animation has improved, it is no longer clear who is real and who is fake. It is deceitful to have a fake influencer promote products to their audience without making it clear that she is not real and has never actually used any of the products before. It gives consumers a false notion that she has her own beliefs and has chosen to promote certain brands. This wouldn’t be such an issue if it was made clear that Miquela was fake, but instead it appears that different companies use her without revealing this crucial piece of information.

This can lead to some problems such as Miquela (or others like her) promoting a product that is actually very harmful, but as an AI, she did not have the choice to say no. It is important for companies to think about the audience they are reaching to know if it is really best for them to promote certain things to those targeted groups. It is not just about sales, it should also be about what is best for society.

I do understand, however, how handy it is to have an influencer promote something without having to pay them. Also, her entire life is controlled so there is not the “loose-cannon” aspect of using real celebrities (the potential for them to say something unflattering about the company). I looked at her instagram, and while something still looks a little off about her face, she is very realistic. As technology continues to improve, I think more companies will adopt this technique with their own versions, but hopefully they will take a more mindful approach. However, I do believe that there is something about the authenticity and spontaneity of real humans that cannot be duplicated, even with the best technology. They can make real connections that artificial intelligence can’t, and that personal touch is what really sells products.

Reply
Anne Dabroski
9/24/2019 11:13:22 pm

I hadn't heard of Miquela before reading this post and I think the idea is extremely fascinating. The possibilities that Miquela could accomplish as a promoter are widespread and powerful. She has already become an icon and internet celebrity already and this is likely to continue. I wonder how many of her followers know she is an digital avatar instead of a real person. Her endorsement of products could definitely be deceptive as I doubt many consumers would realize that she was a digital being. However, I wonder if it would make a difference if the advertisers used her as a symbol of technological advancement instead of as merely a brand promoter. If she was used this way it would not be deceptive to consumers and would keep the cool vibe of her created brand. Essentially, Miquela could become a known animated endorser with a more developed backstory and personal brand.

Reply
Devin Morrill
9/25/2019 06:14:56 pm

After reading this and then searching Miquela on YouTube, I'm amazed of the implications of this type of artificial endorser. I've only recently seen other types of these realistic digital AI's before, but not used to this extent. With the level of computer art increasing, this type of marketing could become easier and easier to try and accomplish, even if it's shady. I agree that when companies use animated mascots, the public aren't being deceived in any way because it's clearly animated. But the single-mindedness behind Miquela is on another level. I could see many people thinking she was a real person and I am also curious to know how many of her YouTube followers actually think she's real. Even though there is a risk of using real people for advertising (scandals), it's more personal to the customer if they see a real person enjoying the product instead of an animated creation.

Reply
Jane Mylin
9/26/2019 09:04:06 am

After reading this blog post, I immediately opened Instagram to take a look at Miquela’s account. From the picture on the blog post, I was expecting Miquela to have a human-like face and more robotic-looking limbs. I was very surprised when I saw recent photos and videos of her using a face mask, dancing, or sitting with a “boyfriend.” Her entire body is much more realistic than I initially envisioned. I can now see how she is an effective marketing tool for various brands, as she has a significant Instagram following (1.6 million!). I agree that this is single-minded marketing ─ Miquela’s endorsement does help to create stakeholder value, yet it does not uphold societal values in that 1) she is artificial; thus, her endorsement is not authentic, and 2) not all her followers are aware that she is a robot. These two factors are closely linked. As mentioned in the blog post, many companies employ artificial characters to endorse their products, such as the Geico Gecko, the Michelin Man, and the Pillsbury Dough Boy. These characters are artificial; thus, their endorsements are not authentic. However, it is blatantly obvious that these characters are artificial. Such is not the case with Miquela. Although her Instagram bio does say she’s a “Musician, change-seeker, and robot with the drip,” I looked back at some of her earlier Instagram posts, and the comments are filled with people questioning her humanness. Several of her earlier posts are also politically motivated, specifically in favor of keeping abortion legal, which deeply disturbs me, as she is a robot and can’t even have children (or vote, for that matter). How far is too far?

Reply
Aaron Hulkkonen
11/5/2019 08:58:08 pm

I had heard about about CGI influencers, but never gave much thought to the ethics of it, until now. This is definitely a single minded marketing since there is a level of deception that the CGI render is a real person. People can easily be deceived, as I would be. Companies using animated people seems to be a funny tactic to me, when there are plenty of real people.

Reply
Dani Vallejo
11/6/2019 01:25:00 am

I have seen the specific account and CGI persona that this article is talking about. At first glance Miquela looks like a real person. But, the more a person looks at a post certain things seem off about the supposed person posting their picture endorsing products for big name brands. The ethical implications I feel are not huge, at the same time, it can be deceiving for many. If a company chooses to use Miquela for their marketing, they know the implications and obviously believe it is a smart marketing move. It is true that because virtually made persons cannot have actually investment in a brand or product because they aren't real and therefore their testament is fabricated based on what the company wants. Which is a very good point. I think it is very interesting to see where the future goes on this specific topic.

Reply
Catharina Jessica Hartanto
11/7/2019 02:11:07 pm

What are artificial endorsers? To begin with, I am an influencer back in Indonesia so I know what its like to be endorsed by people who own a company or people that just started their own products. From this post, they started with “Have you ever thought you saw someone you knew, went to talk to them but found it wasn’t them? That’s embarrassing. Or, have you ever thought ‘someone’ was a real person, only to realize they weren’t?” after that, they showed Lil Miquela who is an “influencer” and super well known In social media. Surprisingly this is not even real (100% digital). Miquela is an avatar and a virtual influencer created by Brud ( someone who is really good at artificial intelligence and robotics” From this case, we can see that there is an ethical concern. People thought it is real when it is actually not. Everything is not like what it seems. They ended the post by saying that It's fine for companies to use animated characters to advertise their products, but they should be cautious not to confuse customers by making the influencers so real that when they're not they seem human so it is just "single-minded marketing."

Reply
Mitchell Martin
12/6/2019 10:04:06 pm

After reading this post I had to search Miquela to see how much of a human she looked like. She looks like a human and it makes me think of how many people are humans or animated on tv commercials. With all the people in the world and with all the people looking for jobs you would think companies would just hire real people for the advertisements. But if they don't want to use a real person why dont they use a character like tony the tiger or the michlin man, instead of fooling people. This is simple-minded marketing because it helps the company but it is fooling people and taking jobs from people so its not helping the society.

Reply
Chunjie Shan
12/12/2019 01:54:53 am

I agree that this kind of marketing is “single-minded” marketing because it can create the stakeholders’ value, but it cannot uphold societal values. This kind of marketing is a kind of deception. For companies and organizations, virtual influencers can help promote their products. However, for consumers, it is really difficult to distinguish whether the influencers are human. In fact, the customer is a state of being deceived. I've heard of virtual influencers, as a customer, I will not buy from virtual endorsement by product, because I can't get from them the real experience for the product, although this is for a company is bad, but I think it is necessary to let the customer know influencer is true or not.

Reply
ai generated faces link
1/16/2023 05:36:19 am

Thanks for your post.
Unreal Person is a AI image generator that is trained on billions of human faces to generate a brand new face that does not exist.
The faces are the result of AI generated images, thus you can make sure that this person does not exist.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

    David Hagenbuch,
    founder of
    Mindful Marketing    & author of Honorable Influence

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    + Decency
    + Fairness
    Honesty7883a9b09e
    * Mindful
    Mindless33703c5669
    > Place
    Price5d70aa2269
    > Product
    Promotion37eb4ea826
    Respect170bbeec51
    Simple Minded
    Single Minded2c3169a786
    + Stewardship

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly