I think the line can be unambiguously drawn at whether or not the celebrity is receiving money as payment to post something. In the example you've described, things posted before the band had a deal with Ernie Ball don't need the endorsement line, while things posted as part of the contract do.

The point here is to give people true information to make an educated buying decision. People can look back and see that you used Ernie Ball strings when it wasn't part of a contract. And now that you have a contract with Ernie Ball, they can make an educated decision whether they believe that you're still using the product because you like it or whether you are just using it now because you are paid to.

This creates an incentive for companies to create a good product that people will promote on their own, rather than creating a bad product and paying people to promote it.

there is still some ambiguity over whether all these kinds of contracts need to be revealed to the public. If nike pays a basketball player to only wear nike shoes but never asks him to speak or post anything about nike does he have to reveal that contract or what if he does not receive any money nike just starts sending free shoes to basketball players with no strings attached should they have to reveal they are only wearing the shoes because they got them for free? what about if a youtuber just receives free stuff to review? do they have to reveal that they received the items for free?

To answer that with a question, what taxes will each party declare? Is it a gift with no string attached, or a trade of goods for services? When it comes to taxes, this kind of distinction is often very important.

The Swedish tax authority has several documents on how they judge such cases, and in general, a company doing this is unlikely to be seen as a "no strings attached" gift. If it comes from an advertisement budget, someone somewhere is expecting a return on investment.

Just wanted to note that you addressed this first and I hope that I added a little something to your point with my response. You touched on a very relevant point.

So I think you might benefit from a bit of commercial business dealings that offer context: The NFL has an exclusive contract with Nike. A player, Robert Griffin III, signed an independent endorsement with Adidas. That means to do his job, RGIII could only wear Nike branded shoes on the field. He protested by taping over the Nike logo when he was out on the practice field, as a point of principle.

The league - his employer - reminded him of the conditions of his employment. There was nothing preventing him from wearing Adidas from HEAD TO TOE as long as it wasn't in a direct situation sponsored by his employer. Thus, he actually had TWO sponsorships in some terms.

He wanted to wear his Adidas on the field, but was not allowed, even though it was completely above the board. So, where do you draw the line? Can your employer tell you what brand of clothing to wear? If he got the shoes for free, should RGIII be allowed to undermine the other contract?

My perspective is that the line of reasoning you present is inherently flawed. Are you not aware that Nike essentially got its foothold (pun intended) by giving away shoes to college basketball programs and people who probably couldn't afford to buy them? It was covered in an ESPN 30 for 30 so there's the citation.

From your context it sounds like you believe - maybe it's my interpretation - that things given to celebrities for free are "no strings attached" and I think that's been proven wrong time and again. Contracts, handshake deals, they don't work that way. There's either an explicit (preferred) or implied (bad) debt to be paid. It takes time to learn how these systems work, and woe to those who might minimize their practical implementations.

Oh, and a Youtuber who receives free stuff better disclose it, because if they're in the US, then they have the IRS to deal with. The IRS doesn't screw around with compensation. Dollars or donuts, keep the receipts[1]!

[1] Excluding Mitch Hedberg, who accurately pointed out a donut in regular guy life does not need a receipt.

I think in both cases, yes, they should reveal that they got the stuff for free.

I don't really see any ambiguity here. Just ask, "Would I want to know about this if the celebrity's actions were a factor in my purchase?"

That has been established as a point of good etiquette, at least, in the case of reviewers.

Very good questions and I like what you're sorting out, implication wise! I think in the first scenario, yes, every photo I take myself and post to my own accounts should have a small caption or watermark that lists my sponsors. Ernie Ball, the Guitar brand, whatever - I think it's genuinely a point of pride to be endorsed, and it's a goal for a lot of serious players. Getting a band or player's name on the back of a pack of Ernie Ball strings, to me, would be an achievement I would proudly acknowledge.

The second scenario is one that again I'd draw the line at my own accounts. If I like the brand and they give them to me for free, then I'll disclose it because, well, it's a sponsorship by them. The "would've bought it anyway" kind of feels like a rationalization to me. A lot of things I like I can't afford, so posturing it as such wouldn't be honest in my book.

I think an analogy might be like how NASCAR drivers have a ton of sponsor patches on their racing uniforms.

So, Jeff Gordon for instance - if he makes an IG post where he's changing the oil in his personal car, not wearing his racing outfit, but acting like "Just a normal dude like you!" and prominently holding a quart of Valvoline, I think that should get a tag because it's a grey area. Not everybody knows his race team and his career is sponsored by Valvoline, but if he shows that his sponsorship extends to his "personal life" then yeah, put the tag on there.

I'll definitely agree that the imperfect system / blurry distinctions take some discussion, but I'm glad to have a chance to hash this kind of logic out.

This falls under not taking 'free' stuff. If you want to be a paid spokesman fine, just admit that's what your doing even when you are just accepting stuff.

Having a company rule where staff can't accept free lunches from other companies is surprisingly valuable. 'Free' things are often really expensive.

Hm. I feel like you should always disclose paid endorsements, even for things you would have endorsed for free. My favorite gaming news site, Rock Paper Shotgun, typically has a disclosure line if the writer knows or has worked with the game creator, even if they would have reviewed and enjoyed the game regardless. Even an honest reviewer can be unconsciously swayed--that's why "free stuff" for reviewers (food, event tickets, crazy press events) is such an ethics issue.

I think you have made it pretty clear. In scenario one, the second you take money from a brand you are promoting, it becomes an endorsement and you should let your audience know. in scenario two, if you use the guitars for free, cool, but if you switch because of an monetary agreement or somewhere down the road you are paid then it is an endorsement.