When you read that Trump has spent more than $4.6 million on Facebook ads since December, you know that he and his campaign are up to no good, and, since it is Trump, you know that that no good involves a lot of lying BS.
Think Progress founder and editor Judd Legum has uncovered exactly what they are spending a good deal of that money on:
2. One of the demographics that Trump struggles with the most is young women.
An online ad being run on Facebook and Google features a young blonde woman named Tracey who is a HUGE Trump fan, apparently pic.twitter.com/pmK6M83Vhk
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) June 27, 2019
4. Yes, there is a disclaimer that says: "Actor portrayal. Actual testimonial." But it appears for a split second in an extremely tiny font
And there is nothing that suggests whoever made this testimonial is a young woman, which is clearly the point of this ad pic.twitter.com/IbSE6fRUfr
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) June 27, 2019
6. You don't think young hipsters like Trump? You obviously haven't met Thomas from Washington. Or as he's known on istockphoto "bearded and tatooed hipster coffee shop owner" pic.twitter.com/PVnwNt5tTU
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) June 27, 2019
7. What's happening online in the 2020 campaign is at least as important as what's happening elsewhere. Trump is spending millions on Facebook & Google each month. But it receives little scrutiny
For more, sign up for my newsletter, Popular Information at https://t.co/Gl6evXRDcZ
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) June 27, 2019
I’m not on Facebook myself, but if you are you might consider posting this diary or…
This article from Design Taxi or…
Even Judd’s tweets themselves in hopes that we can somewhat counter the phony crap Trumpco. is peddling.
One of Judd’s followers also has a good idea:
Track down each of the models they are using and find the ones opposed to Trump. Not hard.
Cut an ad series where models describe why they are opposed to Trump.
Call it “not my type”.
Surely a PAC could roll this out quickly.
— Bryan Campen (@bryancampen) June 27, 2019
Lies likes these are the aseptic ground in which Democracy is buried.
As someone who works in digital design and media, this is a commonly accepted practice. The concept is that you’re accurately portraying an idea – the feeling your customers get consuming your product, or a benefit of it, or whatever. In this case, that some young white women do support Trump.
In this case, assuming Tracey is a real endorsement, the ad team isn’t trying to be deceptive so much as cost effective. Assuming the real Tracey wanted to participate, it’d cost a couple thousand to send a photo team out to do the day shoot and then process the footage. You’d spend ten times as much and end up with lower quality footage. Instead they purchased a visual representation of Tracey, which is just the world we live in.
In my company we use stock all the time, but we do apply ethical guidelines. We try not to, for example, make racial misrepresentations. If this were a commercial product, I would not use stock of a black woman for Tracey if I knew she was white.
Of course, in a political ad you run the risk of bad optics. Nobody cares that my bank ad stock family doesn’t actually have the new checking accounts. Stock in political ads can make the candidate look dishonest, and a savvy opponent can indeed track down the model and run a counter ad making the other campaign look foolish. But stock assets are such a huge cost savings, I doubt they’re gong away.
The problem here is that the *whole FB campaign is a lie*. The people don’t exist, their “endorsements” don’t exist, and he’s *not* winning those demographic groups.
Exactly.
“Facebook needs a ‘Why you lying’ button”
Yes. Ans Facebook is not alone.