Fashion

[TY]

Would you recognize that a magazine cover was in fact a paid advertisement? I don't think I would just by looking at the cover but that's what in fact is happening with a bunch of Conde Nast November magazine covers. The cover photos were all taken by the new Google Pixel 3 phone's camera and the covers are all Google ads. I've seen some of these magazines at the news stands but I didn't know that the covers were advertisements aka paid or sponsored Google ads. I guess I would only know that if I read inside the magazines.

From the Fashion Law website, their take on the FTC disclosure or non disclosure requirements of paid content and sponsored ads:

http://www.thefashionlaw.com/home/recent-w-magazine-gq-glamour-allure-covers-were-google-ads-in-disg...

[Nonametoday]

---

@TY wrote:

Would you recognize that a magazine cover was in fact a paid advertisement? I don't think I would just by looking at the cover but that's what in fact is happening with a bunch of Conde Nast November magazine covers. The cover photos were all taken by the new Google Pixel 3 phone's camera and the covers are all Google ads. I've seen some of these magazines at the news stands but I didn't know that the covers were advertisements aka paid or sponsored Google ads. I guess I would only know that if I read inside the magazines.

From the Fashion Law website, their take on the FTC disclosure or non disclosure requirements of paid content and sponsored ads:

http://www.thefashionlaw.com/home/recent-w-magazine-gq-glamour-allure-covers-were-google-ads-in-disg...

---

I no longer subscribe to any of this propaganda anyway so I have not seen it and after peeking in at your link, don't care for it anyway.  I think with the internet nowadays, these magazines are becoming caricatures of themselves.