Shill isn't a new term at all; according to Dictionary.com "one who acts as a decoy for a gambler, auctioneer, etc.," 1916, probably originally circus or carnival argot, probably a shortened form of shillaber (1913) with the same meaning, origin unknown. The verb is attested from 1914. Related: Shilled; shilling." I hadn't heard about them as associated with gamblers or auctioneers--I get that now that I think about it, auctioneers create an artificial sense of urgency--buy it now, make your bid or your will miss your chance. For gamblers and casinos, they do exactly the same thing as with other examples below: Shills were historically associated with circuses, with "carnies" and "freak shows" but was a tactic that had come into play much earlier, at least by the Victorian age. Shills have many tactics of their own, and are used in a lot of ways today, both for good and ill.
Shills aren't just used for propaganda or persuasion in the usual sense, they can be used as a way to misdirect (such as in magic shows--that assistant is lovely and waving her arms around for a reason--not just to hand the magician a hat or take their cape; or used in the more traditional sense: a planted member of the audience who later volunteers to participate in a trick). Or shills may be used to misdirect and deceive for nefarious reasons: scam artists, shoplifters, pickpockets, snake oil salesman all commonly use shills in their schemes.
A shill can be used to entice people into doing something (This is where their association with circuses, carnies and the old fashioned freak show came about, and it's a tactic that continues to be very effective. I imagine that they do the same for gambling and casinos) or trying something they may be initially reluctant or hesitant to do. A shill may be the first one to buy a ticket (often with exaggerated enthusiasm), or the first one to start clapping and cheering (encouraging others to do the same--be it entertainment or political rally). The social aspect of humans means people are much more likely to do something if someone else does it first--be it buy the first ticket or the first round, or even clapping and cheering for something that they don't even care about. A good shill can create a great deal of essentially artificial enthusiasm (or anger), for good or ill. They can create a feeling of good cheer and rapport ("I love you man"), or they can start riots ("Tear it up!").
As used here on IMDB, to up the rating or score for something--and as a propaganda tactic to lure people in as well as to (hopefully) increase their opinion about something. You could readily consider advertisers as shills. One tactic (over centuries) is false advertisement, as used for example, in the 1800s to encourage western migration to get ignorant (not in a bad way, but in a literal use of the term) pioneers to settle otherwise isolated, dreary and unproductive land. Another is the long standing snake oil--versions of which are quite common on the internet today, guaranteed to cure anything or everything.
A shill can also be a professional (paid) reviewer who praises or condemns a play, a restaurant, a movie or anything else for any kind of personal incentive--regardless of what their real personal opinion is. A shill can be a news reporter or a political analyst who strays from unbiased facts (and I'm being generous here) in order to promote a particular agenda. Often they are paid to do so, but they don't have to be. They could have some other vested interest in seeing something promoted and creating an artificially inflated opinion.
However, it's important to remember that not all shills are liars--they could use exactly the same tactics yet truly believe that whatever they are promoting is the very best thing since sliced bread. In this case the incentive is personal, they have a bias of their own which encourages them to push their own agenda which just so happens to align with someone or something else's interests. So, while advertisers pay actors to promote products, that actor may really, genuinely actually like whatever product they are promoting. Biased reviewers, reporters or politicians may in fact truly believe in whatever their latest project may be (regardless of any opposing facts). Or they may truly believe that the end justifies the means--so they believe in the end result and are willing to lie or exaggerate in order to push people towards whatever result they want-but again, their personal motives align with whatever they are hoping for in the end. Unfortunately anytime there is an outside incentive or a bias--be it money or a favor to someone else, or a personal motive, it clouds the truth of whatever they are saying or doing, so that it is always going to be suspect.
No matter what a "shill" is doing or doing it for, in a sense we are willing collaborators with them in order for it to work --it's important to keep that in mind. No one is forcing us to believe them or follow their example. Today it's easier than ever to check the facts, but it's also easier to fall into the fallacious belief that every time we're exposed to a rating or opinion that differs from ours to dismiss it as biased or planted by a "shill" who is artificially trying to influence a rating, a search engine, an algorithm, a political agenda, or whatever that might be. Is it or not? Not so easy to decide, given our very human tendency towards "confirmation bias". Just because someone rates something higher than anyone else, it doesn't mean that they have any other motive than a dissenting opinion. I often rate things higher than others, especially movies or shows that rate on the low end of the scale, simply because I'm able to overlook a lot of flaws and see the positive. That's my own bias showing. I am NOT one of those that will rate something as a 10 simply to counteract negative ratings. However, it does mean that if I rate something really low, it IS genuinely terrible. That said, I have NOT seen this movie (yet) so will not be rating it or providing my opinion until I do.
I hope this helps.
reply
share