Discussions
FTC To Prosecute Bloggers?
Posted by bloggerinstitute • 6/23/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: blogging, blogs, ftc, make money
lol, has anybody come across this yet? The Federal Trade Commission is attempting to get a regulation passed that will allow them to come after bloggers who falsely claim a review on a product they've never used or those that don't disclose they are being paid.
I'm sorry...don't they have better things to do!?
I mean...I'm really sure all those people on infomercials always use the product...
Little more detail on the situation and when we can expect it if it does happen.
www.bloggerinstitute.com/2009/06/ftc-going-after-bloggers/
User Comments
-
If they're on an informercial, you know that they are being paid or have some other relationship with the company. I think this is a total overreaction, but I do like the idea of requiring people to note that they are being paid to review a product or to at least have used it before they do so.-
When it's a government agency, we call it 'transparency,' I think.
Me? I don't see a problem with being open about my connection with a product, site, or service. But then, I haven't been making money touting the virtues of Phlegomatic Throat Cleanser and Drain Cleaner.
Good point, BTW.
-
-
People "reviewing" products on blogs is a huge scam, but theFTC shouldn't get involved. -
ya it's pretty lame to talk about products you have never tried, but making it criminal is just idiotic -
Yeah, I've read the AP writeup - and did a micro-review ( apatheticlemming.blogspot.com/2009/10/american-government-to-regulate.html ). It'd be possible to make a headline like "AMERICAN GOVERNMENT TO SILENCE BLOGGERS!" - but from what the AP says, it's a rather dull matter of making rules to handle the new information media.
I'm reminded of the 'Payola Scandal' back around 1960.
As for "the FTC shouldn't get involved." Maybe so. But since the United States does have an agency that handles interstate commerce and marketing - and blogs are 'interstate' as well as global in their audience - blogs fall under the FTC's mandate as much as infomercials and traditional television ads do.
Whether or not there should be a government agency making rules about what people are told about cigarettes, guns, beer, fishing equipment, and headache cures is a whole different topic.
As is whether there should be government agencies at all - or a government, for that matter. (dcarroll - I'm not making any assumptions at all about your views. On the other hand, you raised some interesting points.) -
I really don't review products but I would think a small disclaimer at the bottom of the post would circumvent the situation.-
True enough.
-
-
I review products on a blog and i dont get paid nor do I do it for the company. I do it to show off obscure red neck food products we use in the south and that I like.-
There you go: sounds like a good blog, BTW.
-
-
I trust consumer reviews on products more than I do "expert" reviews. Pretty stupid thing to consider by the FTC if you ask me.-
Stupid, maybe.
On the other hand, I remember the 'good old days,' when marketing for the sponsor's product was integral with a television show's content.
You'd have characters or personalities on the show saying things like, "isn't that Fairly Fickle aftershave you're wearing, Bob?" Sometimes it was clever - even entertaining - but it could be difficult to sort out what 'Bob' was paid to say, and what he actually believed.
The situation was more serious, I think, where the host of a children's program was hawking products.
The actual impact of the FTC's requirements, as far as I can tell, is minimal: just another point to remember when writing, like putting a period at the end of a sentence.
-
-
This is a big thing among the 'mom-blogger' set -- many writing blogs have companion product review sites as a way to 'pay the bills'.
I understand the FTC's point, and there is an important distinction between reviewing a product with integrity (talking honestly about the good and bad) and being a paid promoter. IMO, disclosure is a good thing, and the FTC rules can be easily implemented by corporations keeping a public list of bloggers who've agreed to accept free products or compensation and allowing bloggers to simply link to the list and some basic boilerplate disclosure language.
More important than the legal CYA, though, is bloggers adopting some professional standards and writing responsible reviews.
As for me, I rarely mention products, and if I do, it is only when it relates to something else I'm writing about. Even then, it is never compensated. -
I've read that this new rule even applies to book reviewers being required to reveal that they got a free review copy. It seems laughable to me, honestly. In my experience it is difficult to even Give Away the review copies (send me a shout if you want one and are willing to pay postage, I've a collection of them gathering dust) and anyone who has read my site already knows that just because I got a review copy does Not mean I won't pan the book if I don't like it.-
Laughable, maybe - but easy enough to work into a review. Particularly if the tone is informal.
Something like "the copy of "Kidnapped by Space Alien Illuminati Elvis-Impersonator Masons" that Relevant Press gave me is one of the most valuable books I've read this year. It's just the right size to hold my window open."
Hey, that title might be marketable!
Seriously? I think this is a note-and-file move by the FTC. From the AP story, I gather that it's pretty much the same sort of thing television advertisers have dealt with for the last several decades.
It's a little extra work with each post for reviewers - but doesn't seem all that taxing. Sorry, that just slipped out. -
one more thing to consider, I suppose. on my about page I already explain that I accept review copies and that I neither guarantee a review nor guarantee that the review will be positive if I decide to post one. incorporating the fact that the book I am reviewing came from a publicist rather than the library should not indeed be too taxing. but the idea that I have a financial interest because I didn't pay for the book really is laughable (as anyone reviewing my bank statements would clearly see)
-
Alan, that's true for books, but it would become quite complicated to draw lines as to which products required that kind of disclosure and which did not. Perhaps a free book isn't going to compromise your impartiality (though I suppose for some it might, if they wanted to keep them coming), but what about a digital camera? A laptop? A snowmobile? Where is the magical line at which it becomes significant enough to require disclosure?
-
-
The FTC is considering new guidelines for bloggers who review products.
"Almost 30 years after the Federal Trade Commission last updated its guidelines for marketers and advertisers, the agency is looking at revising the guidelines so that bloggers and others who promote or review products follow the laws governing truth in advertising."
More info. at www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/04/23/ftc-pondering-new-guidelines-for-bloggers...
IMHO this is all about disclosure and bloggers who do post a disclosure policy statement on their blogs will not have any problems.
What is disclosure?
The act of making something obvious. Disclosing (divulging or explaining), the purpose and interests of a blogger in his/her published posts: written, audio or video.
Why is it important in blogging?
Because advertisers are offering bloggers payment or gifts to create content about specific products or services, the blogger's interest in the product or service may be in part the financial gain. Whether the blogger would have included content in his/her blog about the product or service without gift or payment, the fact is the blogger is receiving payment for certain content.
Why disclose?
By disclosing the purpose of a blog, bloggers are letting readers know more about the information they'll be reviewing. Bloggers retain the freedom to write original content, as well as select which advertisers they will represent in exchange for gifts or money. Any ethical concerns will remain where they've always been - on the individual level. Because it is a blogger's freedom to select which topics will bring them payment, he/she remains responsible for his/her own reputation.
One can draft and generate their own disclosure policy statement free of charge here disclosurepolicy.org/
See my comment made 12 days ago
Q: Do you think is okay to pay for bloggers write blog posts about your products?
Answer: I do not market my products/services on the internet and never will.
Q: What do you think of bloggers who make money that way?
Answer: I expect them to post a disclaimer and accurately reveal whether or not they are being paid in cash or in kind for any product/service reviews they publish.
If I discover they are doing so "undercover" by not posting a disclaimer I will never visit their blog again, and I will tell every internet friend I have that the blogger in question is being paid even though they have no disclaimer posted.
Q: Do you believe should have some rules or regulation about it?
Answer: Provided there is a body that is authorized to make such rules and regulations and is also capable of enforcing them, my answer is "yes".
I know that the Federal Trade Commission is currently reviewing the issue to determine of bloggers who review products for pay are in violation of good business practices. The main concern is “transparency” ie. bloggers clearly declaring their relationship with their sponsors, and disclosing to readers that you were compensated for your review because you are in receipt of a free product in exchange for your testimonial, or you were paid in cash or kind, or you received some other kind of benefit.
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/do-you-think-its-okay-pay-or-be-paid-for-...-
I don't think that's a bad thing.
-
Neither do I. I believe in total transparency and support the FTA's action to revise the guidelines so that bloggers and others who promote or review products and services follow the laws governing truth in advertising. Furthermore, I cannot imagine any grounds for any blogger protesting this action by the FTA.
Without doubt, I want to know when a blogger reviewing anything (product or service) has been paid to do so in cash or in kind, or has received some other kind of benefit in return for the review. -
Sorry - placement issues.
I'll try again. -
Good points all around.
From a professional point of view, this FTC action is something I need to take note of. But I don't see it as a problem - or a threat. It's not that I unconditionally 'trust the government.' But this move by the FTC is well withing its sphere of interest, and seems to be little more than an extension of long-established policies in other mass media. -
Agreed, so why the fuss?
-
Agreed and ditto to above ...
It's just guidelines .. what's wrong with the idea of NOT Cheating people? Seems fair and I'm a fan of (at least partial) disclosure (meaning worth mentioning this on a "policy" page, not after every instance or statement you make) -
timethief
"Agreed, so why the fuss?"
Well, there's the censorship issue, potentially. I really don't
Say what??? I wrote more than this - I'll try again. -
timethief
"Agreed, so why the fuss?"
Well, there's the censorship issue, potentially. I really don't see this FTC move as a foot-in-the-door for content control.
It'd be nice if "common sense" was followed by everyone - but that doesn't happen, in my experience.
For anyone who is not philosophically opposed to having a government, regulations (at all), or societal controls: I don't see a problem here. Apart from some bloggers (myself included) having one more thing to remember for some posts.
The idea of having legal disclaimers in an "about" section is pretty close to what I do. That way, the blogger gets the necessary work done once, and can move along. -
Well, there's the censorship issue ...
IMHO there is no censorship issue. The issue is transparency and truth in advertising and universal application of FTA regulations.
As for those, who maybe philosophically opposed to societal and/or government regulation, well IMHO they can't expect others to view their POV as a credible one, simply because there is nowhere on Earth, aside from Antarctica, where there is no society and no government.
The role of the FTA is to regulate advertising and that's what this regulation is aimed at accomplishing. -
In fact, it is censorship, but let's look beyond the knee-jerk emotional reaction to that word. It's exactly the same kind of censorship that's been in play for decades, in which it is unlawful for a company to pay someone to lie in order to sell a product. Why should commercial lies suddenly be protected because they're occurring on blogs?
-
I surrender and commend you for putting that so very well.
-
-
I don't understand the fuss or the objection. The FTC regulates advertising; false advertising is particularly frowned upon. Why would that be any different because it's occurring on a blog? The only reason that this "new" regulation is at issue is because blogs didn't exist when the current rules were promulgated and it's necessary to explicitly extend the same rules that apply to everyone else to new media.
-
I just hope this effort is effective in reducing the amount of spam blogs and not go overboard.-
why would requiring disclosure of paid advertising eliminate splogs???
-
I don't get the connection either.
-
It's not just about disclosures. There's also false advertising.
And from NYTimes:
...sites like Twitter and Facebook, as well as blogs, have offered companies new opportunities to pitch products with endorsements that carry a veneer of authenticity because they seem to be straight from the mouth — or keyboard — of an individual consumer. In some cases, companies have set up product review blogs that appear to be independent. One such case involved Urban Nutrition, a seller of supplements, that ran Web sites like WeKnowDiets. com and GoogleDiets. com. The National Advertising Review Council, which governs the industry’s self-regulatory programs, said the sites were “formatted as independent product-review blogs.”
If effective, the number of Facebook / Twitter spam and some splogs should go down. -
@KVNPark
Thanks for the response now I understand what you mean. -
A second major change, which was not aimed specifically at bloggers or social media, was to eliminate the ability of advertisers to gush about results that differ from what is typical — for instance, from a weight loss supplement.
This is what I was talking about also.
In the end, if advertisers were required to clearly disclose their affiliations and couldn't gush about results, the current form of blog and social network spamming will lose its effectiveness.
If it's not as effective anymore, less will use this method.
Not that I believe revised rules will significantly reduce them.
-
-
Most "idiotic" government policies have some good solid reasons behind them that ordinary law abiding people are unaware or less aware of
A lock however doesn't prevent theft, but it may stop you from entering your own home. That's the fallacy of many, many policies -
There's now another active thread on this. There's the link www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/ftcs-new-rules-for-bloggers-a-quick-guide
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
