Slashdot Mirror
FTC States Bloggers Must Disclose Paid Reviews
An anonymous reader writes to tell us that in the first revision of how endorsements and testimonials work since 1980, bloggers will now be required by the FTC to clearly disclose freebies or payments they received for product reviews. "the commission stopped short Monday of specifying how bloggers must disclose any conflicts of interest. The FTC said its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final guidelines, which had been expected. Penalties include up to $11,000 in fines per violation. The rules take effect Dec. 1."
Um, it's FTC not FCC...big difference.
The new FTC rules aren't exclusive to bloggers. They cover celebrities, too. You can read the proposed rule changes on the FTC's site here: http://www2.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm and in detail here: http://www2.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005endorsementguidesfnnotice.pdf . Saying "results not typical" won't make it legal any more. Also, ads will need to disclose sponsored "independent research," e.g. "we paid this doctor $10k to help us sell this garbage." Finally, maybe Slashdot stories could include links to the primary source?
Doing this brings blogs into alignment with a lot of media paid advertising. No one should worry (or be elated) about the end of these things because even with the "This program is a paid advertisement of XYZ Co..." there are just as many infomercials floating around than there always was.
Advertising isn't necessarily wrong (not necessarily right either but that is another thread). It is when advertising presents itself as something other than advertising that is a problem.
Last I checked, most places won't extradite you for things that aren't crimes in their legal code, especially when you did the deed in that country in the first place.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
This isn't about the FCC (Federal Communications Commission). It's about the Federal Trade Commission--the FTC.
A blogger is one thing and an advertiser is another. Getting paid in exchange for publishing advertising copy is definitely something that is (and should be regulated).
The actual FTC guidelines (Section V) don't use the word 'blog' in the guideline itself. Instead, they talk about 'endorsements' and define them like this:
(b) For purposes of this part, an endorsement means any advertising message (including
verbal statements, demonstrations, or depictions of the name, signature, likeness or other
identifying personal characteristics of an individual or the name or seal of an organization) that
consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experiences of a party
other than the sponsoring advertiser, even if the views expressed by that party are identical to
those of the sponsoring advertiser. The party whose opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience
the message appears to reflect will be called the endorser and may be an individual, group, or
institution.
They give a bunch of specific examples (which do mention blogs), including one of astroturfing which implies this applies to appstore, amazon reviews (which would be nice). It does seem as if they mean things like twitter should be covered. There's also a bunch of circumstances they describe where you don't have to mention your affiliation, eg if you're a sports star with a clothing contract and always wear that brand off the field as well as on, or if you appear in a clearly-labelled advertisment giving a testimonial and are only paid for the ad - its a different if you have a financial interest in the product.
So many blogs and websites are nothing but shills for publishers and vendors and don't disclose it. This should stop unethical companies like Sony sending out their paid astroturfers and viral marketers without it being disclosed.
I also wonder how sites like MMORPG will survive when they have to disclose payments from publishers (like SOE) along with fluff pieces and "interviews" about them.
Corporatism != Free Market
FCC =/= FTC.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
That's not the point... It's NOT about reviewers. It;s about all the paid trolls kiving items 5 star reviews because they were paid to, so other people thing its a good product and buy it.
Blog and Blogger do not require a definition. Simply, ANY statement of endorsement in print, media, or on the web, where ANY form of payment, discount, freebie, etc was given, with or without a request for a favorablke posting, requires disclosure.
Also, since the penalty is not necessarily on the blogger, but on the company they're blogging on behalf of (if we can find the blogger, they get punbished too), the companies themselves will be seeking a bit more documentation to ensure anyone given a freebe, and especially paid endorsements, are explicity told they have to disclaim so. Companies that have the product wonp;t want negative FTC attention because people are illegally posting reviews of their stuff...
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
If Slap-Chop Manufacturing And Brain Surgeries Inc. gives you stuff in exchange for your endorsement of Slap-Chop, then you're affected. If they don't, you are not. Does it get any simpler than that?
Because you're being paranoid and delusional.
The FTC was totally out to lunch during the Bush years, especially on false advertising. Looks like they're back.
A few more things they have to catch up on:
I would rather see people educated instead of regulated.
Right. That's what this is. The changes are requiring the ads to *educate* the consumers regarding the strings attached to "endorsements". It's a really good thing, that will make it a little bit harder to lie or mislead people. Seriously, nobody is trying to take away your free speech or say that you can't endorse things all that you want. This is just about increasing the amount of truth in advertising.
It's not the free copies of books/movies/whatever that are troubling (to me). It's the strong correlation between positive reviews and lucrative advertising contracts on some sites that I find deceptive. That's the part that should be disclosed.
But that sort of activity is difficult to regulate against without banning product ads on the sites that review those same products.
That etymology is very questionable. See http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-swe1.htm http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20010214
Lemmings don't commit suicide.
Making the world a brighter place, one myth at a time.
No offence.
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger