Hey, there! Log in / Register
Just what we need: A federal blog czar
By adamg on Mon, 10/05/2009 - 1:39pm
CNet reports the Federal Trade Commission is proposing fines of up to $11,000 for bloggers who post reviews of stuff without mentioning they got it for free.
No word if magazines and newspapers that have been writing about free stuff they get from vendors without mentioning that fact for decades now will face the same level of scrutiny as mommy bloggers.
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Your kneejerk "heroic
Your kneejerk "heroic bloggers vs. evil old MSM" bias is bogus once again. The ruling is not about typical MSM free products for review. It is about receiving cash or in-kind payments in secret to write an endorsement--i.e., an ad. (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm) This does raise potential, significant free-speech issues worth discussing, and print media certainly has its sordid aspects. However, the majority of MSM have extensive policies against such things and those old-fashioned editors to enforce them. Bloggers already have a throughly sordid history, particularly because corporations can be the bloggers and write their own fake reviews. A deep discussion is worthwhile; your straw-man (or straw-mommy) comments are not.
Good point
On large companies.
But I'm not sure declaring "bloggers already have a thoroughly sordid history" when you're talking about large corporations doing nefarious things (such as planting fake reviews or astroturfing discussions, although that's not what the FTC seems to be going after) isn't equally lame.
Also, I'm not making a bloggers-vs-MSM case here, just stating some facts: If the FTC in fact is going to go after fake reviews (and if you read the CNet story, you'll see they also want to fine celebrities who go on Letterman and say nice things about their watch or car or whatever without mentioning they were paid to promote the things; hmm, wonder what that'll do to the pre-Oscar show) and their main criterion is that the people who wrote the fake reviews got freebies, well, let's be fair about it and acknowledge this is hardly a new issue or one unique to the blogosphere.
Adam: If you're going to
Adam:
If you're going to accuse someone of graft, name names. What reviewer is accepting free merchandise in exchange for a review? And give us the details! Is someone out there getting free iPhones? A 2K plasma TV? Back up your statement.
Yes, it's true that many newspaper and magazines borrow items for reviews. But it's also true they must return any item of significant value.
Not naming names because I don't think it was intentional graft
But, let's not kid ourselves: People did get free stuff because things would "fall off the back of the truck" after they were supposed to be returned to vendors. No, not plasma TVs or laptops, vendors were good about remembering stuff like that, but things whose value was more than trivial.
There's also the old travel-writing racket where writers would get an all-expenses paid trip somewhere in exchange for writing about the place. The best I ever did was a trip to Annapolis, paid for by the Navy (so, thanks, taxpayers), but I know folks who got trips to better places, such as Bermuda. That was awhile ago, though - do travel destinations still have budgets for stuff like that?
I suspect this is on par with what you're seeing in the blog world - people who may simply not know better writing about stuff they got for free. Can you cite bloggers who are on the take?
All Expense Paid Trip
I'm curious why the US Navy gave you an all expense trip to Annapolis. Were you being recruited to attend the US Naval Academy? Was the trip to promote tourism in the Annapolis area? If so, why wasn't the trip paid for by the Annapolis Board of Tourism?
The US Navy runs the US Naval Academy and whatever happens regarding how popular visiting the city of Annapolis is is more of a concern of the town fathers, not the US Navy.
Sorry, when I said Annapolis, I meant the Naval Academy
First, this was quite awhile ago - we flew out of the Weymouth Naval Air Station.
I actually went along with a 727's worth of Massachusetts teachers and guidance counselors (and the late John Robinson of the Globe). I suspect the main purpose was to try to convince them why they should try to convince their best students to apply to the academy. For me (and I'm thinking John), they arranged interviews with students from our circulation area.
According to today's Wall
According to today's Wall Street Journal, Christine Young of California, one of the people who runs ElevenMoms, receives free merchandise from Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and has been flown to special events by Frito Lay, Johnson & Johnson and other companies.
And a couple years ago, Microsoft sent $2K Acer ferrari 1000/500 notebook computers to bloggers, including Scott Beale. (Beale went beyond full disclosure -- he promised to auction off the laptop and give it to charity).
How many other bloggers receive free stuff and don't disclose it? Who knows?
But that's just it, Adam.
But that's just it, Adam. It's not a new issue at all. The new guidelines merely extend existing principles into an emerging sector.
What I find fascinating here is the FTC's effort to grapple with the amorphous position occupied by bloggers, and to slot them into a pre-existing category. It seems to have decided that a blogger - generally accountable to no one but herself, and writing in the first person - most resembles an endorser. That is, a blog is just another medium through which an individual can convey their opinion. And just as an endorser on television who has received payment-in-kind or -in-cash needs to disclose that fact, so too does a blogger.
What ignited the present controversy, as I understand, is the world of MommyBloggers. And it's a sector of the blogosphere replete with endorsement scandals and a wealth of real-life examples. Some of the blogs are immensely popular. They reach an audience eager for independent views of consumer goods, that's actively purchasing huge amounts of material for their little ones. And more than a few began to accept products, or actual payments, in return for writing about them - from savvy consumer companies that saw an inexpensive and effective way to market their goods. But some of the most prominent failed to disclose that this was happening. So there's a genuine problem here - it's not some random regulation promulgated to make our lives miserable.
And it's worth reading the whole document, Adam. It explicitly targets astroturfing corporations - it's just not what the media coverage has focused upon. I like that the guidelines target disclosure. That's appropriate. As long as everyone is upfront about what's going on, I don't see the harm of paid endorsements or free samples.
An interesting question: would these guidelines apply to journalistic blogs, as well as personal blogs? That is, if TalkingPointsMemo were to review the five best vacation destinations for Republican politicians, and both Buenos Ares and the Appalachian Trail Foundation were to provide its reporter with discounted stays, would it have to disclose that or face FTC sanction? My guess would be that if a blog or blogging organization could convince the FTC that it's more like a newspaper than a celebrity endorser, it would be exempt. But it's just a guess, and I wish they'd spelled that out explicitly.
Skunks of a stripe
Yeah, those immoral bloggers are nearly as bad as cyclists.
Oops, I'm both.
Bizarrely
The excellent term "straw-mommy" seems to have been coined on three different blogs in the past two months.
Must be swine flu or something.
Blogs can be regulated by
140 characters
Assuming that a Twitterer actually wants to comply with this, how is she going to fit the required disclosure into a tweet?
Simple answer
Post a standard disclaimer on the profile page - "Products I review and endorse may be provided to me free of charge by their manufacturers or by marketing agencies." Or, better yet, don't accept freebies.
We haven't even been able to require
These types of disclosures from doctors, but we're gonna require it from twitterers?
Doesn't state law bar
Doesn't state law bar doctors now from accepting such freebies?