In other words, an advertiser who greases the palms of bloggers to fabricate "spontaneous" Internet buzz for his product or service can't pretend that he's not advertising. Blogs that promote products "are consumer endorsements. To the extent they're paid for, they come under jurisdiction of FTC," Richard Cleland, assistant director of the FTC's Division of Advertising Practices told me in a recent interview.
I would type more, but M&Ms are falling out of my mouth and onto the keyboard, making it difficult. You should go buy some. They are delicious.
"Is that blogger review really a paid ad? The FTC wants you to know." [Consumer Reports Money & Shopping]
(Photo: Lin Pernille ? Photography)
The courts have regularly ruled that while free speech is sacred, government is allowed to restrict it for the common good.
Examples: Klan rallies not being allowed to be held during Black Panther rallies, i.e. permits needed. This would be an example of a regulation of a public forum. Yelling fire in a crowded theater to cause alarm. This would be an example where free speech is denied in the interest of the common good.
Slander and libel are two more restrictions on free speech, because they damage someone other than the speaker.
Add to the list: Getting paid to lie your ass off on a blog without disclosing it. There's a host of legal precedent to rationalize it.
Get over it.
]]>This is a dumb law. Even if it passes nobody will follow it and it will be business as usual. Bloggers that are constantly advertising lose credibility and nobody reads them anymore. I don't see this as such a big problem that we need to be worrying about it with yet more laws.
Pretty soon you'll need to have a business license to have advertising on your blog. You'll need to file taxes monthly, etc.
Oh I know - I'll just host my blog outside of the U.S.!
]]>@Guvmint_Cheese: So what if the FTC forced the companies to require full disclosure in their pay-for-shill agreements? Would that be acceptable?
Further, I don't see how this limits free speech at all. You can be as honest or as scummy as you want, you can lie through your teeth, you can sing the praises of the Pinto for all the FTC cares - you just can't get paid for it.
]]>In this case, sites such as Gizmodo would have to say "the reiceved this free unit from XXX for review and blah blah blah. Most of the time they don't really tell you how they get their gear, now we will know. Its really that simple.
]]>Newspapers (at least the reputable ones) don't take payments from businesses, but it's not because of any government regulations. It's because their credibility is on the line.
Similarly, if a blogger were pimping for a company the word would get out pretty quickly. If a review is known to be bought and paid for it's of little value to a business.
I abhor those who would sell out like this. But I abhor even more the idea of the government telling any publication or individual what they can, or cannot, publish.
]]>I generally think this makes sense as I do a lot of my product research on-line and it is sometimes hard to figure if a review is coming from someone who got a fee product or compensation.
I have no problem with buzz marketing but I want to know if the buzzer received freee honey.
]]>There are two relevant questions here:
Are blogs public forums? Yes
Is the FTC regulating the content of the speech on a blog? Yes
Game over.
]]>That said, I think that requiring bloggers to say whether they've been compensated to endorse a product is unenforceable at best, HOWEVER it makes good common sense for bloggers to discuss their compensation in their review or have a notification on their site.
A product review site should say that they only review products that are provided by the manufacturer for testing and that they do keep the products when they're done, for example.
The big problem with trying to regulate opinions is that they're opinions, everyone has one and everyone is wrong.
If a site is making bogus factual claims like saying that Pepsi cured his Herpes, then we can talk lawsuits, but if a review site for soda said that Pepsi tasted better than Coke, would Coke stop making their product? I'm sure people who like Coke would continue drinking it.
My bottom line: it's something that should be done, but it's also something that would be too costly and difficult to enforce.
]]>Voting citizen wants politicians and government agencies to reveal when they are being compensated to promote an agenda or study.
]]>I mean... it's odd to find anything that almost everyone agrees is the best you can get. :\
]]>Blogs DO NOT have a fiduciary duty to readers. Read that again and let it sink in. Personal blogs are writers expressing themselves, and they can do it in any manner they wish. They also can receive compensation for it if they want, and it's not any business of yours.
As for where I draw the line? If it's a company's website, of the company directly selling the product, then full disclosure. Anywhere else, fair game.
]]>Does anyone see this as a response to the FAKE blogs spamming up the blogosphere for the "as seen on Oprah and Rachael Ray" acai and whatever else they're trying to get people to buy? I don't see this as censorship or government control of blogs at all, but rather as a way to protect consumers from fradulent claims.
]]>The Federal Government doesn't have the right to police cars or speeding limits, you are correct and they don't, so I don't see what your point is?
They don't have the right to regulate tv and I think they are doing a bad job at that as well. I think the market would do a much better job.
Look at the internet, fairly unregulated up until now, look how great it is and look what it is turning to.
]]>If you run right out and purchase something just because you read a thinly veiled blog post about the product where the blogger mentioned it by name 14 times, that sounds like a common sense problem.
BTW, forget M&M's brand chocolate candies manufactured by M&M Mars, Inc. and available at your local grocer and try W&W's, made by CheapChoklit, Inc., 451 West Alameda Street, Miama, FL 07346. W&W's are much better because I said so on the Internet, so it must be true.
]]>@Guvmint_Cheese: So basically what you are saying is it would be OK for me to write the my opinion about a product saying that the product was garbage on my blog, but for a small fee of say $10,000 from the company I would remove the negative comments and post glowing comments about the product misleading all consumers who came to my site? In the same respect, all of the paid shill reviews on Amazon would be OK as well right?
Bloggers are not the same as journalists? What about sites like Consumerist, Gizmodo, or Huffington Post. These are all blogging sites, but are or are becomng mainstream. What about the NY Times or Washington Post Blogs? Where do you draw the line?
]]>Also, we'll end up paying for this, the US Gov't will go out and put $1billion dollars to enforce this? Where will this money come? Out of your paycheck into a bureacratic hole that will never come back.
/end rant
]]>@Guvmint_Cheese: Let the folks here at Consumerist take kickbacks for covering merchandise and watch the huge uproar.
]]>@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: There are a couple of blogs that I am aware of that used to be against a particular product, almost on the verge of being a hate site for that product/company, then all of a sudden the blogger suddenly LOVED the product. While I don't know for sure, it would seem that there was an exchange of money that took place to encourage the blogger to produce positive content.
]]>This is assuming that all blogs and the entire Internet are US based and subject to US laws.
]]>@Guvmint_Cheese:
As soon as a person accepts money for advertising they become part of the company and should disclose.
Ah, dreams...
]]>@Trey Mahaffey: Around here it's all weight loss products. If the DJ really lost 10 lbs from each weight loss product he shilled, he'd have converted entirely to energy by now.
]]>But instead Mr. Walters would rather use the guns of the government to shape the world how he wants it to be instead of trying to use persuasion. Sorry I'm not buying what you're selling, using violence to solve social problems never works and never will.
]]>There is _nothing_ wrong in reviewing a product at the request of a company, who may or may not pay for it, as long as the reviewer says so.
Unfortunately, not everyone is that forthcoming, and again, unfortunately, there are lots of gullible people out there, who do not know better.
]]>Now if the government wants to require companies to disclose who they pay to advertise, I would have less of a problem with that. So people who want to find out who is getting paid by companies could still find out if they were so inclined. But I don't want the government telling any blog what they have to write.
]]>@Guvmint_Cheese:
Here is where your Free Speech comes from:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Free speech is meant to protect you from being silenced or arrested or jailed by a governmental agency for having different opinions.
It is not a right that says it is legal and ethical to let whatever sounds you want to make spill out of your mouth or words to spill out of your computer to fool or lie or manipulate other people.
If you read the last sentence: "... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," you will see where people who are wronged by your brand of free speech can petition the government for some type of protection from you.
]]>@theblackdog: Be an expert in the filed, with a wide audiance of people who give a crab about what you say. Its really that easy.
]]>@MostlyHarmless: Rules are in place so you have a right to punish people for doing what society deems wrong.
I dont think the FTC has the right to tell me I need to put something on my blog. I do it becasue its in the best interest of my readers and in the agreement with my sponsors.If I didnt do it, I couldnt write the reviews and I wouldnt get paid (which isnt a big deal since I dont write reviews anymore anyway, not paid ones atleast)
]]>There's a difference between a personal blog and site like Consumer Reports. If you want to be a serious, credible blog or website, you must have full disclosure. Sir eccle's post ([consumerist.com]) explains this perfectly.
You really don't understand what censorship means if you believe that's what involved here. Let me help you with that:
"Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor." [en.wikipedia.org]
Explain how anything in this article fits that definition at all.
]]>Not high minded enough not to plug it here though
]]>Winston Churchill used to practice for hours to make a ""spontaneous"" five minute speech.
]]>If I'm being paid by XYZ company, and I tell my friend that I like XYZ company's product, I don't have to tell him that they pay me. Writing it on my personal blog is no different. He doesn't have to listen to my advice, and you don't have to read it.
]]>@Gokuhouse:
"We do not need the internet regulated in that manner."
In what manner should the internet be regulated? Consistent pricing from ISP's? Consistent and stable infrastructure to make sure my connection stays on and fast when I want it on and fast? Hidden charges that appear on my credit card statement because I accidentally followed a link?
"They" have tried with regulating porn but there is a pesky "Free Speech" issue that kept coming up.
They are trying to regulate advertisers who at times happen to engage in advertising on the internet.
]]>Free speech means the right to speak your thoughts, no matter how retarded or appalling.
This here is what comes under "full disclosure". Free speech does not cover lying through your teeth to influence other peoples opinions.
]]>Even if you ignore the whole "play the journo" angle, it is just the ethical thing to do. Humans however have displayed a tendency to often do what they themselves think is wrong unless they are restrained by the overall agreement of the collective.
]]>It is censorship if the company pays the blogger to stfu about the negative features of a product.
This is full disclosure. Kind of the opposite of censorship, if you will. (Though not exactly, because it is not even related to censorship.)
]]>TV shows and movies do feature product placement as ads. Which is cool enough, and i couldnt care less.
What this is about is when a blog reviews a product, and is paid by the product makers to do so. This again is not inherently bad, unless the company is paying you to give it a glowing review. Now an electronics maker might pay a tech blogger to give an honest assesment of the product... but how often do you see that happening? In either case, the reader should know if the blogger has been paid to say something or not, and depending on the trust the reader puts on the blogger, he may or may not think that the review was tainted.
Which is different from how they are featured in the movies. People don't make decisions based on how things are shown in a movie. Atleast the sane ones dont.
]]>How about not relying on just one or two reviews of a product? I'm not sure how it would be enforced either. We see what sheep we are by buying products based on the paid opinions in TV and radio ads. We gotta have that car since it attracts that model! That guy in the white lab coat isn't a real doctor in that ad?!
]]>If bloggers want to play at journalist and be taken seriously they need to follow the same rules that proper journalist are meant to be following.
]]>@I Love New Jersey: This is not censorship.
]]>@alexawesome: Yes it is. And yet we continue to react to it every time it happens. You'd figure that we'd just let it go by now. :P
]]>@jamesdenver: Me too! I would love knowing when a flog is a flog, but if the flog is cleverly disguised enough, how will anyone ever know?
]]>@Quilt: thats a little differnt. What this refers to is sites like engadget, who get sent things to review having to disclose they were given the product to test, or small blogs like mine discosloing we were paid to review a service as opposed to consumer reports which goes out and buys the product and tests it. There is potential for bias when being paid to revew something.
]]>Most of the agencies that sell the sponsred ad's for these companies DO require you lable the post as paid for or sponsored content (I had written sponsored reviews before...not all of which have been good for the product)
Basically, the way it works for most products is you sign up at one of the many sites that do this, bid on products to review, then right a review and submit it, sometimes the sponsor can decline the review (and still pay you) other times you just post it and get paid.
]]>@nybiker: I buy advertising for a living but I agree whole-heartedly about advertising on the front pages of newspapers. It's wrong and confusing and, quite frankly, reeks of desperation (on the part of both parties). Personally, I would never want to buy advertising like that. While the placement is phenomenal, it just breeds contempt among those who know what you're doing and confusion among those who don't. Any business in it for the long term would be wise to stay away.
]]>Just wondering, but is product placement in tv shows and movies ok because they disclose it? I'm talking about the blatant stuff where it's in your face, as in the camera is practically zooming into the logo.
]]>@nybiker: Let's also remember that when you watch the local news, the 'health' segment on the latest new drug and many other so called investigative stories are delivered, complete prepackaged, ready to air. These are referred to as Video News Releases (VNRs) and are almost never disclosed. [www.prwatch.org]
]]>@tomok97: You are correct about an ad is an ad. But see the recent story in the L.A. Times where they had a 'news story' on the front page, even though there was an 'advertisement' heading above it. People were upset about the fact that the item was an ad where there used to be news. The level of disguisement seemed to be just below the level where you could _cleary_ notice the difference. Not everyone is a typeface expert and not everyone noticed the single word headline about it being an ad.
]]>And I'm hoping that product I'll be asked to promote involves oral sex of some kind.
]]>@Darrone: I wouldn't think so. If it's clearly an advertisement then...well...it's clearly an advertisement. It would seem that they're more concerned with ads desguised as independent reviews.
]]>@AirIntake: Are you serious?
]]>How exactly are they going to enforce action against those who ignore it?
I agree with the principal - but just curious.
]]>This seems reasonable. You see this sort of thing fairly often on television. A morning news broadcast reviews, say, a movie. If you pay attention you'll notice that normally they mention their station and the movie production company are both subsiduaries of Viacom (or whatever conglomerate). This seems to hold true for other products as well.
Though I'm sure there are hordes of examples that show this isn't a concept prevelant across all media.
]]>So if LG is just buying ads, I'd think Gizmodo could just move on as usual, but if LG SPONSORED something (or was the largest ad buyer by a LOT), Gizmodo would be wise to say something like "(Full disclosure -- LG sponsored our big giveaway earlier this year)" or whatever.
But what this is really getting at is where the actual editorial content of a blog is pimping the product WITHIN THE EDITORIAL AREA and the company has provided money or product SPECIFICALLY TO THAT END. Buying ads is different than seeking active product-pimping.
And product pimping isn't necessarily a bad thing -- lots of companies send out samples to mainstream news and to new media so the people can try them out and hopefully share with their readers. But you have GOT to say where it came from.
When mainstream media reviewed the first iPhone, all their articles said, "Apple provided us with an iPhone to play around with and review." Some new media outlets didn't; they just took the free swag and extolled its awesomeness without telling readers the company was giving them free stuff.
]]>Although both should be disclosed.
]]>