They are technically blogs though they post nothing new and the "comments" are more shills saying how the suggested thing is amazing. Does this count for those too?

Unlike a lot of the "professional" publications being mentioned up top, book bloggers with even a dozen hits a day can manage to score review copies. Heck, for all I know, book bloggers with no hits a day could probably manage somehow.

@Smashville_can haz star???: That was my thought, once you start getting money or free stuff for your blogging, it's now become a profession. If you are a blog that regularly features product reviews, I would like it disclosed if you got the products for free or got paid for it. I don't mind the endorsements, it helps get the products to people, I just want it known so I can judge the objectivity of the review myself.

Clearly, the FTC does not understand how the Intertubes works...

Boy, you said it. On their web app to file complaints about spam, guess what word its spell-checker flags? Starts with an "s", ends with an "m". Also a brand name for pork luncheon meat.

I have the screen capture to prove it.

What is wrong with full disclosure?

BTW, it is disclosing payments (including donations of goods) that triggers the requirement.

Traditional media has been following these guidelines since 1980.

@sleze69:

Yes. At least ethically.

Oh, it would also be a violation of his/her employment contract.

@TedSez: Often the publications (or research houses) have a policy that's posted somewhere covering the situations and the dollar value limitation that someone (or the company) can receive.

@bohemian: Now that would be some worthy on-screen text instead of the stuff that is on more and more channels next to their logos.

It would shed some light on twits like the guy from whatever of the Carolina's that called Obama a liar during his speech to Congress had his industry donors been flashed under any and all appearances on TV.

I am glad it is being addressed.

I don't think that's what the rules suggest at all. The relevant rule, §255.5 "Disclosure of material connections" says

When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed.

Note the parenthetical "not reasonably expected". Obviously if Best Buy is advertising on your page, you've disclosed a relationship. You don't need to say "I went to Best Buy (full disclosure: there may be a Best Buy advertisement on this page)" when someone can plainly see that there's a Best Buy ad on the page.

But an issue would almost certainly arise be if Best Buy gave you a $500 gift card to spend on your trip, and you failed to disclose that when writing up your review of how great shopping at Best Buy was.

@smartmuffin: Do you actually think this is a question of freedoms, or are you just being facetious?

@Daveinva: Probably not. Newspapers don't usually reveal that every company that they write about is an advertiser (though they usually will reveal more blantant potential conflicts). As long as it's not a true "tit-for-tat", they can probably get away with it. But if you sell Best Buy all your advertising for the month, then yes, you would be best served by disclosing it in the article.

Clearly, the FTC does not understand how the Intertubes works, especially with regard to bloggers.

Most bloggers don't make any money off of it. But many bloggers do acquire advertising-- things like Blogads and other rotating visual and/or text ads. These ads can pay out; not a lot, but it's still a "cash or in-kind payment".

But the blogger has little to no control over what the ads the ad frames run.

So, let's say mid-range blogger with 5,000 hits a day is running a rotating ad frame. They get some clicks, not a lot, but finish the month making $10 off the ads.

Now, what happens if one time during that month, the blogger raves about a trip to Best Buy (I know, I know), yet he/she didn't notice that Best Buy ran a rotating ad on his site five times that month.

It appears to me that by the terms here, that blogger has now just broken the law. Broken. The. LAW.

Really? We all know what the law is intended to prevent, but this situation doesn't strike me as it.

@TCama: We don't hear about the campaign funding received by members of Congress when they make a statement supposedly representing their real views and those of the people they represent. Of course this is not a "paid" endorsement, so the laws don't apply. It's mere coincidence that a particular Congressperson speaks out against healthcare reform AND has taken millions in campaign contributions, despite voting and polls of their district clearly indicate the will of the people is different. Pure coincidence.

When retired military generals were interviewed during the Iraq war by various news organizations, it was not disclosed that they were paid by the US goverment to be spokespersons.

When news stations run "reports" on the latest medical research, product news, etc., they are often 100% pre-manufactured video press releases provided by the entity with a product to promote, and seldom disclosed as such.

When your favorite TV character drinks a Coke, drives a Ford, or Jay Leno [consumerist.com] mentions a product, although there is an implied endorsement, there is no disclosure of compensation.

Yes the FCC will occasionally crack down, but is is far too infrequent and the existing laws too easy to skirt.

I think the point here is to encourage "almost" in that sentence to be replaced with "always". The question I have for you is do you disclose everything, trips, dinners, free games, and all that and make it clear that EA, not you, paid the bills?

If the following quote is from your blog, the funding source could be clearer, e.g. "EA brought us to Vancouver to playtest..."

Those who know me know that I went to Vancouver last year to playtest MVP '06 at the EASports Burbury, Vancouver studios and at one point we were sitting around discussing how to implement various features... [www.yourcampusconnections.com]

This is a good thing. I've noticed a certain movie review site that has the weekly DVD release review has turned into a link to Amazon followed by a statement if the company sent them a deluxe box edition of the movie or complaining if they didn't. Implying that the companies that don't send them something for free have something to hide.
There was also an issue with the "Mommy Blogs" or some such raving about products for parents while being sponsored by those product.

I'm really a fan of this, but am curious what happens when a review comes out from something like Ubuntu, which is free.. I haven't read the full rules yet.

Of course, when we were writing, we'd almost always disclose ... "EA just sent us NCAA 2010..."

And a part of me still yearns for the wild-west internets.

@squinko - has 50 followers, what more do I need?!: Please take my freedoms, I wasn't using them anyway!

Seriously folks, individual responsibility. The fact that you "trust" random individuals on blogs to give you honest recommendations on anything is your own problem. There is no amount of ridiculous government legislation that will cure common stupidity, no matter how hard you keep trying.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

And politicians, too, are held to the same standards. Ads furthering a political position or candidate must disclose who is funding them. For example, I saw an ad recently for a "group" called "Climate Citizens," a fake grassroots organization run and funded by huge special interests to oppose the Waxman-Markey bill. And at the end of the ad, it clearly says "American Petroleum Institute."

Magazines receive dozens of products for "review" every week. (A great deal of which is useless to them.) Publicists send these items not because they expect a quid-pro-quo positive mention, but because they know that editors are more likely to mention them at all if they have the thing lying around already.

This has been going on for decades, and publications have never been required to say whether or not they purchased an item or got it for free. (They may anyway in the case of something particularly high in value -- or, in the case of a restaurant or travel review, they may insist that the reviewer pay his or her own way. But there's no legal requirement for them to do so.)

So is this mess of free stuff "compensation"? It would be impossible to keep track of everything major consumer publications receive, much less add a disclaimer with every mention. And (outside of advertorial pages), it would be impossible to say what makes something an "endorsement" as opposed to an evaluation, or just a product feature.

So are bloggers so different? I think that would be hard to prove. If a company sent a product out to bloggers, there's no way they could require that he or she say something positive about it -- and there's no way of proving that the blogger wrote something in particular just because he or she received the item for free.

@squinko - has 50 followers, what more do I need?!: Fascinating that a person with a tiny website, working out of their basement, part-time who gets a freebie product to review is held to a higher standard than oh, let's say the major networks, who use the public airwaves for free?

It might not be so formal as an "endorsement deal". Companies have been sending stuff to moderately influential bloggers or reviewers on Amazon.

@MostlyHarmless: So would a janitor for GE who goes on Consumer Reports to endorse a GE washing machine be in violation if it doesn't state that in his review?

@MostlyHarmless: I've seen a few mildy popular bloggers get free things in to try.. They do usually say so because they want to be honest though.

To bad this doesn't apply to traditional "news" media, TV, radio, etc. [www.sourcewatch.org]

Oh yeah, and our politicians. This message on healthcare spewed by your elected official has been bought and paid for by MegaGiantHealth Corp.

I think it's a great idea if it's for a blog that is trying to represent itself as a "real" news or review site, as opposed to a personal or humorous blog. I don't see why anyone would have any problem with full disclosure.

@ddmeightball: Well, considering that if you don't take payment from anyone, you're not a professional blog...