var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
ddmeightball
October 5, 2009 6:17 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Are we talking about just professional blogs like Consumerist, Gizmodo, Kotaku, etc or does this include every blog on the interwebs?

Reply
14 replies
\"user-pic\"
lmarconi
October 6, 2009 3:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ddmeightball: I personally don't have a problem with this. It's going to make the job of pr professionals a lot harder and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
But it does blur the line even further between blogging and journalism, now that journalists can't use their usual war cry that bloggers are unethical.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Daveinva
October 5, 2009 7:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ddmeightball: This is actually a huge point of contention (and *should* be).

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
scoosdad
October 6, 2009 3:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Daveinva:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
October 5, 2009 10:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Daveinva: In the circumstances you cited, the blogger would probably not be the one responsible. Typically, whoever is providing the blog's site (e.g., BlogHer) negotiates with the advertisers and makes the placements. The actual blogger has no idea what will be advertised or when. I think in that case, the fact that the blogger receives a global check for renting out space on her blog will not trigger the FTC rule.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
smith186
October 5, 2009 7:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Daveinva: Here's the specific text from their release: \"The Commission does not believe that all uses of new consumer-generated media to discuss product attributes or consumer experiences should be deemed \"endorsements\" within the meaning of the Guides. Rather, in analyzing statements made via these new media, the fundamental question is whether, viewed objectively, the relationship between the advertiser and the speaker is such that the speaker's statement can be considered \"sponsored\" by the advertiser and therefore an \"advertising message.\" In other words, in disseminating positive statements about a product or service, is the speaker: (1) acting solely independently, in which case there is no endorsement, or (2) acting on behalf of the advertiser or its agent, such that the speaker's statement is an \"endorsement\" that is part of an overall marketing campaign?\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
October 5, 2009 7:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Daveinva: 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.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
October 5, 2009 6:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ddmeightball: Also to be noted that it does not say you cannot take money for it. It just says that you have to include at least a footnote saying you got this PSP Go to keep for reviewing it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sleze69
October 5, 2009 6:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
October 5, 2009 11:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sleze69:


Yes. At least ethically.


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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*
October 5, 2009 7:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sleze69: my understanding is that it depends on whether he posts it as an article or as a reply.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
October 5, 2009 7:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sleze69: Consumer Reports is a bad example here, since not accepting outside advertising or free samples is already a core philosophy in their mission.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
October 5, 2009 6:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sleze69: I have not read it thoroughly, so I cannot say for sure. But I imagine either him or CR has to reveal somewhere that the guy works for GE. He is after all associated with the company. Though strictly speaking, he does not have an endorsement deal with GE for writing that review.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Difdi
October 5, 2009 9:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: I doubt that hypothetical janitor would count as being paid to endorse a product. He's paid wages by GE to do work for them. What he says on a blog is his own business.

Of course, if GE were to pay him additional money to endorse them, or give him free stuff, that would be another matter.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
October 5, 2009 6:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ddmeightball: All I suppose. But it is a moot point. A company would not strike an endorsement deal with an obscure blogger with no platform.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
October 5, 2009 8:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: There have been organized efforts by various companies to send product to even some fairly obscure bloggers in order to get word of mouth reviews. IIRC Blogher network had some issues with their blog writers being targeted for this and some of the mommy oriented blog networks.

I am glad it is being addressed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
October 5, 2009 6:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: A company would not strike an endorsement deal with an obscure blogger with no platform.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh
October 5, 2009 6:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for 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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
October 5, 2009 6:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brunette Bookworm
October 6, 2009 2:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
squinko
October 5, 2009 6:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Queue several dozen poorly-written diatribes about the First Amendment and government oppression.

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.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
SkokieGuy
October 5, 2009 6:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squinko
October 5, 2009 7:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SkokieGuy: TCama answered well enough already but seriously. The big guys have to abide by the FTC's rules just as much as the little guys do. What problem do you have with full disclosure?

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TCama
October 5, 2009 6:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SkokieGuy: No, the major networks are held to the same standard. If you're getting paid to endorse something on TV, you have to disclose that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
smartmuffin
October 5, 2009 7:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Persistence - Long viv revolisyon an konsomatè yo!
October 5, 2009 6:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko - has 50 followers, what more do I need?!: I agree. Since more and more people are getting their \"facts\" from blogs, they need to know who's footing the bill. I expect a disappearance of quite a few blogs, akin to cockroaches scattering in the light, once this rule starts getting enforced.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
gglockner
October 5, 2009 6:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They need to add podcasters to this, too. Like ones who give glowing reviews of electronics.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
SkokieGuy
October 5, 2009 6:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
October 5, 2009 8:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SkokieGuy: I would love to see the news networks start doing an overlay at the bottom of the screen. When a politician is going on a rant about health care, big pharma or banking just display a feed disclosing how much that politician got from various companies in that industry.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nybiker
October 5, 2009 9:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
October 5, 2009 8:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: They could start doing it like football stats.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TCama
October 5, 2009 6:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SkokieGuy: Right, if you actually read that article, you'll see that the FCC does, sometimes, crack down on them.

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.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SkokieGuy
October 5, 2009 7:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
TedSez
October 5, 2009 6:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Getting paid for a mention is one thing, but \"free products\" is something else entirely.

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
DreamTheEndless: Death's little brother
October 5, 2009 7:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TedSez: How hard is it to simply state somewhere in the first couple of paragraphs that \"... Acme just sent us the new model of their iGadgemozdo to test out ...\"?

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TedSez
October 5, 2009 10:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DreamTheEndless: The point is that \"real\" publications don't have put in disclaimers like that, and most never do. So what they're saying is blogs aren't real publications -- which seems to me a free-speech issue more than anything else.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RandomHookup
October 5, 2009 10:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
megan
October 8, 2009 3:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RandomHookup: @RandomHookup: I'd love to see it. Never seen one before.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
DreamTheEndless: Death's little brother
October 5, 2009 7:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

When does this new rule go into effect? (Please say now.)

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
QuantumRiff
October 5, 2009 7:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DreamTheEndless: Dec 1st.

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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Brazell
October 5, 2009 7:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I suppose this is okay, but I do hope it doesn't get in the way of blogging incentives. I've put many years into a couple of videogame sites and while we always try to maintain the basic levels of neutrality, getting free games and trips to some studios was also a major reason for doing the content... EA would shamelessly take us out to nice dinners and while we'd probably be more apt to write positive things about the games, I'm just hoping this won't get in the way.

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
October 5, 2009 7:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

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]

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
cgorham57
October 5, 2009 7:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
sir_eccles
October 5, 2009 7:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

When I'm writing a blog post or just commenting on someone else's blog, I find the cool crisp taste of an ice cold Bud helps the words flow more freely.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
aftercancer
October 5, 2009 8:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sir_eccles: Thanks for a good laugh after a bad day! I think maybe I'll go make a Patron margarita to feel better

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sir_eccles
October 5, 2009 8:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@aftercancer: yeah, I'm still waiting for my check though.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
RandomHookup
October 5, 2009 7:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
JessMeNU
October 5, 2009 9:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Better report all those earnings you got from Cash4Gold consumerist or I'm telling!

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
October 5, 2009 11:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
OhToSee
October 5, 2009 11:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What's even better than this blogger bit in the FCC announcement that has been plastered all over the news is that this may kill off diet ads as we know them. Old rules said you could show a model that dropped 50 lbs for your diet pills so long as you had a \"results not typical\" disclaimer. Now if you show that model who's dropped 50 lbs you're going to have to tell the viewer that they can actually expect to drop 0.5 lbs like most people using their product. Well maybe kill off is overstating things, but it's nice when safe harbors for deceptive advertising are pulled. . .

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
sonneillon
October 6, 2009 5:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

And so companies use foreign blogs to do the same thing.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jenjen
October 6, 2009 6:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Is there a sequence of events in the new rules where it only counts if you know you're getting something? For example, you might review something, and the company notices and send you a reward of some kind as thanks, but you weren't expecting it. Do you have to go back and disclose that?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Hybriddeathdealer
October 6, 2009 8:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sure, like American Power companies can't hide customer service behind grocery stores. Or can't make erroneous billing practices. Or Power, Oil and Gas companies can operate in a bogus market, using several layers of businesses to collect fees, manipulate markets, buy and sell their products. Criminals are corrupting our country, using PAC funding and paying off the FBI, but GOD ALMIGHTY, don't let them use the Bloggers for their own benefit. That would be taking it just one step too far!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
SunnyLea
October 6, 2009 2:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So, there are a lot of book bloggers in the world getting review copies pre-publication. Am I correct in interpreting that a book blogger would need to mention this?

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kdrosas
October 6, 2009 3:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have seen this coming for a while. I always disclose if a cloth diaper I review has been sent to me by the company. Obviously it is a diaper, I am not sending it back. Any other item I review is disclosed as given to me or as something I paid for and wished to review. I don't and will not do paid reviews, so I don't even have to worry about disclosing that fact. I also have all of my policies up on a separate page for anyone who wants to see. Blogging in my case doesn't make a ton of money, so the items I receive are also considered by me to be payment for my time and for the advertising for the company.
There are a lot of mom blogs who don't disclose, and will hopefully be doing so now.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
YardanCabaret
October 6, 2009 3:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What about those fake blogs that are shill sites claiming to be from some Mom or teacher or whatever who has found just the thing to whiten her teeth/ increase her husbands girth/ bust that baby fat. All you have to do is buy these 3 brand specific products and use them at twice the suggested rate.

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?

Reply
","");