Bloggers Must Disclose Product Ties

sforce · 10-05-2009, 03:15 PM

Given how often bloggers offer their opinions on devices such as eReaders, I believe the below to be important--and welcome--news.

The Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON -- Bloggers, Tweeters and online marketers will have to tell consumers when they are paid or given freebies to write positive reviews or postings, federal regulators said Monday.

The Federal Trade Commission released updated guidelines Monday designed to provide clarity for bloggers and other online writers about their responsibility to provide consumer disclosure as well as liability issues they face for making false or deceptive claims about products and services.

The agency unveiled a draft of the proposed guidelines last year, prompting debate in the blogging community about how much disclosure writers must provide and which ethical rules, if any, they should follow.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125475547130664753.html

Read the FTC guidance here:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm

Alexander Turcic · 10-05-2009, 03:20 PM

I fully support the decision of the FTC. What help is a blogger's review if he or she got paid to write the review by the very company whose product is being reviewed...

N0NJY · 10-05-2009, 03:23 PM

LOL.

I refuse to tell the FTC anything.

They can pound sand.

Why? I don't get PAID by anyone for writing a blog and if I chose to write something positive or negative about something, it's on me.

CleverClothe · 10-05-2009, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N0NJY

Why? I don't get PAID by anyone for writing a blog and if I chose to write something positive or negative about something, it's on me.

(emphasis added)

That is exactly the point.

luqmaninbmore · 10-05-2009, 03:49 PM

Do they have a legal definition of 'blogger?' I mean, if somebody sends me something to review, while I feel a personal obligation to make this known, to make it a legal one seems to me to be extremely draconian. The only exception I could see would be for those who are professional bloggers (i.e. those who are employed to blog and to tweet, etc.); the local, state, and federal governments have a long tradition of regulating professions according to community ethical standards. This could be seen as simply an extension of that tradition.

sforce · 10-05-2009, 03:54 PM

I'm really torn by this, but I guess now's the time to come clean about that Lamborghini review I did last year....

kennyc · 10-05-2009, 03:56 PM

I heard about this. Wonderful!!!

brecklundin · 10-05-2009, 03:56 PM

if you read more of the changes to the GUILDLINES, not laws BTW, they also address using exceptional results then a disclaimer that results are atypical and not necessarily representative of what everyone else will have. I think these are all excellent improvements in the truth in advertising guidelines and eventually these guidelines will hit the courts for rulings.

good stuff.

brecklundin · 10-05-2009, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Do they have a legal definition of 'blogger?' I mean, if somebody sends me something to review, while I feel a personal obligation to make this known, to make it a legal one seems to me to be extremely draconian. The only exception I could see would be for those who are professional bloggers (i.e. those who are employed to blog and to tweet, etc.); the local, state, and federal governments have a long tradition of regulating professions according to community ethical standards. This could be seen as simply an extension of that tradition.

It is not about being being a "professional blogger" it is about said blogger being sent a sample to review, which these reviewers always have to return so it can be sent to other reviewers vs. being GIVEN the thing being reviewed or something else's as a "thank you" for the review. The point of the "gift" is to pass along the subtle, well not so subtle, "give us a good review and we will give you more good stuff...bad review...thanks for your time maybe sometime, someday, hopefully in your lifetime we will ask you to review something else..." In other-words, these companies are lobbying for positive evaluations using out of date guidelines via bribery.

The guidelines make clear that while not all failures to comply will not be found, all they need to do is find a few cases, prosecute those, win, and we will start to see more honest evaluations.

gwynevans · 10-05-2009, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brecklundin

find a few cases, prosecute those, win, and we will start to see more honest evaluations.

I wonder what they'd try & charge a non-US-based blogger with...

DawnFalcon · 10-05-2009, 04:25 PM

I once called the Frag Dolls shills, so I'm up for that. (When they started, their website didn't exactly make their corperate-team nature apparent)

Shaggy · 10-05-2009, 04:27 PM

Actually, now that I read it...

These look to be guidelines enforced on the company, not the blogger. So if a company "hires" a blogger to endorse a product, the company must disclose that the blogger was either paid or given a freebie. The blogger isn't going to get into trouble, the company is.

If the blog isn't being claimed as an endorsement of the product, then I'm not sure if these FTC guidelines apply.

Elfwreck · 10-05-2009, 04:42 PM

From the article (emphasis added):
"While the 1980 Guides did not explicitly state that endorsers as well as advertisers could be liable under the FTC Act for statements they make in an endorsement, the revised Guides reflect Commission case law and clearly state that both advertisers and endorsers may be liable for false or unsubstantiated claims made in an endorsement – or for failure to disclose material connections between the advertiser and endorsers. ... In any law enforcement action challenging the allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the FTC Act."

It looks like it doesn't matter to them what bloggers do--as long as there's no accusation of fraud. Bloggers who receive a free whatever for writing a review aren't exactly required to say so--but not saying so could be considered misleading, especially if it's a glowing review of a so-so product.

I suspect it's not designed to go after individual bloggers who occasionally agree to review a book or widget for a free one to keep, but to put a hold on company-employed bloggers & tweeters and let them know they're liable for any problems caused by people thinking they were singing the praises of MegaCorp from the goodness of their hearts.

Shaggy · 10-05-2009, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I suspect it's not designed to go after individual bloggers who occasionally agree to review a book or widget for a free one to keep, but to put a hold on company-employed bloggers & tweeters and let them know they're liable for any problems caused by people thinking they were singing the praises of MegaCorp from the goodness of their hearts.

That's the way I interpret it as well. This is designed to go after companies that are getting people to write fraudulent blogs as endorsements, not independent bloggers.

Superlucky · 10-05-2009, 05:21 PM

This strikes me as un-enforceable.

10-05-2009, 03:15 PM	#1
sforce Connoisseur Posts: 81 Karma: 184 Join Date: Aug 2009 Device: Plastic Logic (?)	Bloggers Must Disclose Product Ties Given how often bloggers offer their opinions on devices such as eReaders, I believe the below to be important--and welcome--news. The Wall Street Journal WASHINGTON -- Bloggers, Tweeters and online marketers will have to tell consumers when they are paid or given freebies to write positive reviews or postings, federal regulators said Monday. The Federal Trade Commission released updated guidelines Monday designed to provide clarity for bloggers and other online writers about their responsibility to provide consumer disclosure as well as liability issues they face for making false or deceptive claims about products and services. The agency unveiled a draft of the proposed guidelines last year, prompting debate in the blogging community about how much disclosure writers must provide and which ethical rules, if any, they should follow. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125475547130664753.html Read the FTC guidance here: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm

10-05-2009, 04:27 PM	#12
Shaggy Wizard Posts: 4,293 Karma: 529619 Join Date: May 2007 Device: iRex iLiad, DR800SG	Actually, now that I read it... These look to be guidelines enforced on the company, not the blogger. So if a company "hires" a blogger to endorse a product, the company must disclose that the blogger was either paid or given a freebie. The blogger isn't going to get into trouble, the company is. If the blog isn't being claimed as an endorsement of the product, then I'm not sure if these FTC guidelines apply. Last edited by Shaggy; 10-05-2009 at 04:56 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ode to Book Bloggers	foreverjuly	General Discussions	0	08-11-2010 08:03 PM
November Orbit Dollar Book: Blood Ties	koland	Deals and Resources (No Self-Promotion or Affiliate Links)	3	11-02-2009 02:25 PM
Apple enthusiasts must disclose sources	TadW	Lounge	1	03-12-2005 12:22 PM

10-05-2009, 03:20 PM	#2
Alexander Turcic Fully Converged Posts: 18,171 Karma: 14021202 Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Switzerland Device: Too many to count here.	I fully support the decision of the FTC. What help is a blogger's review if he or she got paid to write the review by the very company whose product is being reviewed...

10-05-2009, 03:23 PM	#3
N0NJY Time Traveler Posts: 24 Karma: 32 Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Colorado Springs Device: Kindle DX	LOL. I refuse to tell the FTC anything. They can pound sand. Why? I don't get PAID by anyone for writing a blog and if I chose to write something positive or negative about something, it's on me.

10-05-2009, 03:49 PM	#5
luqmaninbmore Da'i Posts: 1,144 Karma: 1217499 Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Baltimore Device: Toshiba Thrive, Kobo Touch, Kindle 1, Aluratek Libre, T-Mobile Comet	Do they have a legal definition of 'blogger?' I mean, if somebody sends me something to review, while I feel a personal obligation to make this known, to make it a legal one seems to me to be extremely draconian. The only exception I could see would be for those who are professional bloggers (i.e. those who are employed to blog and to tweet, etc.); the local, state, and federal governments have a long tradition of regulating professions according to community ethical standards. This could be seen as simply an extension of that tradition.

10-05-2009, 03:54 PM	#6
sforce Connoisseur Posts: 81 Karma: 184 Join Date: Aug 2009 Device: Plastic Logic (?)	I'm really torn by this, but I guess now's the time to come clean about that Lamborghini review I did last year....

10-05-2009, 03:56 PM	#7
kennyc The Dank Side of the Moon Posts: 35,891 Karma: 119230421 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Denver, CO Device: Kindle2; Kindle Fire	I heard about this. Wonderful!!!

10-05-2009, 03:56 PM	#8
brecklundin Banned Posts: 1,906 Karma: 15348 Join Date: Jun 2007 Device: mine	if you read more of the changes to the GUILDLINES, not laws BTW, they also address using exceptional results then a disclaimer that results are atypical and not necessarily representative of what everyone else will have. I think these are all excellent improvements in the truth in advertising guidelines and eventually these guidelines will hit the courts for rulings. good stuff.

10-05-2009, 04:25 PM	#11
DawnFalcon Banned Posts: 2,094 Karma: 2682 Join Date: Aug 2009 Device: N/A	I once called the Frag Dolls shills, so I'm up for that. (When they started, their website didn't exactly make their corperate-team nature apparent)

10-05-2009, 04:42 PM	#13
Elfwreck Grand Sorcerer Posts: 5,187 Karma: 25133758 Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: SF Bay Area, California, USA Device: Pocketbook Touch HD3 (Past: Kobo Mini, PEZ, PRS-505, Clié)	From the article (emphasis added): "While the 1980 Guides did not explicitly state that endorsers as well as advertisers could be liable under the FTC Act for statements they make in an endorsement, the revised Guides reflect Commission case law and clearly state that both advertisers and endorsers may be liable for false or unsubstantiated claims made in an endorsement – or for failure to disclose material connections between the advertiser and endorsers. ... In any law enforcement action challenging the allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the FTC Act." It looks like it doesn't matter to them what bloggers do--as long as there's no accusation of fraud. Bloggers who receive a free whatever for writing a review aren't exactly required to say so--but not saying so could be considered misleading, especially if it's a glowing review of a so-so product. I suspect it's not designed to go after individual bloggers who occasionally agree to review a book or widget for a free one to keep, but to put a hold on company-employed bloggers & tweeters and let them know they're liable for any problems caused by people thinking they were singing the praises of MegaCorp from the goodness of their hearts.

10-05-2009, 05:21 PM	#15
Superlucky Fanatic Posts: 581 Karma: 5952 Join Date: Aug 2009 Device: PRS-505, PRS-350	This strikes me as un-enforceable.

Advert

Advert