backtop


Print 40 comment(s) - last by The Raven.. on Oct 7 at 12:49 PM

Paid bloggers must now disclose if they received products for free or if they are receiving payment for their efforts

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) today moved one step closer towards regulating published blogs, indicating reviewers must disclose when they receive a product for free or if they receive payment to write the review.

After a 4 - 0 vote, the rule will officially go into effect on December 1, the FTC said, after attempting to find new ways to legitimize online disclosure to better suit consumers.

Furthermore, all testimonials should also reveal exactly what a consumer should expect when they consumer a product – companies previously only had to disclose if there were dramatic results related to advertising or product consumption.

“Given that social media has become such a significant player in the advertising area, we thought it was necessary to address social media as well,” FTC assistant director or advertising practices Richard Cleland said.

In the past, consumer interest groups said the fine line between companies and bloggers could be easily crossed without any true way to help consumers protect themselves from possible paid reviews. Now, bloggers must offer “clear and conspicuous” when they are given a gift or receive monetary compensation for writing blogs.

Although it’s easy to believe the FTC is focusing on the tech industry, the government is concerned that bloggers across all industries have received freebies without disclosure.   It’s up to the blogger to note how they wish to make any disclosures, though it’s possible the FTC will create guidelines as to how disclosures must be made.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Thank god!!
By DarkElfa on 10/5/2009 9:29:21 PM , Rating: 2
Otherwise the Bloggers could just lie and say they never got anything... :O

Yeah...that just happened.




RE: Thank god!!
By AnnihilatorX on 10/6/2009 4:11:33 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, I don't see anyhow how this is going to be enforced.


RE: Thank god!!
By omnicronx on 10/6/2009 12:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
Complaints of course.. I doubt these companies are going out of their way to cover up these 'gifts', once under investigation after multiple complaints, it won't be hard to put two and two together.. HMMM I wonder why this guy keeps getting packages from Intel etc etc..


RE: Thank god!!
By crystal clear on 10/6/2009 6:07:54 AM , Rating: 2
FTC to "fine bloggers up to $11,000 for Not Disclosing Payments".

MORE fines latter by the I.R.S. for not disclosing such incomes in their tax returns - tax evasion !

There are plenty of consumer action groups that will ensure those bloggers breaking the law are blogged out of business.

Jealousy & rivalry amongst bloggers will also push them to report such evasions to the FTC & IRS.

There will be plenty of whistle blowers including the bloggers wife......


RE: Thank god!!
RE: Thank god!!
By crystal clear on 10/6/2009 6:44:41 AM , Rating: 2
For the blogger -

"Your worst enemy is always a man of your own trade."


RE: Thank god!!
By someguy123 on 10/6/2009 8:13:47 AM , Rating: 2
indeed, although the smaller blogs will more than likely get away with some under the table deals. there's money to be had in fines, and we all that if there are fines, you can bet the states working extra hard to find reasons to fine people, especially in the current economy.

if you look at webforums right now, there are whistleblowers blowing just for the good of their fellow techgeeks. once it becomes law I get the feeling there will be people going off if there's even the slightest hint of bias in any review.


RE: Thank god!!
By tmouse on 10/6/2009 3:07:53 PM , Rating: 3
This is not a new law, just a rule. I highly doubt the FTC has the man power to investigate let alone litigate this for every small blogger that posts a review. Then again unless they state "x is the best" or something like there is no case anyway. Just stating the results of tests or quoting numbers probably will not be enough to get into any trouble. The FTC would have to prove intent to defraud and or show the results are not typical to have the fine stand up to judicial review. I do not think this will have any real effect on blog reviews, except companies will think twice before having their people place "consumer" reviews on blog sites to skew written opinion in their favor. That's where any effort will be applied.


RE: Thank god!!
By tmouse on 10/6/2009 8:19:35 AM , Rating: 2
You really seem to be hyped up about this. First off forget about the IRS, these new guides have absolutely nothing to do with them. ANYONE who receives ANYTHING as a "gift" for any services rendered (which is in fact not really a gift) is supposed to keep track of the value and report it as income if it surpasses a certain percentage of their income(barter has always been taxable). The IRS even has a form for illicit income which they are prohibited from reporting to anyone else. Second these are guides, NOT laws and are just administrative interpretations of the existing laws. The FTC still has the full burden of proof that the law itself has been broken. The $11,000 fines are the maximum, which is rarely used, most will probably be $100 or less for small blogs transgressions. Even then the FTC does not have the manpower to investigate these claims and I think they will be rapidly overcome and simply not enforce these new rules for the small fry. Don't get me wrong I think some of them are good (like the parts that now do not allow the mentioning of non-typical results by a "consumer" in a ad with the usual small print / fast talk disclaimer). Even under the new rules there is NO liability attached to small bloggers, that part is intended for the "celebrity" endorsements. ALL that is required is a small statement on reviews that the item was supplied by the manufacturer and / or a fee was paid for the review, and most review sites will use this as a standard disclaimer. The only ones not affected are the few sites which buy items for review and they rarely review many items and almost never do large head to head comparisons due to the costs. I do not think there will be any earth shattering changes coming from this.


RE: Thank god!!
By DarkElfa on 10/6/2009 9:33:42 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I could see them finding ways to catch crap via the IRS but how do you know if the blogger goes under the table or gets a piece of equipment as a gift? You don't. Pot laws haven't stopped people from smoking and getting busted hasn't stopped anyone from doing it. Not to mention that for every person that does get busted there are 20 people who don't.


No Way!
By GaryJohnson on 10/5/2009 9:55:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
without any true way to help consumers protect themselves from possible paid reviews

I like the "don't believe everything you read on the internet" method.




RE: No Way!
By DarkElfa on 10/5/2009 11:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
Come on man, your using common sense and you know how much common sense is used by the average surfer.


RE: No Way!
By crystal clear on 10/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: No Way!
By rdeegvainl on 10/6/2009 9:04:47 AM , Rating: 2
The average user may be fearful of being ripped off, but not from a technical standpoint. They aren't worried that video card A was falsely said to be faster than video card B.

They want an honest business transaction. They want a reputible vendor. They aren't looking to make sure reviews are honest. The value of doing that over the times it takes them isn't worth it in their mind, or it didn't cross their mind.

I find your blu ray comparison really lacking in context. You can also say that blu ray has a great adoption rate considering, 1 the economy, and 2 the apdoption rates of HDTV's you need to benefit from it.


RE: No Way!
By someguy123 on 10/6/2009 12:06:28 AM , Rating: 3
well, when it comes to things like video card reviews, the hell can you believe? the internet is actually a better source than magazines for hardware reviews, although you have to go to good sites like xbit labs.


RE: No Way!
By gevorg on 10/6/2009 5:30:53 AM , Rating: 2
Xbit Labs = From Russia with Geek Hardware Review Love!


RE: No Way!
By zzeoss on 10/6/2009 8:11:37 AM , Rating: 2
i like xbitlabs, especially the hard-drive reviews, but i hated this review:

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/catalys...
driver changes were mostly in "cpu-limited settings" but they tested everything on a high-end system (extreme edition CPU with 4Ghz overclock etc), thus useless article.


RE: No Way!
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2009 7:33:41 AM , Rating: 1
It's a sad day when our government is regulating people's opinions. If you're stupid enough to accept whatever you read on a blog as fact without further research on your own, then you deserve whatever the result of it is.


RE: No Way!
By inperfectdarkness on 10/6/2009 7:34:54 AM , Rating: 2
there's merit to this.

people rely on certain sites that have a reputation for being fair & unbiased. the people employed by that site can change; and the formerly unbiased source can now become slanted.

for instance, dailytech. i get a lot of accurate, up to date news here. it's also taken me some time to assess that i have to take everything written by Mick with several Lbs of salt. disclaimers would go a long way towards consumer protection and awareness.


RE: No Way!
By inperfectdarkness on 10/6/2009 7:35:11 AM , Rating: 2
there's merit to this.

people rely on certain sites that have a reputation for being fair & unbiased. the people employed by that site can change; and the formerly unbiased source can now become slanted.

for instance, dailytech. i get a lot of accurate, up to date news here. it's also taken me some time to assess that i have to take everything written by Mick with several Lbs of salt. disclaimers would go a long way towards consumer protection and awareness.


RE: No Way!
By The Raven on 10/6/2009 1:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
Amen, bro!


...
By chrnochime on 10/5/2009 11:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
Or my favorite, the "blogger" is actually a bot created by whatever company the product is made by, and the contents on the blog are more or less the same marketing BS, just slightly re-worded. That's really useful.




RE: ...
By chrnochime on 10/5/2009 11:17:22 PM , Rating: 2
Umm "created by whoever makes the product". Argh splitting headache *_*


RE: ...
By Yawgm0th on 10/5/2009 11:30:14 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Or my favorite, the "blogger" is actually a bot created by whatever company the product is made by, and the contents on the blog are more or less the same marketing BS, just slightly re-worded.


Wait a minute...

Jason Mick?


RE: ...
By damianrobertjones on 10/6/2009 5:12:16 AM , Rating: 2
Ahhh, I thought that, but he does pretty much post articles damaging and positive for both sides. It's difficult but yeah.


RE: ...
By Titanius on 10/6/2009 8:10:17 AM , Rating: 2
He goes both ways...


RE: ...
By theapparition on 10/6/2009 8:57:57 AM , Rating: 2
No, he was talking about Tom's Hardware.


By crystal clear on 10/6/2009 5:46:17 AM , Rating: 3
Read this-

Celebrity endorsers also are addressed in the revised Guides. While the 1980 Guides did not explicitly state that endorsers as well as advertisers could be liable under 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. The revised Guides also make it clear that celebrities have a duty to disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in social media.



http://ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm

This should put an end to all those commercials on TV/internet/print etc full of lies & deceptions.

"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".

Hope all other countries in the world also enact such laws & enforce them.




By The Raven on 10/6/2009 2:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
Do the guys at BestBuy pushing Windows over Linux qualify as celebrities? lol

Also, nice post by the way!


By formulav8 on 10/6/2009 5:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
That is one of the best government guideline updates i've seen recently!

I am sick and tired of a celebrity or someone advertising a mattress company and saying "This is the ONLY mattress I Know Of that reduces back pain." Which is suggesting that they "already did the research and experienced all other claimed back pain reducing mattress and only THIS One worked!".

The spokesman is really saying "I'm pathetic with no morals and am just being a mouthpiece for a company that is paying me for my lip service".

Bah! I now remember the reason I don't watch TV anymore! There has never been more misleading and even purposely 'deceiving' ads than they are this day. I absolutely couldn't stand "Billie Mays" who is proably the biggest fake and most pathetic with no morals or care in the business...

Hopfully they will get rid of the ads: "If you buy this item you get a second one free! Just pay seperate *Processing* and handling" I was under the impression that free wouldn't incure any extra charge over the base charge???

My vent is over. Sorry for the 'trash' I 'spewed out' as well. :(

Jason


By The Raven on 10/7/2009 12:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
Now wait a second, here. Do you really think Shaq is an expert on choosing the best candy bar for you, and needs to be qualified to recommend that you satisfy your hunger with a Snickers? And furthermore, it it doesn't satisfy your hunger, that he should be punished? If so, you really shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Don't you think that one of the biggest reasons that celebs can sell stuff is simply because they can catch peoples' attn.

What if Ozzie Smith was gifted shoes, insoles, etc. from the Good Feet Store and he felt better, why can't he end it there? Do you think that he should be required to research every other store to determine which is the best? And then if he doesn't pick "the correct one" he can be held accountable?! Or maybe we can put them under oath or give 'em a polygraph to make sure that the endorsed product or service was actually the best they found? Say what?

I mean look at your example, "This is the ONLY mattress I Know Of that reduces back pain." Yeah, the only mattress they KNOW OF! What do you expect, really?!

A fool and his money are soon parted. They should be able to learn from it, instead of having the gov't spoil them.

As far as Mays goes, really he is a fraud because he does something that everyone in the infomercial industry has done since the dawn of time and stated the crux of your issue of S+H in the fine print (which is where this law will change things). Where did they say the shipping was free?

However I am on your side as far as infomercials aren't exactly the best place to buy crap. But Mays was an alright guy that sold some good stuff. It was his company that made the crap (or at least he had a stake in it) so it was not like someone just paid him to irritate us into buying a product that he didn't know about. I have used several products that he has pushed and they worked as advertised. So he's an alright guy.

(Disclaimer, I have professional relationships with Mays, Snickers, M&M, Ozzie Smith, the Good Feet Store, Shaq, and the US Gov't so this post is flawed by greed and should be ignored, come to think of it, it shouldn't even be 'aired' because someone might not get the fact that I was paid to say this.)


LOL
By PhoetuS on 10/6/2009 1:32:22 AM , Rating: 2
should also reveal exactly what a consumer should expect when they consumer a product




RE: LOL
By Mr Perfect on 10/6/2009 1:14:22 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, yeah, I saw that too. It sounds like you pick up another consumer, and then whack the product with them. Should be a great way to liven up mall trips.


RE: LOL
By The Raven on 10/6/2009 1:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
Today's post was brought to you by the letter "r"


That's nice...
By damianrobertjones on 10/6/2009 3:06:13 AM , Rating: 2
... But do Bloggers have to state the products that they received for FREE while writing the blog??




RE: That's nice...
By BillyBatson on 10/7/2009 6:55:37 AM , Rating: 2
good question


This review is paid for by ??????
By crystal clear on 10/6/2009 5:29:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the FTC will create guidelines as to how disclosures must be made.


Yes a move in the right direction but to make it effective,the following has to be done by the author of the review.

- Clearly state in a bold font under the title of the review,that "this review is paid for xyz company-manufacturers/sellers of this product".

- Clearly state how & to whom this payment was made in what form,cash or any other form like gifts etc etc.

- Report this to the I.R.S. for taxation purposes.

- Take full responsibility for his review & be liable for the consequences from the legal point of view.

Quoting in small/fine print in some corner of the page,barely visible to the reader some legal jargon saying that the author is not responsible for any damages/claims of compensations etc should be banned.

- Besides being legally liable for all compensation claims & damages,he should be heavily fined if he fails to abide by the above conditions -now set at $11000 only.

Put ethics over money ! that the message.




By ZachDontScare on 10/6/2009 5:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
Or the blogger can just not be an american. Then what is the FTC going to do?


Trust
By The Raven on 10/6/2009 1:45:29 PM , Rating: 2
Having pretty libertarian views, I guess my question is, "Why do these people trust the reviews that they read if they don't trust the reviewer?"

Especially if this is targeted at (among other things) social networking sites, why wouldn't I trust my brother or my friend for example? It doesn't matter if the blogger paid for the device being reviewed, if I don't trust them: I don't trust them.

Also, doesn't everyone assume that the product being reveiwed is a gift, not as a bribe, but as a way to get the product out there in the media? I mean it's a symbiotic relationship: the manufacturers get publicity, and the reviewers get swag.

The other factor I see missing here is the amount of gifts and the variety of ways to endorse a product. If while reviewing the Sansa Fuze, I drop a "well it falls short of what Apple is doing with the Nano" in the review, I am endorsing the Apple product. This has nothing to do with my review of the Nano but I could be paid extra, in addition to the free Nano I get, so that I can plug the Nano in other ways. How does this factor in and how will they regulate it?

At any rate, I guess that with this law in place, we can all now read any media and not worry about being scammed. Now I don't have to limit myself to the sources I trust. And I don't have to keep hearing about "news I can trust".

Now we can start using the "I feel lucky button" to bring up the first review for a product, and as long as it doesn't say "paid for by X company" I can't go wrong!! Or even pay too much for too little!

See you all in Lalaland! Ha!




RE: Trust
By ZachDontScare on 10/6/2009 4:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At any rate, I guess that with this law in place, we can all now read any media and not worry about being scammed.

I wonder if this will have the opposite effect. They cant investigate most bloggers. And then of course there's bloggers outside the US. If people are conditioned to think that the FTC is actually regulating reviews, they may assume any review they read without such a disclosure must be legit. ie, people will be easier to fool.

I'm with you... people should use common sense and consider a reviewers reputation. We dont need laws to enforce this. How long before they find some reason to post 'rules' about political speech?


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki