Filed under: Internet, News, Blogging, Microblogging
Did the FTC just mention something about blogging?
I tend to look at everything in terms of Pros and Cons. Here's the list I came up with.
The bad
- The FTC has passed an over-reaching regulation which is unenforceable at best, and is a violation of free speech at worst.
The good
- The FTC has passed an over-reaching regulation which is unenforceable at best, and is a violation of free speech at worst.
There's a significant amount of misunderstanding of how Internet publishing works in this regulation, but this is the moment where I find the clue train leaves the station with absolutely no-one aboard. AdAge reports that Richard Cleland, assistant director- division of advertising practices at the FTC interprets the regulation to include, "posts on review sites such as Yelp or online stores such as Amazon."
Does that mean when I drop a review on Urban Spoon of my favorite eatery -- who happen to throw me a freebie every once in a while for being a loyal customer -- the FTC will sick it's blogger enforcement team on me? When they figure out exactly how to enforce this, call me.
Until then I'll be driving the Windows 7 box graphics wrapped Porsche Cayman that Microsoft sent me. *
* Kidding. But Ballmer, if you're interested, drop me an email and I'll send you my address
For what it's worth, take the jump to read my quick diatribe on Weblogs, Inc gimmies policy -- which is likely the strictest in existence among blog networks.
A word from your editor:
Since the very beginnings of Weblogs, Inc, we've functioned under the assumption that we're expected to act like journalists. This isn't an editorial policy -- we're chock full of strong opinion, snark and other things which would make your J-School professor cry like Robin Williams getting a Brazilian wax. Its a "stuff" policy.
Weblogs, Inc bloggers don't take anything. Period. In the case of Download Squad, if we're sent boxed software or anything tangible of monetary value, we give it away. Companies do often send us product keys for down-loadable software which are not transferable -- in those cases it's expected that we stick to our honor and actually purchase the software if we find it personally useful. In any event, license keys rarely exceed the $20-30 dollar mark in value.
The real ridiculousness in the FTC guideline is, as an editor here, I have no real idea where the line ends up being drawn. But know with confidence that we've always been above board about our policy and, even if we don't often make a big deal about it, we're proud to be held to such a high standard.
So, just how good at time waster games are you? Think you've got the stuff? Well, The World's Hardest Game 2.0 doesn't think you do.
Yes, amazingly, it's possible to have a sequel to a game called "The World's Hardest Game". It doesn't seem logically possible, since if the first one was actually the world's hardest, how could another one come along and share the moniker? It made me doubt the name in the first place. That is, until I tried the game.
The mechanics of the game are very simple. You are a small red square, ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
neomatrix724 said 9:00AM on 10-06-2009
I really do think it's a good policy to have...They should at least give it some more concrete guidelines...but I'd like to know if the blogger got paid or if they received other services.
If you receive a free copy of the product you're reviewing or something, I think that's fine to not disclose. So your case of going to the restaurant and occasionally getting a free meal would be covered but not if the restaurant has an arrangement to give you free food on the assumption that you will consistently give them good reviews.
If you are reviewing a some software and the company pays you a few hundred bucks or whatever a year, that's something I'd like to know...because then you go from a third party opinion to a paid spokesperson.
Reply
Victor Agreda Jr said 10:38AM on 10-06-2009
Right, I'm not really against this *idea* because the line between a blog or splog or whatever is fuzzy.
But I think the onus should not be on the blogger, but on whomever gives the gift (if that is what it is). NFR licenses for software is a pretty common, low-friction method of sending stuff for review.
We've all been talking about this since PayPerPost reared their ugly head, but celebrity endorsements, etc. it's all a very nebulous thing right now. As Grant said, it's almost impossible to enforce. And it won't stop fake reviews on Amazon, Yelp or the App Store...
Michael Leung said 9:06AM on 10-06-2009
"which would make your J-School professor cry like Robin Williams getting a Brazilian wax. Its a "stuff" policy."
DUDE! There could be children reading that!
Reply
Lee Mathews said 9:13AM on 10-06-2009
Nothing drives a point home like the image of removing man-hair from one of the world's top producers.
Thanks, Grant. Now I'm going to be checking my coffee for strays all morning.
Liam J Moore said 9:17AM on 10-06-2009
Should this ever get enacted, why should an American run body "rule the internet" so-to-speak? Sorry FTC, but you could be spending your time better enforcing real internet crimes like those listed above.
Reply
DiRT said 10:35AM on 10-06-2009
I don't get the hate. Who cares if they can't enforce it properly, it's a good rule. If they give you something for free to review, that should be mentioned in the review.
Reply
Victor Agreda Jr said 10:42AM on 10-06-2009
But what does that mean? If I get promo codes for 50 fart apps, then delete them, do I need to disclose that entire process? Do I need to come back a year later and say, "oh, I'm not using them any more" or, "I wound up buying this because it is awesome!"
No, I think it should be a policy of publishers and it should be enforceable via the people who MAKE stuff. What you want to avoid is a software publisher sending copies to people just for the sake of good reviews, right? Well, don't waste time tracking down 100 bloggers when you could nab the publisher, you know? This just seems backwards, really, from a culpability standpoint.
Like, try busting the dealer instead of the addict.
Nancy Nally said 11:09AM on 10-06-2009
Dirt: There are several big problems with the new guidelines that are upsetting professional bloggers like myself. First, it imposes legal restrictions on us while "traditional media" is allowed to continue to be self-policing. These guidelines specifically exclude them. That discriminates among writers based simply on the venue they publish in.
Second, the guidelines are very vague and broad, kind of similar to the "we'll know it when we see it" obscenity concept. You are considered to have a business relationship with a company if you accept free product from them. Is that only if the product involved is the current one I'm reviewing? What if I bought that product but a year ago they sent me a different product to review? Do I have to disclose THAT in my current review as a "business relationship"? What if I took a tote bag from them at a trade show? Does that count as a "freebie" I have to report when I review a product of theirs I bought?
As you can see, there are a ton of questions that the guidelines just don't answer. And if you are going to potentially hold me legally liable for not following those guidelines, you better make them CLEAR. And they are full of grey areas that I can't figure out what to do to comply with them, even though I work very hard to keep my ethics above board. These rules require more disclosure about things than any reasonable ethical rules would.
I also don't like that by requiring "fine print" in bloggers' articles, it makes us all look spammy. For most people, the presence of fine print or disclaimers sets off their alarms that something is less than right about what they are seeing. Now all blogs will look like bad neighborhoods, especially to users who are less-than-savvy about the internet and things like this FTC regulation's impact, whereas print media will look so much more respectable - "Well, they don't need disclaimers - they must be more trustworthy."
Reply
wine.curmudgeon said 11:48AM on 10-06-2009
I'm both a professional blogger and a cranky ex-newspaperman, which gives me a unique perspective. The problem the FTC has is called the First Amendment, which protects the New York Times (and all of its less reputable brethren). So far, those of us in the blogging world have not been given the same protections.
Reply
dwesnor said 7:15PM on 10-06-2009
"First, it imposes legal restrictions on us while "traditional media" is allowed to continue to be self-policing."
Traditional media is requred to disclose the same information in other rules, and they have a heckuva lot more rules than you do.
"You are considered to have a business relationship with a company if you accept free product from them."
You need to call your lawyer and ask him what the definition of "material relationship" is. It is not merely getting something for free. In fact, you should go talk this whole thing over with your lawyer, because what the bloggers are posting about this law is overreactive, and you all need someone who understands the law to explain it to you.
"I also don't like that by requiring "fine print" in bloggers' articles, it makes us all look spammy."
If you're getting something in return for the review, then you are spam.
This is not a limit on free speech. You can still say whatever you want, you just cab't hide the fact that you were paid to say it.
Reply
John said 1:16PM on 10-06-2009
Ahahaha, sounds like this is hitting a little too close to home, do you have some problem disclosing what links you may have to the companies you write about in this blog?
Reply
Grant Robertson said 1:19PM on 10-06-2009
Did you click through and read our long standing policy? Just for clarity, and before you go taking shots at us in the dark again, when the policy you're claiming we don't have is directly above the text you entered..
"Since the very beginnings of Weblogs, Inc, we've functioned under the assumption that we're expected to act like journalists. This isn't an editorial policy -- we're chock full of strong opinion, snark and other things which would make your J-School professor cry like Robin Williams getting a Brazilian wax. Its a "stuff" policy.
Weblogs, Inc bloggers don't take anything. Period. In the case of Download Squad, if we're sent boxed software or anything tangible of monetary value, we give it away. Companies do often send us product keys for down-loadable software which are not transferable -- in those cases it's expected that we stick to our honor and actually purchase the software if we find it personally useful. In any event, license keys rarely exceed the $20-30 dollar mark in value.
The real ridiculousness in the FTC guideline is, as an editor here, I have no real idea where the line ends up being drawn. But know with confidence that we've always been above board about our policy and, even if we don't often make a big deal about it, we're proud to be held to such a high standard."
There, I fixed that for ya.
Owen Linderholm said 4:38PM on 10-06-2009
Dude - did you actually read the FTC ruling!? And any of the history? This is an AMENDMENT to an existing ruling. it is about the requirement of paid for content to say so. That's what material means. And that is why none of the examples you list would be included EXCEPT for the Ballmer Porsche - under the rules that would be a material relationship - at least if you got to keep it. In addition the commentary SPECIFICALLY states that in all but the most truly egregious cases the FTC would be going after the ADVERTISER not the blogger.
Sorry about the shouting but this is precisely the kind of thing that does get bloggers a bad name - shouting off your mouth about something you haven't looked into properly. I'm a blogger. I love blogging. I love your site. But please look a bit deeper.
By the way - there are plenty of things wrong with the FTC proposal - they just aren't the ones that the blogosphere is blowing up about.
Reply
Votre said 6:05PM on 10-06-2009
Personally, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill and indulging in a little bit of uncharacteristic hyperbole for this website. And much as I love Download Squad, I doubt sites like yours are what the FTC is looking at.
Nobody from the Feds is going to come busting down your door just because you forgot to mention somebody gave you a free copy of some software to review.
And since you have such a succinct and clear policy on how you handle these things, all you'd need to do is post that on your 'About' link (if you're paranoid about it) and you'd be home free. The worst possible thing that could happen would be for you to receive a letter (don't hold your breath) from some apparatchik in the FTC asking you to do it differently.
The FTC has issued a set of guidelines. No new laws were passed.. Websites were always subject to such laws whether or not they knew or believed they were. So if nothing is any different today than it was yesterday, then why the FTC announcement?
Maybe it's best to think of it as an FYI from Uncle Sam.
I think the sole reason why the FTC issued this faux pronouncement was to send a message that the authorities intend to start enforcing some consumer protection laws that have been on the books for years. The only difference is that they are now specifically reminding the web community that it too is subject to these laws.
And being reminded is very different than being told you are "now subject" to regulation. And that's because the simple truth is that the web has always have been subject to regulation. It's just that up until now, nobody much cared. Still, it's important to remember that lack of enforcement doesn't automatically mean a law no longer applies.
Why this should come as a surprise is a mystery to me. But maybe that's because I never felt that the web would always somehow be magically exempt from rules that govern every other human activity.
I don't think of this as an imposition or a power grab. I think of it more as an acknowledgment that the blogosphere has reached a sufficient level of maturity and influence that some regulations now need to be enforced.
So don't look at it as a threat. View it as a sign that bloggers have finally made it into the big time.
And nothing proves you're being taken seriously more than when some federal regulatory agency gets assigned the task of keeping an eye on you.
Reply
Grant Robertson said 6:08PM on 10-06-2009
- Personally, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill
- and indulging in a little bit of uncharacteristic hyperbole for
- this website. And much as I love Download Squad, I doubt
- sites like yours are what the FTC is looking at.
I understand what you're saying, but I can tell you that -- so far -- our lawyers would beg to differ with you.
Personally, I still think enforcement is a nightmare. Given that it was an FTC rep close to the guideline authoring who mentioned Yelp and Amazon, I think the FTC have their heads stuck somewhere they didn't ought to be.
Votre said 8:04PM on 10-06-2009
Hey Grant:
Excellent points.
But FWIW, attorneys (yours and mine both) will always beg to differ with us. It's what they do. It's what they're paid to do. They anticipate any possible thing that can go wrong - and plan for it. But most of what they worry about never comes to pass.
I'm not saying we should ignore what they say. That would be suicidal on our part as long as somebody else also has a lawyer. And since our attorney's main function is to protect us from their fellow attorneys, they are also responsible for creating most legal problems to begin with.
So while I wouldn't ignore an attorney's advice, I'd also make it a point not to be stampeded every time one told me something.
Having dealt with attorneys over the years, the best I can say is that, on those rare occasions when something actually did hit the fan, at least they warned us about it.
---
With regards the FTC, I wouldn't be overly concerned with the blathering of some staffer out who's to make a name. The FTC is an institution whose days as an effective guardian of the public interest are long over. And unfortunately for them, it's become obvious to just about everyone.
As far as enforcement goes, what the FTC is proposing is largely undo-able. So what they will probably do to compensate is pick some major blogger or two and rake them over the coals as an example and count on the intimidation factor to keep the rest of the zoo in line.
The people they go after will very likely have the charges against them dismissed for lack of merit or due to excessive vagueness in the law itself. So after a few speeches, a high-profile hearing or two up on Capitol Hill, and a whole lot of hand wringing - it will all blow over.
And then the real work to draft some genuine legislation will begin. It's this upside down process (stupid agency action - then charges - then dismissal - then a real law gets written) that rules in Washington DC.
It will be about five years minimum before this process plays itself out. Nobody can milk "raising on a busted flush" better than the federal government.
I wouldn't worry too much. Time is on our side. And besides...Download Squad is squeaky clean already,,,so 'no worries' right ? ;:-)
Reply