FTC Cracks Down on Blogger Payola, Celebrity Tweets

S

Scott Kraft

Scott Kraft
From AdAge:

Loading…

adage.com

"NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- The Federal Trade Commission is cracking down on blogger payola."

You may have to register to read but I'm sure it will be on other news sites.

Essentially, it calls for (full?) disclosure of any connection the blogger may have to the product/company/brand he or she is writing about. Fairly big fines for violations. Will this put the wine blogosphere out of business?!
 
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
FTC Cracks Down on Blogger Payola, Celebrity TweetsFrom AdAge:

Loading…

adage.com

"NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- The Federal Trade Commission is cracking down on blogger payola."

You may have to register to read but I'm sure it will be on other news sites.

Essentially, it calls for (full?) disclosure of any connection the blogger may have to the product/company/brand he or she is writing about. Fairly big fines for violations. Will this put the wine blogosphere out of business?!
Click to expand...
No, the real offenders have skipped to Paris where they can thumb their dainty noses at the FTC.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
FTC Cracks Down on Blogger Payola, Celebrity TweetsFrom AdAge:

Loading…

adage.com

"NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- The Federal Trade Commission is cracking down on blogger payola."

You may have to register to read but I'm sure it will be on other news sites.

Essentially, it calls for (full?) disclosure of any connection the blogger may have to the product/company/brand he or she is writing about. Fairly big fines for violations. Will this put the wine blogosphere out of business?!
Click to expand...
No, the real offenders have skipped to Paris where they can thumb their dainty noses at the FTC.
Click to expand...

is that why sharon left?
 
Please read the regulation, or at least the summary of it, before jumping off the deep end. It's not going to affect anyone here; if Orson Wells were still alive, it would have affected him.
 
I read the NY Times synopsis and it appears that it only relates to disclosures about the use of freebies in reviews or payments made to the bloggers by the advertiser. In terms of enforcement, the FTC claims it will be focusing on "advertisers" who give out the freebies and payments to bloggers. The exception would be bloggers who run "substantial operations" and have been already warned.

It will be interesting to read the reg. But, it clearly doesn't affect anyone on this board, especially if the FTC is only going to enforce the reg against advertisers and not "bloggers."
 
if bloggers are now going to be held to the standard that they must disclose freebies/compensation in their reviews, will print publications such as the WA and WS also be held to those same standards? Last time I checked, there was no disclosure of such by either of them.

Just askin'
Mark Lipton
 
I checked the Notice that the FTC published. Apparently, someone made a Comment on Mark L's point about traditional print media being treated differently than bloggers. According to the Notice, the FTC acknowledges the difference in treatment, but, this is because it doesn't consider these reviews to be "sponsored advertising messages," and thus not "endorsements" that would require compliance with the new reg. Apparently, the FTC feels that "knowing whether the media entity that published the review paid for the item in question would not affect the weight consumers give to the reviewer's statements." But, this might be different if the reviewer receives the the benefit directly from the manufacturer (e.g., if James Laube directly receives the free bottle from the winery rather than the bottle being sent to the Wine Spectator's mailing room).

There is an interesting footnote that says that an employee working for Internet sites with "independent editorial responsibility" would be treated the same as an employee working for a "brick and mortar" periodical.

[See pp. 47-48 of the Notice]

It seems like the FTC feels that consumers are already on notice that a review based in a periodical might already be paid for by the advertisers, thus disclosure is not needed. It seems like the FTC thinks bloggers and consumer-generated reviews are different because consumers assume they buy the products themselves, thus disclosure is necessary. In other words, it is widely known that traditional periodical reviews might be tainted by freebies, but consumers assume bloggers are just like them: pure, disinterested consumers who would never take a free gift from anyone.
 
On Monday, the F.T.C. said it would revise rules about endorsements and testimonials in advertising that had been in place since 1980. The new regulations are aimed at the rapidly shifting new-media world and how advertisers are using bloggers and social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to pitch their wares.

The F.T.C. said that beginning on Dec. 1, bloggers who review products must disclose any connection with advertisers, including, in most cases, the receipt of free products and whether or not they were paid in any way by advertisers, as occurs frequently. The new rules also take aim at celebrities, who will now need to disclose any ties to companies, should they promote products on a talk show or on Twitter. A second major change, which was not aimed specifically at bloggers or social media, was to eliminate the ability of advertisers to gush about results that differ from what is typical for instance, from a weight loss supplement.

For bloggers who review products, this means that the days of an unimpeded flow of giveaways may be over. More broadly, the move suggests that the government is intent on bringing to bear on the Internet the same sorts of regulations that have governed other forms of media, like television or print.
[END QUOTE]

For the whole MY Times article --> Media

. . . . . Pete
Click to expand...
 
I think that the FTC should just go after bloggers who are writing about free stuff they've received from people that I don't like, particularly if they're writing about products that I just don't care about. You know, stuff like the Republican party, the AARP, the NRA, and little yipping dogs with shrill barks like my neighbor has.

If these bought-and-paid-for bloggers want to write about cool things that I do like, then the FTC should just leave them the fuck alone and go pester other entities who are more deserving of the attention, like Perez Hilton, cigarette manufacturers, and the scumsucking credit card companies that reduced my credit limits but then raised my interest rate to like 52% because I'm now considered a "high risk account" because I'm using a higher percentage of my limit than before.

The FTC oughta line up these robber barons and force feed them Mollydooker until their livers expand like those of geese destined to be made into foie gras.

-Eden (and anyone blogging on topics that I think aren't all that interesting, well, they should also be required by the FTC to refer to themselves as "blobbers")
 
originally posted by Eden Mylunsch:
...go pester other entities who are more deserving of the attention, like Perez Hilton...
Click to expand...

Pfft. P-Hilt is sooo 2007, Eden. The real target now is Nikki Finke, especially after her well-publicized response to her New Yahwker profile.

Hollywood, Baybee!
Mark Lipton
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top