The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

FTC to crack down on review-blog freebies. Holy plugoly!?!?!?

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ranger 9

Guest
I would hope a few skanky photo-blog reviewers are quaking after reading this CNet story about new US Federal Trade Commission guidelines published today.

Added: The FTC release is here. The actual guide is here, although the version currently online appears not to incorporate the revisions announced as effective today. And just in case you want to try making a complaint, the online Complaint Assistant is here. (The Complaint Assistant page notes that the FTC doesn't resolve individual consumer complaints, but that individual submissions "can help us detect patterns of wrong-doing, and lead to investigations and prosecutions.")

The CNet story says that the guidelines, which last were revised in 1980, have been updated to state explictly that bloggers are among the endorsers who have a duty to disclose "material connections" (including payments or free products). Specifically (quoting CNet's quote of the FTC):

"...the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service."
The new guides also address celebrity endorsements in a way that might apply to big-name professional photographers who are "sponsored" by various manufacturers: (quoting CNet's quote of the FTC release again):

"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..."
If the new guides mean what they say, and if the FTC is serious about promoting and enforcing them, all I can say is: "It's about time."

What the FTC is calling for is nothing earthshaking by the standards of traditional newspaper journalism, where "full disclosure" has been standard for decades (other quasi-journalistic areas such as travel magazines, I'm not so sure.)

And I doubt if any legitimate blogger is going to lose any reputation by having to include a line here and there stating (for example) "Cleikon lent me a camera body and several lenses at no charge for this review, and when they heard how much I liked it, offered to let me buy one at the dealer net price."

In fact, I think that documenting all this stuff out in the open would have a salutary effect and improve readers' impressions of photo bloggers' credibility.

But I'll still bet a few of them are squirming a bit, and/or trying to figure out the most inconspicuous and vague way possible of adding type to their sites saying, "Yes, I get to keep all the stuff I plug"...
 
Last edited:

cam

Active member
Re: Holy plugoly! FTC to crack down on review-blog freebies?!?!?

much ado about nothing, Ranger.
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
Re: Holy plugoly! FTC to crack down on review-blog freebies?!?!?

much ado about nothing, Ranger.
Certainement, for someone who lives in Paris. (And please pardon my lack of correct accents.)

But in the US, merely the fact that the Federal Trade Commission (a rather powerful body in business circles) has extended its guidelines to cover blogs and social media may cause some bloggers to change their ways, simply because they want to be seen as being in compliance.
 

johnastovall

Deceased, but remembered fondly here...
Re: Holy plugoly! FTC to crack down on review-blog freebies?!?!?

Once more the FTC is trying to solve a problem which doesn't exist. You have to pay income tax on those freebies now if you keep them. Who ever purchased a camera because of a blog anyway?

And encouraging people to drop a dime on some one for this is insane....
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
FTC to regulate blogging

Here is the AP newswire article:

The Federal Trade Commission will try to regulate blogging for the first time, requiring writers on the Web to clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products.

The FTC said Monday its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final Web guidelines, which had been expected. Violating the rules, which take effect Dec. 1, could bring fines up to $11,000 per violation. Bloggers or advertisers also could face injunctions and be ordered to reimburse consumers for financial losses stemming from inappropriate product reviews.

The commission stopped short of specifying how bloggers must disclose conflicts of interest. Rich Cleland, assistant director of the FTC's advertising practices division, said the disclosure must be "clear and conspicuous," no matter what form it will take.

Bloggers have long praised or panned products and services online. But what some consumers might not know is that many companies pay reviewers for their write-ups or give them free products such as toys or computers or trips to Disneyland. In contrast, at traditional journalism outlets, products borrowed for reviews generally have to be returned.

Before the FTC gave notice last November it was going to regulate such endorsements, blogs varied in the level of disclosures about these potential conflicts of interest.

The FTC's proposal made many bloggers anxious. They said the scrutiny would make them nervous about posting even innocent comments.

To placate such fears, Cleland said the FTC will more likely go after an advertiser instead of a blogger for violations. The exception would be a blogger who runs a "substantial" operation that violates FTC rules and already received a warning, he said.

Existing FTC rules already banned deceptive and unfair business practices. The final guidelines aim to clarify the law for the vast world of blogging. Not since 1980 had the commission revised its guidelines on endorsements and testimonials.

Cleland said a blogger who receives a freebie without the advertiser knowing would not violate FTC guidelines. For example, someone who gets a free bag of dog food as part of a promotion from a pet shop wouldn't violate FTC guidelines if he writes about the product on his blog.

Blogger Linsey Krolik said she's always disclosed any freebies she's received on products she writes about, but has stepped up her efforts since last fall. She said she adds a notice at the end of a post, "very clear in italics or bold or something — this is the deal. It's not kind of buried."
 

etrigan63

Active member
Re: FTC to regulate blogging

Bout frickin' time. I know several successful bloggers who are paid $20K for their "Best of" logo to get it stamped on a product. I and several others considered this to be outrageously unethical which is probably why I not a rich blogger.
 
O

Oxide Blu

Guest
Re: FTC to regulate blogging

This is going to put a knife into the heart of 'guerrilla' advertising tactics. Kind of takes the fun out of it.
 
D

ddk

Guest
Re: FTC to regulate blogging

The same practices have been going on in print media since long before the internet, wonder why they're only regulating the net. Most of the so called professional reviews are more marketing tools for manufacturers rather than consumer resources, would be nice if they could really curb the practice.
 

LJL

New member
Re: FTC to regulate blogging

As the article suggests, the disclosure of what may have been received includes trips and other sorts of benefits. If we put this in context of recent stuff, then folks like Michael Reichmann, Phil Askey, Sean Reid and David Farkas should be letting us know if the entire trip, or what part of the trip to handle the Leica M9 and S2 they are reviewing (or will review) was paid for by Leica. Just saying that Leica asked them to come and check things out seems to fall short, if Leica picked up the airfare, the lodging, meals, and any other things, including a discount on any gear they may have purchased.

Not trying to put these folks in a box or anything like that, just looking at how something very recent, along with the ensuing blogs, discussions, etc., play into this scenario. It seems like at least a start to at least let folks know who may be schilling for a manufacturer, versus those that are providing info up front against possible biases in their reviews.

LJ
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Re: FTC to regulate blogging

MR has already admitted to having his air fare paid for that trip, long thread on his site on the subject where he doesn't feel that it would require disclosure.
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
Re: FTC to regulate blogging

Cheez, I started a thread on this yesterday and got nothing but a couple of comments pooh-poohing the whole thing as either a tempest in a teapot or another example of gummint intrusion. Now Jack starts a thread and people actually pay attention!

To clarify a bit, the FTC hasn't actually said it's going to start regulating blogs. All it did was update its previous guideline on endorsements (last updated in 1980) to make clear that favorable comments in blogs and social media do count as endorsements, so if "material consideration" is involved, it must be disclosed.

The FTC's own news release on the update is here, and the guideline itself is here (although as of now the online version still doesn't include the 2009 revisions, even though they took effect yesterday.)

Important: The FTC guideline doesn't say that material consideration for endorsements is illegal; it simply says it should be disclosed. In other words, the agency feels users should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to factor this in when deciding how much to trust an endorsement; the agency just wants the information to be available.

As previously, the FTC doesn't investigate and resolve individual consumer complaints, although they keep track of them in a database which they make available to law-enforcement agencies. Although that might sound toothless, it isn't really. I can't talk about my job here, but I work for a large company in an industry where FTC compliance is a Big Deal. The primary enforcement arm isn't the government -- it's your competitors, who are always scrutinizing everything you do in hopes of catching you out of compliance on something. (The FTC tends to be sympathetic to a company that can say it's at a competitive disadvantage because it's following the rules while its competitor isn't.) Another incentive to comply comes from states' attorneys general -- this is an elective office, and high-visibility prosecutions are a good way for an attorney general to make him/herself popular with voters (in other words, "Jones Cracks Down on Dishonest Bloggers" would make a great headline around election time.)

I don't really know whether this will have an effect on photo-bloggers or not, but I think it should. If anything, it should add to the credibility of blogs, bloggers and endorsers who show they're in compliance.

And what if some blog/photog were to post: "Cleikobladiya's gear is okay, but the main reason I use it is that they give me free equipment and send me on cushy junkets where they pay for my travel, lodging, food, booze and lap dances"? Heck, I'd probably salute his honesty and chutzpah, and put his blog on my regular reading list!
 

LJL

New member
Re: FTC to regulate blogging

Good to know, Ben. I sort of stopped following all the side discussions and stuff after the initial flurry of reviews and ensuing discussions started beating things to death. MR has been pretty upfront on most things most of the time, but no way to know about most others.....especially beyond this more limited and somewhat "mainstream" one or two.

As for his feeling about it not requiring disclosure.....well, if he has nothing to hide against possible bias, there should not be an issue to let folks know just how generous Leica may have been to encourage a nice write-up......

LJ
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Re: FTC to regulate blogging

Cheez, I started a thread on this yesterday and got nothing but a couple of comments pooh-poohing the whole thing as either a tempest in a teapot or another example of gummint intrusion. Now Jack starts a thread and people actually pay attention!
Sorry Ranger, never saw your post! I am merging the threads now.

PS: As a sidebar note, I do find that how you phrase your title sometimes makes a significant difference in how many participate in the post, so I slightly re-edited your original title...
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
Re: FTC to regulate blogging

MR has already admitted to having his air fare paid for that trip, long thread on his site on the subject where he doesn't feel that it would require disclosure.
Whereas the new FTC guideline seems to make pretty clear that it would. It's hard to argue that international airfare isn't a "material consideration."

Any kingpin blogger may feel it's his imperial prerogative to keep his swag score confidential, but my take on it as a reader is a bit different. People may write blogs for any number of reasons, but I read them for my own benefit.

When would it ever not be to my benefit to have material considerations disclosed? I can't think of a single circumstance in which I feel I'd be better off not knowing.

In the vast majority of cases, I expect I wouldn't feel the disclosures influenced my evaluation of the writer's credibility. But I'd rather have the info so I can decide for myself.

I have a degree in journalism, and when it came to potential conflicts of interest, we were taught to follow the "Caesar's wife" principle: Try to be above even suspicion. Whenever possible, avoid situations that might present even the slightest appearance of conflict of interest, and fully disclose the situations you can't avoid.
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
Keeping on my journalistic-ethicist hat for the moment: To illustrate the slipperiness of this slope, I'm going to propose some hypothetical but plausible scenarios, and then say how I as a reader (as opposed, say, to an FTC lawyer) would feel about whether there was a "material consideration" that should be disclosed. Try them on for yourself... what do you think?

Scenario I: Photo-tech blog A, which routinely tests new equipment, receives a sample of a new camera from the importer, subjects it to their usual series of tests, publishes their findings, then returns the sample to the importer. My take: No disclosure required; anyone who reads photo tests probably realizes that this is a reasonable and standard practice.​

Scenario II: Photographer/blogger X, who writes about his personal impressions on a variety of photo topics including equipment, receives a sample of a new camera from the importer, gives it a field test, publishes his thoughts, then returns the sample to the importer. My take: No disclosure required; as with Scenario I, this would seem a reasonable and standard practice.​

Now it gets trickier...

Scenario IIb: As with the above, photographer/blogger X receives a sample of a new camera to try. In addition to using it for test photography, he uses it for some of his professional assignments. He then publishes his thoughts and returns the sample. My take: It's a close call, but I would want this to be disclosed. After all, one of X's competitors who wanted to use the same camera on a job would have had to rent it, so there's a "material consideration" involved. The fact that X was willing to trust his livelihood to the test camera actually would make his report more credible in my eyes, but I think disclosure would be appropriate regardless.​

Scenario IIc: As with Scenario II, X tries the sample, publishes his conclusions, and sends the sample back. He likes the camera so much that he then goes to his dealer and buys one with his own money. My take: No disclosure required. Again, the fact that he liked the camera that much might add credibility, but what he does with his own money is his business.​

Scenario IId: Again as with Scenario II, X tries and returns the sample. He likes the camera a lot and wants to buy one -- so he contacts his importer contact, who gives him the opportunity to buy one at a discounted price. My take: I'd definitely want disclosure on this one. Even though it doesn't seem much different from Scenario IIc, the fact that he received a price that isn't generally available to the public constitutes a "material consideration." It might lead me to conclude that he's got an especially cozy relationship with this manufacturer, and I'd want to take that into account when evaluating his writings.​

On to another scenario:

Scenario III: A manufacturer is introducing a new line of equipment at a news conference at its headquarters in Gheg, Albania. Blogger Z, who writes regularly about this manufacturer's products, receives an invitation to attend. The manufacturer pays the airfare of the press attendees, including Blogger Z. My take: Close call, but I'd want disclosure. International air travel is such a PIA that the airfare is almost a penalty rather than an inducement! But since presumably there might have been other bloggers who wanted to attend, but couldn't because they did not receive free airfare, the manufacturer's accommodation to Blogger Z constitutes singling him out for special treatment, and I'd want to know about that.​

Scenario IIIb: Same as above -- except that in addition to airfare, the manufacturer invites Blogger Z to spend a long weekend in Gheg testing the new equipment, picking up the tab for his lodging, meals and incidentals, hiring some models for him to photograph, etc. My take: Come on, we've got to have full disclosure on this one! The manufacturer might argue that it simply was facilitating a field test, but such a cushy arrangement surely is a textbook example of a "junket."​

Something different but very recognizable:

Scenario IV: Blogger A is a well-known professional shooter, how-to author, and workshop instructor whose popular blog features entertaining accounts of his experiences, snippets of his philosophy of photography, how-to tips, etc. He's well-known as a user of gear by Manufacturer B and mentions its equipment frequently. Recognizing the value of this, Manufacturer B furnishes him with free and loaner equipment for his own use and at his workshops and provides him with other services not generally available to the public. My take: A's relationship with B has to be disclosed, and that's not just my opinion; it's exactly analogous to one of the situations in the FTC guideline, the one involving the race-car driver endorsing a brand of tire. Since the public is likely to recognize the endorser as a racer, not simply as a product pitchman, the guideline says any material consideration he receives must be disclosed.​

I can think of others, but that's enough to get started...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top