A few of us have had a discussion about this on Twitter and now I’m thinking that I’m not restricted by 140-word limit, it may be better to put it out here.
Obviously I have strong feelings about this matter. I have always been open about this, so I’ll repeat for those who don’t know me: I worked as a plant in film newsgroups for a London-based U.S. film company, and in editorial for a publishing house (EMAP) during late 1990s, so it’s reasonably easy for me to spot plants and advertorials. What we did wasn’t quite illegal, but imo, certainly unethical.
The experiences left an impact on me enough to disclose whenever possible when I know people’s money are involved. When I returned to the Internet a few months ago after being away for four years, I was disconcerted to see just how many there are – plants and non-labelled advertorial articles.
As I said before, I feel that the FTC’s real target are those who are making money or benefiting from their blogs or platforms without disclosing that fact, e.g. they are paid to review certain products or make money off commissions of positive reviews.
For example, a reviewer says this exercise bike is awesome and blah blah without disclosing that a) he’s paid to review this bike, b) he didn’t pay for the bike, c) links provided within his review are commission-based, and/or d) his ‘employer’ will provide more products if he provided a positive review. If he disclosed none of that when he published his review, he’s in the wrong.
If he clearly stated in his review – or has an open policy somewhere on his blog – that he’ll earn commissions from links in his reviews or that he was paid to do this review, he’s in the clear. No need to remove the links or refrain from providing positive reviews. It’s also important, imo, to disclose his relationship with a supplier in context of a review, e.g. he met with a publicist at a launch party where he managed to get a review product.
It can be quite easy for regular or experienced visitors to spot commercial-driven reviewers, but how about casual, occasional or inexperienced visitors? Like it or not, there are people who are trusting enough to get screwed. How else is there still a huge number of people getting their accounts hacked in spite of being constantly warned about phishing?
Another example, a paid casual employee goes in a message board and without disclosing his connection to a production company he works for, raves about a video game. A typical Wii game costs about $50 and the average age of his target audience is fifteen. Whenever the casual employee gets caught, he usually taunts them with this note: caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). He’ll return under a different name and make similar ‘This game rocks!’ claims. People can’t do anything about it. The FTC’s rule is, I believe, designed to put a stop to that.
IMO, the biggest abusers are those who are connected with travel & hospitality industry (hotel reviews, flight ticket seller reviews, etc.); video games; health products (e.g. drugs, vitamins and herbal remedies); kitchen and/or household equipment, transport, ticket retail, and – most important for me – children’s products (food, clothes, toys, equipment, etc.).
If you go to Twitter, eopinions.com and similar, you WILL find certain people working as paid plants and those who don’t disclose when providing positive reviews to the masses. It’s them that needs to be dealt with. And to be honest, I really do believe the FTC views the book blog scene as a small fish when taking others into account. I honestly don’t believe they will go after book bloggers. They have a bigger fish to fry.
So yes, I feel some in the book blog scene are overreacting, which partly upsets me because I know there are bloggers out there who are paid to review children’s products without disclosing their involvement. When I read a review of a children’s product, you bet your arse that I’d want to know if the reviewer has a stake in it because at least I can take that into account whether I’d buy it for my children.
If I find out that they were paid to review, I’d be pissed off because it CAN affect the weight/value of said review, such as would the blogger be materially or commercially driven enough to ignore important aspects of a product that could present a considerable risk to my children’s safety? So hell, yeah, book bloggers aren’t that important with this in mind.
I just want reviewers to be upfront about their connections because if/when they do, I can at least take that into account when reading their reviews. I won’t condemn them, but will respect them for being upfront. I will take their reviews seriously if I knew they were paid to review. We all have the mental scales of pros and cons where reviews, money and health/safety are concerned, don’t we?
All that said, I do understand book bloggers’ concerns and why they are motivated to question or challenge the rule. I do believe they have a valid need to protect themselves from a possibility of people abusing the FTC’s possible complaint system for petty reasons. And there are some, I felt, were offended by the rule because I think they felt it questioned their integrity.
Because of those reasons, I do believe the FTC does need to clarify their guidelines and perhaps (or hopefully) make a clear distinction between health&safety-related products and entertainment-related products somehow.
I’m sorry for being so long-winded.
I’m so glad I won’t feel compelled to blog about this anymore.
I just read DA’s update on the FTC guide. The comments are making my head hurt. When did book bloggers become the centre of the internet?
Another great post.
I second what Kat said re: book bloggers not being the centre of the internet. I truly doubt the FTC are going to be gunning for a low-medium traffic book review blog which accepts the odd ARC.
Even “larger” book review blogs which actively solicit ARCs and maintain contacts in the publishing industry are unlikely to have problems as long as they are upfront about the source of the books they review.
In the arguments against the FTC guidelines, much has been said of a blogger’s right to privacy and free speech. But what of consumers rights? Does a potential buyer not have the right to know the blogger pimping Product X was paid to do so, or received the product from its makers?
Ditto.
I think my problem with the whole thing, is the failure to recognise that this has been brought about by the system being mis-used (yes in other categories apart from books mainly.. but)
Actually something I found interesting, not long after this stuff broke there was a review went up, and in the comments, out of the ten or so that were there roughly seven snarkily owned up to some form of relationship with the author.. I found that interesting, and also interested by the fact that none of the posters thought it was interesting.
Have you noticed that many of us championing consumers’ rights over bloggers’ rights are not living in the US? I wonder why that is. Someone mentioned the right to privacy and free speech being extremely important to Americans but I find that argument confusing as it implies that (a.) bloggers have a right to say whatever they want, even if they know it to be untrue, and (b.) a bloggers’ right to privacy is more important than a consumer’s right to full disclosure.
“I find that argument confusing as it implies that (a.) bloggers have a right to say whatever they want, even if they know it to be untrue, and (b.) a bloggers’ right to privacy is more important than a consumer’s right to full disclosure.”
That was the core of my confusion as well. I asked Will about it and from what I understand, it basically boils down to two things:
Some don’t like being held legally accountable for their right to use of the freedom of speech, and some find a government body’s involvement intrusive and unconstitutional.
It still returns to the same old thing: if one is willing to exercise own right to the freedom of speech for money, surely one should be willing to face the consequences if he was found guilty of misleading his readers?
I think the real issue is a resentment of being held legally accountable for own actions? Will’s still on a work trip, so I’ll pump him for more details when he gets home.
@SonomaLass tweeted something that might explain it. Basically, any incursions into free speech is considered to be too high a price to bear.
The thing is, blogging straddles a line between private and commercial activity. Is it really so hard to see how accepting ARCs (especially if you get enough to sustain a blog that posts reviews daily) and getting substantial income for ads and affiliate commissions might be construed as commercial activities? If that ever happens to us, I’d have to seriously think about declaring the blog in my taxes.
I find US citizens’ attitude to government very puzzling. They seem to put a lot of stock into the ceremonial and historical aspects of government, but are deeply suspicious of government interference in any part of their lives. I can’t decide if it’s because of the system they have, or if it’s some kind of culturally rooted paranoia.
I’d be very interested in hearing Will’s take on it. The more I read people’s reasons for objecting to the FTC guidelines, the more I think Americans have a different interpretation of freedom of speech than I do.
Full disclosure (sorry – couldn’t resist!): I was classified as an American national living in Ireland until I was 17. I applied for an Irish passport just before starting university as it would mean no fees. I now have dual nationality, but I feel no nationalistic fervour for either country. If pressed, I’d say I have more in common with the Irish simply because I grew up there & went through their education system. I’m certainly more familiar with the Irish Constitution than I am with the American one. My understanding is that the Irish support freedom of speech but in a more limited form than the US. I’m not a lawyer, though, so don’t quote me on that!