Is that blogger review really a paid ad? The FTC wants you to know.

The web was abuzz in April with scare talk about the Federal Trade Commission’s plans to put “bloggers in handcuffs,” “turn them into criminals,” and muzzle bloggers’ free speech rights.

What evil plan is afoot? The FTC is updating its “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising,” which were last refreshed in 1980. What this has to do with bloggers is a new form of advertising, called word-of-mouth marketing, in which advertisers pay your favorite bloggers to “review” their products. The bloggers get paid, for example, with free product samples; gift certificates for JCPenney shopping sprees; cash payments; or the loan of a $30,000 Ford Flex for a year.

The bloggers are supposed to write whatever they want about the product—pro or con—but the payments put into question whether they would be inclined to seriously bite the hand of a “friend” lending a car or giving other valuable goodies or cash. (Consumer Reports buys and pays for the products it tests, and doesn’t accept free samples.)

The FTC aims to more explicitly bring advertisers who hawk their wares through seemingly unbiased bloggers under their truth-in-advertising guidelines, which would mandate the same thing required of traditional advertising: The honest opinions or experiences of the blogger/endorser, no false or unsubstantiated statements, and disclosure—by the blogger—that he or she is being paid.

In other words, an advertiser who greases the palms of bloggers to fabricate “spontaneous” Internet buzz for his product or service can’t pretend that he’s not advertising. Blogs that promote products “are consumer endorsements. To the extent they’re paid for, they come under jurisdiction of FTC,” Richard Cleland, assistant director of the FTC’s Division of Advertising Practices told me in a recent interview.

Consumers easily recognize a regular print, broadcast, or Internet ad for what it is—and know to be appropriately skeptical. But a sponsored blog post that doesn’t look like an advertisement at all can catch consumers off-guard. No wonder advertisers covet and court the endorsement of bloggers, and studies show that bloggers influence purchase decisions.

Under the proposed guidelines, bloggers who turn their supposedly independent daily musings into a paid commercial—like advertisers themselves— would have no special license to deceive just because they’re using the Internet.

I think the FTC is right-on here. What do you think?—Jeff Blyskal

Comments

[Bill Curnow]

Due to recent pay-to-blog scandals involving undisclosed payments for product and service reviews I've adopted a very simple way of looking at blogs. Unless the blogger explicitly states that their review review or post was not solicited I'm going to assume that it was. In other words, the unethical actions of a few have tainted the actions of the whole.

The FTC's proposed guidelines will go a long way to restoring respectability of the majority of bloggers but I'm under no illusions that those currently abusing the publics trust will change their ways. What this boils down to is simple ethics, something the advertising industry once heard about at a cocktail party but never really bothered to write down for further research.

[Internet Skeptic]

The Internet is the "wild west". Any sage, fool or knave with a web browser can have a blog. Blogs are merely we[b logs] of whatever truths or untruths someone chooses to log. By definition blogs are not journalism or necessarily "honest" opinion. They are pure free speech. The government should keep out.

You get what you pay for. I pay Consumer Reports for access to honest data. CR's blogs have credibility only as they are backed up by the independent Consumer's Union whose fees are willingly paid by those who value reliable data.

Information that costs nothing is worth just that. Wikipedia is full of untruths, many intentional.

Anyone who believes otherwise really does deserve what they get.

[Marshall Dillon]

The analogy of the internet as the wild west is a stretch at best. Even the wild west got tamed at some point with rules, and laws, and the cowboy looking out for his pard.

The internet is a very profitable venue for many large international corporate entities who look to squeeze as much profit out of its use as they can. It is also a venue for highly illegal and unethical behavior by international entities who also make huge profits out of its use.

Your statement, "Anyone who believes otherwise really does deserve what they get," is a prime example of why some rules are needed. I would agree that if I don't look both ways before crossing the street and get hit by a car, it's my fault. I knew there was a road and I knew there were dangers and I proceeded anyway.

However, to say that if I take a leisurely stroll through an inviting park and get shot by a sniper two blocks away who I could not see, don't know why they are shooting, or can't find a safe haven from other sharp shooters makes me deserving is a stretch.

You also wrote, "You get what you pay for. I pay Consumer Reports for access to honest data."

I also pay taxes in some form or other and am glad that some of those taxes are being used by the FTC to help clean up the new "virtual community neighborhood" where some people have chosen to disregard the few social conventions they abide by in the real world.

[Christina Gleason @ Cutest Kid Ever]

As a blogger who has reviewed products on her blog, I support the FTC's decision. I have no problem disclosing when I've received a free product for review, and I've certainly been honest in my assessments. (Reviewing some children's cough syrup, I was quite upfront about the fact that my son refused to drink it, even when I tried to sneak it in his apple juice.) Other bloggers have not been quite as forthcoming, and it is a good move to level the playing field and have people fess up. As long as bloggers are using honesty and integrity in their reviews, no one has anything to fear from the FTC.

[ella]

I think it's unenforceable but a terrific idea, but then I've long had a disclaimer in my footer that no product mentions or reviews are chosen or influenced by any compensation. I was a msm journalist for many, many more years than I've been blogging and unpaid objectivity is second nature to me.

[Mike]

I want to see the fine print on this one before I decide for or against it. While I agree that adverblogs are a despicable form of advertising, I also don't want to have to point out every affiliate link on every blog post. If I write an article that mentions a particular product, even if said product isn't the focus of the article, I want the right to make the name of that product an amazon affiliate link without fearing the wrath of the FTC.

[Bill]

Hi Jeff,

It's been 29 years since the FTC last took a look at these guidelines concerning endorsements and testimonials, and it makes a lot of sense to update them, and include specific examples of activities on the Web. I agree completely that bloggers should disclose whether or not they are being paid or have received a product or service for free to provide a review.

The new guidelines do more than requiring disclosure of the relationship between a blogger and an advertiser. That's where the proposed revisions gets even more interesting - new and more stringent standards for required disclaimers and potential legal responsibility on the part of an advertiser for what a blogger might write in a review. Those would be great topics for a followup to this post if you were so inclined to write about them.

[Bill Curnow]

Internet Skeptic,

The notion that "Information that costs nothing is worth just that" is absurd. I don't pay a dime to read the New York Times online, nor to I pay anything to thumb through the reference section of my local library. Am I to understand that the information I find is absolutely worthless because it was free but that it magically because valuable if I were to pay for it?

[Internet Skeptic]

I appreciate Mr. Dillon's thoughtful remarks.

The internet is never a "leisurely stroll through an inviting park" nor a "virtual community neighborhood". It should always be treated like one was crossing a street or entering a jungle. Nor is buying a legal product on anyone's advice, good or bad, ever analogous to being murdered by a sniper.

My taxes are better spent on real-world problems and solutions.

I always consult CR before making large purchases, even when trusted relatives swear by this or that product.

A random blog, especially one on any of the ad-supported "free" blogging sites, should be treated with no more authority than a random flyer that someone sticks under the windshield of a car. Cheap and easy free speech, nothing more nor less.

And when that fellow in a real-world "inviting park" offers to sell me a Rolex for $20, my common sense dictates against taking that offer. Without explicit "disclosure".

[Shel]

As someone who worked in publishing before now working in digital marketing I can confidently say that most print magazine editors accept gifts far exceeding gift cards from JCPenney and are, for the large part, also far from impartial. It is an interesting issue from an awareness perspective, but I think we are kidding ourselves if we think media is somehow different online. Is the FTC going after product placement in TV and film? How about that BMW that Brie got a few months ago on Desperate Housewives. "Look, it parks itself!" I say relax and teach your children to be skeptical of all media, fiction and non-fiction alike. And I agree that I don't want my taxes chasing after people I already know to be cautious of. It's just silly.

[Brad]

While I am for reviewing and updating laws I have to ask....
If I am talking to my friends and family in person about a product do I have to first present them with a disclosure notice?
Everyone supporting the FTC decision here needs to post a disclosure if they are on any federal aid assistance programs. I am skeptical if their support is being influenced.

My point being is, where is the line?

[DK]

As a small business crafting personal care products, we are solicited several times each week (and solicitations have been increasing) by bloggers requesting free products. Many of these bloggers have said directly, or implied, that they would write a "good review" if we sent them free product. When we have attempted to educate such folks about why our products are superior by inviting them to speak over the phone and to share factual data, we have found that the majority are not interested in investing in even a small amount of time to become educated, to learn the meaningful facts behind the product, and won't take the time for a telephone conversation (even when we offer to call them so it's not on their dime) -- they simply move on to the next company willing to send them free loot. Apparently, there are many opportunities for such bloggers as the internet is flooded with such bogus blogs.

We find this manner of promotion to be unethical. We don't have any problem with people honestly purchasing products and exercising their right to free speech. However, we do have a problem with internet trolls who disparage companies and create completely false postings when they don't get free product -- yes, this does happen.

We also agree with the previous commenter who mentioned that, perhaps, the FTC needs to look into print magazines as well. It has also been our experience that the printed magazines are just as bad, if not worse. The latest trend in the print magazine world is the section of the magazine in which they "review" new or trendy products. Many of these little review blurbs that look like editorial opinion with a small photo and a few sentences about the product, are actually expensive paid advertising slots -- sometimes a pseudo-editorial blurb might run two to three thousand dollars or more. Over the past six years, this practice has been on the increase.

Buyer beware!

[L. Allen]

I've adopted a policy of checking sites that sell large numbers of products (Amazon, Best Buy, etc.) and starting with the most negative comments first. This often helps me make decisions long before I reach the fluffy reviews - for example, consistent complaints about, say, a power cord fraying, or a dvd drive that burns DVDs well, but does not play them well, or towels that leach color through several washes, etc., give a good idea about the product.

I ignore complaints about shipping delays, or other non-product-performance related issues, focus on the ones related to actual use of the product, and go from there. If I get through the negatives, then I start with the lowest positives, and work my way up. It has worked really well, so far.

Note: I don't necessarily buy from the site whose reviews I check, since I prefer to buy from local retailers when possible (someone has to support the local economy), but I use the knowledge others have gained to help me decide which products to buy from my local retailers.

[WALTER SERAFIM]

Jeff Blyskal,

I never understood why people have to pay for a membership of places such as COSTCO - SAM'S CLUB etc...etc...etc...
You, the consumer, go there to spend money already.
You might say that by becoming a member of these businesses, you will save a lot of money because you buy in bulk.
So, once again, why pay for the membership ?
Same principle applies with the ATMs' fees. Why pay $ 3.00 to $ 5.00 for the privilege to withdraw your own money ?
In the latter case, you might say it is for the convenience. Well, if more people walked, or drove a few more blocks out of their way to withdraw their own money from one of these ATMs, banks would stop taking your hard earned money.
Isn't the government doing that already ?
Can you spell SUCKER ?!

Respectfully,

Walter Serafim

[Diane Court]

Requiring disclosure is a reasonable regulation update. Really, it's a matter of trust, not something bloggers should fear. Reviewers who disclose their relationship with the company know this as do do their readers, and it strengthens the social relationship they build.

[Ram Gunjal]

Nice, Well...I was thinking same because i have seen many reviews of the new products and many companies pay bloggers to post positive review on their blogs. We can see only positive review there and nobody can know the actual review about that product.