DISQUS

Liz · 2 months ago

Given that there are millions of blogs and hundreds of them do product reviews, I wonder how exactly they plan to enforce this ruling and I look forward to seeing their examples on what is appropriate disclosure.

For example, I was given a book at a conference. I later decided to review the book. Since it was a freebie (although the author & publisher were unaware I review books), do I need to disclose that I didn't pay for it? I know this is peanuts compared to people who get paid per post but my point is that just because I was given the product doesn't constitute an endorsement. In fact, they might not have given me the book if they'd known I was going to review it!

Aaron C. Yeagle · 2 months ago

Well, since we have not seen what is undoubtedly a several hundred page law, "Product-in-Kind" is considered payment. Thus, I think, you have to disclose that you were given the book ... even if you were not given the book with the expectation from the provider of the book of doing a review.

John E. Bredehoft (Empoprises) · 2 months ago

For what it's worth, I've been trying to err on the side of caution for some time now, even with Amazon affiliate links and Google ads. You never know...

Christian Russell · 2 months ago

Yes, enforcement is the thing. Making a law is one thing. It's also completely illegal to bathe a donkey in your bathtub in chicago, but I do that shit every day. Have yet to get a ticket :)

John E. Bredehoft (Empoprises) · 2 months ago

But Christian, did you pay for the soap for said donkey, or was it provided to you by the Chicago Donkey-Bathing Lobby? I agree that enforcement of this will probably be haphazard, but I'll probably go on the side of caution to be safe.

Christian Russell · 2 months ago

Agreed. I disclose. My readers know I sell stuff, etc. I agree that disclosure is the right thing to do, without a doubt. I'm just saying the idea of uncle sam tracking down non-disclosure offenders, to me, is hilarious. I mean seriously? There's just no way they're ever going to do this effectively.

Wade A. Inganamort · 2 months ago

Internet police coming to town?

Alyson · 2 months ago

It would have been nice if they included guidelines about HOW we are to disclose things, if they're going to fine us that much. Sheesh. And forget the fact that for every freebie I get, I probably spend 10x the value...

Aaron C. Yeagle · 2 months ago

THIS is THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION ... HOW to disclose. Cuz if we have to write a 3 paragraph disclosure statement on every post for every "endorsement" we're not gonna be happy. But if I can put a statement on an obscure page with only one link access ... fine.

John E. Bredehoft (Empoprises) · 2 months ago

I would hope that two-word statements such as "sponsored" or "product provided" would do the trick. But we'll see...

ConnorJack · 2 months ago

Does this apply to UK blogs?

Liz · 2 months ago

No. The FTC is a U.S. government agency so would only cover blogs published in the U.S. Although I guess that is sometimes difficult to determine. Maybe I should move my car, diamond & watch review site to the Cayman Islands.

Ian Barnett · 2 months ago

Hey Liz, in 1999 2 New Zealanders were sued under US law, anti-cyber squatting law. The argument was that the 2 kiwi's had used a domain registration services based that was hosted out of the US. Hence conducting business in the US. There have been many other such cases. I don't have the answer, just the question, if your site is hosted on US soil then you are conducting business in the US and do you have to comply? again, based on history and winning suits I would suggest yes.

just my opinion.

GoingLikeSixty · 2 months ago

Aw right! I'm starting up a car, diamond and fine living blog right now. How does TrendyLiving.com sound?

Adam Ostrow · 2 months ago

I wouldn't think so ... the FTC only has jurisdiction over the US ...

ConnorJack · 2 months ago

Phew! I review games on my blog, most of the time for no payment.
I have a question though. If I get a free product, like a free game, does that count? Would you have to disclose that?

Aaron C. Yeagle · 2 months ago

Yes. "Product-in-Kind" is considered payment.

ConnorJack · 2 months ago

What is disclosure? How do I disclose this information?

Michael E. Rubin · 2 months ago

ConnorJack -- disclosure is easy. In your review, just say "Disclosure: I was provided with this free product by <insert the name of the company here>." That's all.

That's been the key message for WOMMA, Social Media Business Council, the 4A's, the ARF, and others for years. Disclosure isn't hard. Now it's no longer optional.

Disclosure: I used to work for both WOMMA and the Social Media Business Council (when it was called the Blog Council). This is my own opinion.

Ian Barnett · 2 months ago

while you are right Adam that the FTC only has jurisdiction over the US there is case law in the digital space that extends the FTC's and other US departments globally.

For example the 'Anti-Cyber Squatting Act' has seen Canadian companies suing Canadian citizens under US law because the servers that were used (to perform domain registration in this example) resided on US soil. So the digital question that is yet to be answered is, 'if the internet traffic relevant to the blog posting moves through US based servers' then must you comply with this and other US law?

Based on history I would suggest yes!

MagnoliaSouth · 2 months ago

The US government has no say whatsoever on what is located on UK servers, provided it also originated from the UK. However if you regularly post on an American site, I can see there being an issue.

Better to be safe and post to a UK site.

Also I would like to add, it is actually on an ethical side to post disclosure if you're receiving anything in return for your posts. I would be downright angry if I found that a review I thought I could trust, violated my trust with a biased opinion that I wasn't told about.

Just my two cents.

ConnorJack · 2 months ago

Well, my server is hosted in Texas, but i'm from the UK

Dynasty Web · 2 months ago

What about if you are just an affiliate of the product? Do you disclose you are an affiliate?

advocatus · 2 months ago

So the -blogger- gets fined? What about the company?
Also, what if I just happen to really, really, really like... say... HP Slimline PCs?

blm03 · 2 months ago

I agree. I bought a Dyson vacuum with my own money. How do they know if I bought it or it was sent to me? And how do I prove it? I have to keep every receipt for everything I ever buy ever? And I need to keep said receipts indefinitely?

And is it per post or does a sitewide disclosure policy work?

Christian Russell · 2 months ago

The US tracking this stuff down is going to end up looking even worse than the RIAA tracking down music downloaders and fining college kids for having music on their hard drives. At the end of the day, they DON'T have jurisdiction over this stuff.

blm03 · 2 months ago

I so agree.

Aaron Baer · 2 months ago

This is definitely something needed, but I just don't see how they're going to be able to enforce it. How often are these things done so blatantly that they can be caught?

dailybragger · 2 months ago

This is BS. Why go after a blogger??? Is this a scheme to get back some of the bailout money they gave away?
They should fine the company and not the blogger. I wonder if this will effect affiliate marketers too.
I guess I'll have to use a Canadian address for my blogs.

JessicaGottlieb · 2 months ago

That's going to be pretty funny... cuz ya know, those undisclosed blogs aren't making $11,000 a year.

Michael · 2 months ago

Given your past (and abysmal) history of not disclosing endorsements Jessica you ought not to be commenting on this one.

JessicaGottlieb · 2 months ago

Typically I don't respond to anonymous, but you are wrong. I've disclosed every relationship long before anyone asked me to. It's just prudent.

CanCan · 2 months ago

I was thinking the same thing! Nor have I made 11K over 2 years. At this rate it would take about 12 years.
Disclosure: I am an Amazon affiliate. Thanks.

Christina Gleason · 2 months ago

I've been disclosing when I'm compensated for reviews all along, so this is no huge deal for me. I do wonder if this means that people who HAVEN'T been doing it need to go back and edit their dozens (hundreds?) of reviews, or if this will only apply to reviews published after the December 1 deadline.

Also, a point that was brought up at the Type-A Mom Conference Blogger Town Hall meeting... it does totally suck for those of us who do product reviews when we want to talk about something we bought with our own money. We feel like we need to disclose when we HAVEN'T been compensated to write about a particular product or service so that we don't get smacked down for writing something of our own accord.

Aaron C. Yeagle · 2 months ago

Well, since you purchased the item(s) with your own money the ruling does not apply. However, should the FTC come see you, can you PROVE your purchased the item(s) with your own money? How long will we have to keep receipts and are posts made prior to December 1st grandfathered?

Fernwood Hotel - Bruce Flinn · 2 months ago

Proof - provide a digital copy or link to a digital copy of your receipt at the bottom of your post next to your disclosure. My 2 cents - "Disclosure: I do not work for or endorse any camera product or camera company.".

Name · 2 months ago

The Youtube beauty community should love this, there's quite a shitstorm with "guru's" brewing.

tina · 2 months ago

There's a "YouTube beauty community"??

Alyson · 2 months ago

Couldn't agree more. It's been a LONG time coming. But is Youtube even covered as "bloggers"?

Gemma · 2 months ago

yes there is a youube beauty community.

Two sisters in particular with a huge fan base made up of naive preteens have been lying to them about getting paid to review products by companies and also when they get free products.
There is proof that they get paid for reviews and to this day they constantly come out and LIE saying "Ive never been paid!"
Theres a blog out there discussing them.

http://thettruthabouteb.blogspot.com/2009/07/th...

Miss Britt · 2 months ago

The disclosure seems like common sense practice that should have been going on anyway.

My one question now is, do you have to disclose the exact dollar amount if actual cash changed hands? I've already heard one person interpret these guidelines this way on twitter this morning.

blm03 · 2 months ago

I saw that too.

AWDawno · 2 months ago

Any idea what constitutes an acceptable disclosure? If there's a standard "promotional consideration provided by..." section in a blog's side bar is that enough or must it be in every post where you talk about a supplier whether you've accepted a gift or $ for the actual product in the post or not?

Adam Ostrow · 2 months ago

unfortunately, it seems they left this kind of vague ...

David Tanguay · 2 months ago

I'm wondering the same thing. Here's my attempt at a disclosure statement...

"Content posted to this blog is in no way an endorsement for the product or service and may result in compensation from the vendor."

I wonder if this will be sufficient.

Blogs Marketing · 2 months ago

I think it's a good ruling, after all the scam blogs that promote those fake weight loss programs and the Google money tree scams are ultimately the ones to blame for this ruling....I don't think it's going to affect us negatively, what's wrong with adding a disclosure that you've been paid to review...I think even if you're paid to review a product or sevice you should actually review it and be honest about your thoughts on that particular product - if it's good tell your audience if it's bad do the same don't do it...pay the MAN!

Mike Stenger · 2 months ago

This is pretty interesting. Does this also apply to if you post about a product as an affiliate, you have to disclose you're an affiliate? I get it if an advertiser or company pays you to post about and endorse their product, but what if you're an affiliate? Then you're only being paid if people purchase through your link...

John E. Bredehoft (Empoprises) · 2 months ago

For the moment, I'm assuming that affiliates (even Amazon affiliates) have to disclose. Although it's too bad that the fine isn't the lesser of $11K or the actual amount that you received.

Transmutator · 2 months ago

Question: how must the disclosure take place?
Question: does this affect affiliate programs?
ex. I use TweetSpinner. I am an affiliate. In a post I have recommended TweetSpinner and the link has my affiliate information. You sign up. I get paid.
OR, I am an Amazon Associate, I recommend a book and link an image of the book to my Amazone Associate account - thusly I get paid for the book.
I can't find details on HOW the disclosure must take place; cuz I'll just put it on a tiny page with only one link to it.

Carrie Isaac · 2 months ago

I have the same questions as many others: what about when you're given product in exchange for a review? And how do I disclose? In a general disclosure policy for my site? At the end of every review post?

I don't think the ruling is a bad idea, but it will need to be clarified.

The biggest issue I have is more with the companies who are "paying" for product reviews. I'm a bargain blogger and am often solicited to write a review for, say, a bag of granola, and all I get for doing the review is a bag of granola.

I typically choose not to do those types of reviews, but know a lot of bloggers who do - and to the companies who solicit those types of reviews with that type of compensation, I have to ask if *I* can be fined upt o $11,000 based on how I write the review, shouldn't I be compensated with more than a free bag of granola?

Of course, that's up to the bloggers who choose to do reviews for a free bag of granola. But it seems like the stakes were just raised, and both bloggers and the companies soliciting reviews need to think about the gravity of what they are doing - they could pay big time if they mess up.

Alyson · 2 months ago

I suppose you must disclose that you were given the bag of granola for free? I'm wondering the same thing as sometimes I am asked to review, as an example, body wash. I receive a $3 bottle of body wash. If I forget to mention I got it for free, they're going to fine me $11k for my $3 bottle of body wash?

And what if I then give the body wash away? That whole nonsense about this not being an offense if you do not keep the item you received is really confusing.

Henry · 1 month ago

You're a smart cookie. I would think a legal agreement between you and the vendor that stipulates THEY have to pay if you get fined by the FTC should become standard operating procedure for anybody worried about FTC fines. That would in turn cause the vendors to require the bloggers to disclouse things and protect everybody.

Jimbo · 2 months ago

Seems a little unfair on bloggers when there is not a similar policy in place for traditional media, no? I'm from the UK so maybe it is different in the US, but over here a PR can supply print media journalists with products (or expensive lunches/gifts/etc for that matter) in return for a favourable brand mention without similar risks. What's the deal?

Brandon_Sheley · 2 months ago

seems like someone has to much time on their hands
I never get free goods for reviews, so no biggy to me :(
but it seems like a lot of cash for paid reviews to bloggers, who would think of going after the big advertising firms where 11k isn't much to them.

David Tanguay · 2 months ago

There goes affiliate marketing. Say goodbye to all of the "top 10" review sites.

Does anyone have an example of an all-inclusive disclosure statement which I can put within the footer of my blog?

Here's my attempt...

"Content posted to this blog is in no way an endorsement for the product or service and may result in compensation from the vendor."

Is this going to be sufficient for the FTC?

megan · 2 months ago

Is there a similar type of law for magazines? They receive freebies and god-knows-what in exchange for product pimpage. How are they any different from bloggers?

John E. Bredehoft (Empoprises) · 2 months ago

Very good question, especially concerning the intertwining of news and media properties. Imagine if every Fox-televised baseball game had to have a disclaimer "The actors that we just showed on camera are employed by a sister division of Fox Sports."

Aaron C. Yeagle · 2 months ago

The difference between "blogs" and other media is in the "perceived intent" of the content. For example, when you are reading a magazine, newspaper or watching TV or listening to radio you have implicit knowledge that the review has been paid for in some fashion. When you see hear or read an advertisement, you know it is an advertisement. When you read a review on a blog/tweet/FB post you typically believe that this information comes from a "personal" standpoint and the "perceived intent" is to honestly inform you of an opinion NOT to coerce/cajole/convince you into purchasing.

This is why you sometimes see full-page/multi-page "articles" in print with "Advertisement" at the top of each page ... because the articles are, in truth paid advertisements. Does the fact that someone gets paid - either with cash or free product - influence your purchasing decision?

Yes. It does. And hence the ruling.

Gill Wagner · 2 months ago

Hey, with a company name like Honest Selling I'm obviously all for transparency. But this is overkill.

When a celebrity does a commercial we all know he or she is getting paid ... right? Yet the celeb doesn't have to say "I'm being paid to endorse this product."

Why can't the readers of blogs just be smart enough to understand that bloggers get paid?

Government overkill yet again. Ain't government just grand?

Marcy · 2 months ago

Because not all bloggers get paid. That's the difference. I actually think this is great and needed, and surprised that there's this much uproar. When a celebrity endorses a product, it's clear that they got paid for it. With blogs, the assumption has usually been the other way around-- bloggers would write about what they liked and didn't like, it was only recently that some started getting paid for it. I think it;s important to be able to sort out the difference between someone who paid for a product on their own and honestly liked it enough to write a review, vs someone who was given a free product in exchange for writing about it. I know for me, I would give the former more weight than the latter when making decisions on a product.

Gill Wagner · 2 months ago

I understand what you're saying. My problem is with the quagmire ... the "where will it end" scenario.

* If you're in a referral group and you give a referral, do you now have to disclose that you get referrals from the people you're introducing?

* Suppose you're my next-door neighbor. Suppose you own a great little restaurant. Suppose you watch out for my dogs or keep an eye on my place when I'm away. Suppose I tell people how much I like your food. Must I now disclose that you keep an eye on my house now and then?

Those are just two of a thousand way-out-there scenarios that will never end, so long as you attempt to solve this problem by passing laws to regulate the people who are saying "X product is great."

However, if the potential buyers who are listening to those who say "X product is great" simply take ownership of their own actions, this problem no longer exists.

I'm a zealot for promoting honesty and transparency in sales. But you simply can't solve the dishonest problem unless BUYERS take ownership of their own actions as well.

What happened to grain-of-salt intelligence? Let's sprinkle some of that on this problem and it will go away forever.

Paul Strauss · 2 months ago

Yeah, I have the same question that many have asked. If you have on occasion received a "freebie" product in exchange for a review or if you have affiliate links within content, do you need to disclose? And if so, what is the expectation? I'm happy to put a blanket statement in by site T's & C's or in the footer of my pages, but without any specific direction on what's acceptable, it's really hard to know what would serve a sufficient disclosure.

Brad F. · 2 months ago

I hope this applies to Twitter too. I'm starting to see lots of crap on Twitter that's obviously endorsements of a product in exchange for cash and it's annoying as hell. It wouldn't stop it, but it would make it more difficult.

Christian Russell · 2 months ago

I agree with disclosure. I also think the idea of government being competent in tracking down spammers is hilarious. For example, where does their jurisdiction end? What defines a US blogger? Seriously. Yes, disclose. It's ethical, but the government sticking their nose in it, although understandable, is just a waste of time.

Taranfx · 2 months ago

Indeed a bad news for bloggers from US

guest ponderer · 2 months ago

so I guess every blogger who tries a free service from now on has to disclose it:
"mint was great.... etc.... disclosure, I received free services/product in kind from mint" or
"facebook connect integration for twitter is useful for.... disclosure, I receive free service from facebook and twitter"

free services are still services in kind. where does it end?

Krista Peck · 2 months ago

Retweeted & shared via FB. Thanks for posting. I always disclose, but am annoyed that the standard is not even across the board (print mags, etc)...

umpump · 2 months ago

has anyone brought up FAKE testimonials on infomercials? Isnt that the same thing? So now, every celeb on an infomercial should state "I'm being paid by this company to say what they want me to. I have no real opinion on this product"..It's going to be hard to enforce. too many blogs..

Name · 2 months ago

W T F ?

Dave T. · 2 months ago

The actual guideline has not been posted yet. The link on the FTC site is dead. I have a call in to get clarification.

Those thinking it's not a big deal remember that viral campaigns exist and can often build very quickly. Don't you think your perception of a review would change if you knew the blogger got the product for free to keep? Like a $300 gadget?

This will also impact ads like the Microsoft "I bought a PC" ad where the people are actors etc. There's more to it than blogging.

Also I don't understand why all print, online and broadcast news wasn't included? Plenty of newspaper reviewers get free stuff all the time.

robert · 2 months ago

The revised Guides also make it clear that 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.

The Guides are administrative interpretations of the law intended to help advertisers comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act; they are not binding law themselves. In any law enforcement action challenging the allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the FTC Act.

robert · 2 months ago

Under the revised Guides, advertisements that feature a consumer and convey his or her experience with a product or service as typical when that is not the case will be required to clearly disclose the results that consumers can generally expect. In contrast to the 1980 version of the Guides – which allowed advertisers to describe unusual results in a testimonial as long as they included a disclaimer such as “results not typical” – the revised Guides no longer contain this safe harbor.

robert · 2 months ago

The Federal Trade Commission today announced that it has approved final revisions to the guidance it gives to advertisers on how to keep their endorsement and testimonial ads in line with the FTC Act.

robert · 2 months ago

The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that “material connections” (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other “word-of-mouth” marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement.

robert · 2 months ago

Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims.

robert · 2 months ago

Celebrity endorsers also are addressed in the revised Guides. While the 1980 Guides did not explicitly state that endorsers as well as advertisers could be liable under the FTC Act for statements they make in an endorsement, the revised Guides reflect Commission case law and clearly state that both advertisers and endorsers may be liable for false or unsubstantiated claims made in an endorsement – or for failure to disclose material connections between the advertiser and endorsers.

robert · 2 months ago

The revised Guides also make it clear that 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.

robert · 2 months ago

The Guides are administrative interpretations of the law intended to help advertisers comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act; they are not binding law themselves. In any law enforcement action challenging the allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the FTC Act.

robert · 2 months ago

The Commission vote approving issuance of the Federal Register notice detailing the changes was 4-0. The notice will be published in the Federal Register shortly, and is available now on the FTC’s Web site as a link to this press release. Copies also are available from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580

robert · 2 months ago

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,700 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

robert · 2 months ago

MEDIA CONTACT:
Betsy Lordan
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-3707
STAFF CONTACT:
Richard Cleland
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-3088

(FTC File No. P034520)
(endorsement testimonial guide.wpd)

robert · 2 months ago

so here is all the post now lets read and discuss it ok??

CRZ · 2 months ago

Could somebody send me some free stuff? I can't wring my hands over this potential trouble until I get me some free stuff to review.

JohnMcDonald · 2 months ago

F the FCC. I've got freedom of speech.

Shannon Nelson · 2 months ago

So why don't magazines/newspapers and TV have to disclose their reviews/mentions of products? They are certainly the ones not only getting it for free...but sometimes even being paid for it.

Pierre Hulsebus · 2 months ago

Washington is still working on Government 1.0 in a 2.0 world. Regulations like this help no one, and only perpetuate the bloated bururacy ---- I want an upgrade.

TSavage · 2 months ago

I don't want an upgrade...I want to opt out.

DianaHsieh · 2 months ago

In the name of "openness" and "disclosure," free speech is being slowly destroyed in America. If the government were burning books, people would be up in arms. However, the statists -- left and right -- are crafty. Instead of outright bans, they prefer regulations.

We've already seen this happen with the massive regulations on political speech. In many states, including my own Colorado, ordinary people cannot speak out about candidates or ballot measures due to very confusing disclosure laws enforced by heavy fines.

Now the federal government plans to threaten bloggers with massive fines based on the whims of bureaucrats -- who will soon, I guarantee you, write pages and pages of uber-dense and convoluted rules about what counts as "a review" or "payment" and the required form of the disclosure. Soon, almost any speech about a product will be regulated. Oh, how the large producers of crappy products will love that! They'll soon be lobbying the government for further restrictions and regulations.

The inevitable result will be that many honest bloggers will stop discussing products entirely -- or they'll stop blogging. Seriously, how many bloggers make enough money to cover the potential fines? How many bloggers will have the time and the fortitude to read through all the regulations, to know whether they're complying or not with them? Many other people will not start a blog; it would be too much trouble -- and too risky.

Gee, do you think that will benefit consumers? Do you think the result will be better information about products on blogs? Of course not!

Do not be surprised by that. In fact, the aim of the government is not to protect us from those few dastardly reviewers who accept money on the side in exchange for positive reviews. The aim of the government is to control what we think and what we do by regulating the marketplace of ideas to its death. They're doing an excellent job of that -- and most Americans are blind to the danger.

Folks, this ruling is very, very dangerous. Make a stink, if you care for your freedom.

TSavage · 2 months ago

Ignore the government.

Erik Wingren · 2 months ago

What the hell is wrong with all you people rolling over and asking how to comply or just hoping it won't intrude on your web design? Do you not feel the water warming up? Do you not treasure your heritage of liberty? Do you have no pride or testosterone or sense of justice? Do you care that your mom might get hit by an $11,000 fine 'cause she neglects to mention the sample of Tide that came in the mail when she says it's her favorite laundry detergent on her Facebook page?
I've known for a long time what government is about. What is shocking me is what it seems my friends and neighbors and countrymen are about.

And Mr. Ostrow -- It is arbitrary and undefined for a reason. It isn't a mistake. Why make it clear what you can and cannot say, when it is simpler to make people afraid to say anything?

Starbucks Melody · 2 months ago

Not sure I really like this new rule. I've never been paid for any blog post (I only blog about Starbucks) but I just see how this could possibly have grey areas not intended by the blog ruling. It's possible. If Starbucks invited me to an event (in my wildest dreams) and I walk out with a free pound of coffee that everyone at that event went to received, then what does that mean?? Have I been "paid"? And then I choose to blog about (they never asked me to) such hypothetical event, does this fall under this? I don't like this. starbucksmelody.com

Irrelevant · 2 months ago

It'll be interesting to see what the idjits in the FTC do, when a blogger posts a new product announcement, when the product is parody, as is the 'company' that is allegedly bringing the product to the blogisphere.

MagnoliaSouth · 2 months ago

I think that in the end, it's all about revenue in lieu of tax dollars. They just want the ability to smack someone when they get caught, big, as in the Belkin review scandal.

I like the idea, but it needs to be more black and white.

kristenlsmith · 2 months ago

WOMMA took a leadership role in working directly with the FTC on the revised Guide that was released yesterday. We will be holding a webinar on Thursday to discuss how the Guide affects all aspects of our industry. In addition, WOMMA will provide a summary for members to use for complying with the new standards. WOMMA will also be releasing a guide on what is effective and meaningful disclosure at the Summit and it will be available on our site in late November.

GoingLikeSixty · 2 months ago

FTC: the same folks that protect us from phone fraudsters, mail order scammers, credit counseling crooks, and their ilk...

FTC told CNN, they have nobody assigned to enforce this. The honest folks stay honest and the rest of us, are scamps and scalawags and scoundrels.

SEND ME FREEBIES, STAT!

MikeHale · 2 months ago

gene_seomachine · 2 months ago

so it would look like: "hey i got $20 bucks to tell you how wonderful this product is, if you don't believe me try it yourself, if you think my opinion is of any value to you...." something like that right?!

Pixelrage · 2 months ago

This is impossible for any government system to police...great way to rat on your competitors, though.

videost · 2 months ago

video izle - cinsellik - video izle - video75

paullevinson · 2 months ago

Here's my take on this issue http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2009/10/ftc-wr...

Name · 2 months ago

ANOTHER completely unenforceable mandate from the idiots in Washington while the whole world is watching and laughing.

Pete · 2 months ago

I find it ironic and massively hypocritical when someone in Washington DC tells us we have to disclose our ulterior motives and/or back room associations.

Rob · 1 month ago

Ooh, I have a disclosure!: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Jenny · 1 month ago

I don't think the FTC is going to have a clue on how to regulate this. What scares me more is if they try doing it in all the wrong ways. What's the end result going to be for us bloggers?

pete · 1 month ago

Now that Im done laughing, I find it interesting that anyone in Washington would make ME disclose third party relationships, since they are the kings of ulterior motives.

From Wikipedia--"The phrase "The pot calling the kettle black" is an idiom used to accuse a person or thing of being marked with or guilty of the very thing they are pointing out; in this interpretation, it is shown that there is something shared. This may, or may not be hypocritical or contradictory." I guess you be the judge of that.

adzeds · 1 month ago

I don't think it is long till most coutries have these laws introduced!

facebook-879240509 · 1 month ago

I'm not sure how Big Brother, ahem, the FTC, plans on actually policing the new advertising disclosure regulations. In the mean time I think think honest bloggers and content publishers can implement a new standard of self regulation. I say we implement and use a set of simple icons to designate paid or unpaid content. I drafted a couple on my blog, to creatively spark someone with the power to be to push something similar out there. If this takes off, perhaps eventually the majority of readers will simply avoid content that isn't self regulated. Again, how do you police those that purposefully proclaim their content to be sponsor free? Maybe the fines should be set significantly higher for that than those for failing to disclose at all.
http://paulbuijs.com/343/looming-ftc-discolure-...

Amanya Jacobs · 1 month ago

Good summary of an important new ruling. It makes common and ethical sense to disclose these relationships anyway. It's just good to know how that relates to the FTC. Thank you.