John Adams Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 While decisions on possible violations would be considered on a case-by-case basis, the agency said, "the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement" and would require some sort of written disclosure for readers. It has been nearly 30 years since the FTC updated its endorsement and testimonial guidelines, which are designed to help advertisers and marketers steer clear of violating the FTC Act, which bars deceptive and misleading trade practices. Bloggers and other marketers who violate the FTC Act could be hit with fines of as much as $11,000 per instance. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1254755471...eTabs%3Darticle
John Adams Posted October 6, 2009 Author Posted October 6, 2009 It's about time. Hope the Dem party didn't ask you to say that or you're going to get an 11K fine.
finknottle Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Hope the Dem party didn't ask you to say that or you're going to get an 11K fine. I take it this bothers you? How do you feel about regulations governing endorsements and representations on TV and in the print media?
Kevbeau Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 I see it as another attempt by the gov't to protect idiots from themselves. I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea, but I still think it reeks of the "It's not my fault crowd."
OGTEleven Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 I see it as another attempt by the gov't to protect idiots from themselves. I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea, but I still think it reeks of the "It's not my fault crowd." I am personally aware of a few companies hiriing "bloggers" to write "opinions" and to "report" on products (especially new ones) from their competition. They will write things like "We hear that XYZ company can't get product ABC to connect to their network", or "bechmarks indicate severe performance degradation with a workload over x level." The rep for the hiring company will then go into an account and say "I saw in a blog that my competition's product is failing; you might want to check out this link". The connection between the company and the blogger is typically difficult to trace or prove. The "facts" in the blog are completely and totally made up. These companies are taking advantage of the perceived neutrality of blogs. In truth, they are writing the false blogs themselves. This is being done by at least one comapny whose sales force has a reputation as less than credible. Pointing to a random blogger actually tends to bolster thier credibility (how sad is that?). Part of me says this should be a buyer beware scenario, but the practice of hiring "bloggers" like this is certainly unethical to say the least. I don't know if it is illegal, but I think it probably should be.
jjamie12 Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 The "facts" in the blog are completely and totally made up. These companies are taking advantage of the perceived neutrality of blogs. It astounds me that people who make decisions, in any capacity, would look at a blog and go "Wow. I guess I shouldn't buy that product." without doing any other research. People are insane.
finknottle Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 It astounds me that people who make decisions, in any capacity, would look at a blog and go "Wow. I guess I shouldn't buy that product." without doing any other research. People are insane. You must be astounded that we have commercials at all! Think about how advertising works - it's about creating perceptions. And if you are reaching the customer when they are making a decision, you are far too late.
IDBillzFan Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 It astounds me that people who make decisions, in any capacity, would look at a blog and go "Wow. I guess I shouldn't buy that product." without doing any other research. People are insane. One of the best parts of the internet has been the ability for everyday users of multiple products to offer up their own reviews, both written and in video form, of anything from how a coffee tastes to what a piece of garbage that Dyson is. While I wouldn't rely on "blogs" to help me make a decision, I certainly spend a lot of time reading online product reviews, and I don't mind admitting that they have swayed me either toward or away from various purchases. In fact, in some cases you can be reading 50 reviews of a product where 49 people all agree that a product sucks right out of the box, and then find one odd review that praises the product up and down, citing specs and promoting the manufacturer, and more often than not I think to myself "Someone was hired to write that crap." To be honest, if they really want to make an impact, worry less about how products being reviewed and more about the vast number of scam resellers out there (photography equipment is notoriously sold by some of the most unscrupulous douchebags ever).
Nanker Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Will this affect Okra's endorsement of Obama? Could she be made to pay double?
/dev/null Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 Very ,very true. However, if that was the ONLY reason for advertising, nobody would drink beer because the lion's share of beer commercials give the perception that beer drinkers are fat stupid juvenile !@#$tards with a severe case of ADD and havent been laid in about a Century. Come to think of it...looking at most of the goons at a local sports bar around Sundays at 1, those beer companies may be on to something. You don't even have to go to a sports bar Have you seen some of the posters here
Dante Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 Here we go. Big brothers assault on the internet underway. Government to the rescue goin and protecting us again. Soon, the internet will be as useless as tv,network/cable news providing unlimited, unbiased , every side of a issue. Next phase will be more censorship under the guise of protecting childrens from pron.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 Here we go. Big brothers assault on the internet underway. Government to the rescue goin and protecting us again. Soon, the internet will be as useless as tv,network/cable news providing unlimited, unbiased , every side of a issue. Next phase will be more censorship under the guise of protecting childrens from pron. Serious question here. Do you think the founders (across the board) would have been for regulation? I kinda have a feeling they would... Maybe you think that they would allow a free-for all?? I have a hard time believing that given the nature (interstate) of the business.
blzrul Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 Hope the Dem party didn't ask you to say that or you're going to get an 11K fine. Yes but they paid me $12k so I'll come out ahead. Seriously though - I think everyone would be surprised to find out who some of these bloggers are, and who's paying them to blog. This is no different than requiring Infomercials to be listed as "Paid Advertsiting" on TV, and those magazine inserts likewise have to be labelled. Basing a buying decision on a blogger's words isn't a what a well-informed person does. But this is America, where a statement that starts with "Some say...." is uttered time and time again by talking heads (as if the "some" are authorities on anything) and a whole lot of morons somehow take that as credible evidence...of whatever.
/dev/null Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 Yes but they paid me $12k so I'll come out ahead. No, actually you won't. You still have to pay federal and state income taxes on the $12k
Recommended Posts