Should bloggers be forced to admit when they're getting paid?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Robby Slaughter on October 16, 2009 at 12:42pm

This new regulation by the FTC is laughable. Let's not call people bloggers, let's just call them them communicators. Because after all, the distinction that their words are written is inconsequential in the information age. You can be a blogger by speaking into a microphone or flapping your arms in front a of cheap webcam. Bloggers are merely people who communicate their own ideas.

Surely the Federal Trade Commission does not believe it has the right and the power to regulate whether or not you've disclosed any possible financial impetus for any communication. That's beyond insane. Laws about truth in advertising make sense when mediums are tightly controlled and tremendously expensive. Now there's a much more capable force to ensure fairness than any regulatory agency: the social media landscape. Public reprisal is a much worse punishment than a few thousand dollars in fines. Those who are caught making shady claims will be the subject of outcry. Or, simply ignored.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Troy Julian on October 16, 2009 at 2:03pm

This is insane to say the least !

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Colin Clark on October 16, 2009 at 2:09pm

Here's my thought... It has always been a good idea for people to disclose compensation. However, I hate it when government agencies come in and start regulating things just to increase their own power.

There were already consequences of not disclosing things. (if you got caught) You would damage your brand and reputation. This regulation is hogwash.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Robby Slaughter on October 16, 2009 at 2:17pm

Colin, you forgot to tell everyone that I promised to buy you a beer if you agreed with me.

$11,000 fine coming your way!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Patrick Sullivan on October 16, 2009 at 3:14pm

Remember when tobacco companies used to pay MDs to endorse cigarettes? I have no problem with requiring disclosure of paid endorsements, and I'll bet the lines is brighter than you think- a major part of the regulatory review process is to ensure that proposed regulations aren't simply stupid and unenforceable. Having read the rules and looked at the examples covering bloggers (and having had some direct experience dealing with FTC regulators), I don't think the sky is falling here. The rules seem pretty clear to me, and one shouldn't overlook the fact that companies that seek to use bloggers as a channel (to Robby's point let's say this refers as much to the specific medium as anything) are also on the hook for informing their bloggers about the rules and monitoring the posts. The FTC typically has a pretty good case already made when they knock on your door with an enforcement order, and they regard their Section 5 authority to go after unfair and deceptive trade practices as pretty straightforward.

If you have time to sit through the FAQ videos, you can get the FTC's take on what the revised rules mean at www.ftc.gov. And for those of you out there who enjoy reading regulations, here they are:

Attachments:

• 091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf, 94 KB

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Seidle on October 19, 2009 at 9:53am

Imagine if this new rule is applied to political commentary.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Patrick Sullivan on October 19, 2009 at 9:48pm

Ah yes, the speech issue--- political speech has its own domain of protection. I think the endorsement disclosure rule applies to commercial speech, which can be regulated without crossing First Amendment lines. Applying the rule to political commentary endorsing a candidate would fail under a number of criteria, likely starting with Central Hudson- even the most cynical wingnuts would have a hard time making a serious case that applying the endorsement disclosure requirement in order to regulate political speech would directly advance a substantial government interest (stifling free expression of opposition) in a way that was not more extensive than necessary. Heck, the rule itself excludes political commentary, which does not relate to a product or service -even public service- as understood by the rule. Unless, of course, the candidate is selling his or her service ;-)

Here's a question, though- when is it ethically OK for a blogger to conceal a paid endorsement relationship in writing about the paying client's product or service in a way that promotes that product or service?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David Shank on October 19, 2009 at 10:01pm

Like any news medium the value add to bloggers is credibility. It shouldn't be a matter of bloggers, Tweets or any other communication tool being forced to admit payment, or receiving free goods, they should do it openly and freely. It can done in honest and fun ways. The key is openness and transparency that protects the credibility of all media.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Patrick Sullivan on October 19, 2009 at 10:22pm

You're right- and don't forget, the rule isn't just about bloggers or other social media. It's about protections against deceptive or unfair trade practices in any advertising or promotion of a product or service (especially when it's compensated), because while everybody should just do the right thing, they often don't, especially when money's involved. Pat's use of the term "forced" is loaded- one could also ask whether bloggers, Tweeters, etc, should be subject to the same rules as other endorsers who are being paid to shill for a product or service when that's also what the blogger/Tweeter is doing.

▶ Reply to This