New FTC regulations

[bartl]

Well, it's a stretch, but I don't think Grant will mind....

The FTC has created new regulations requiring disclosure from bloggers (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm) which are not required of print publications.

For example, when Grant writes his reviews, he will have to specifically state how he is comped with comics, if these rules hold. The EFF is fighting this the FTC's effort (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/ftc-regulation).

[Steven Grant]

For example, when Grant writes his reviews, he will have to specifically state how he is comped with comics, if these rules hold.

Technically, I think I only have to do that in the event of a good review, so I don't see much danger...

- Grant

[bartl]

Technically, I think I only have to do that in the event of a good review, so I don't see much danger...
Technically, you shouldn't have to do it at all. The law is part of the attempt of the government to narrow down the 1st Amendment to only apply to big corporate press.

[Village Idiot]

I didn't see you complaining when freedoms were being attacked by the Bush administration. Can't have it both ways.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

The law is part of the attempt of the government to narrow down the 1st Amendment to only apply to big corporate press.

Well to be fair, those corporations did pay for the politicians to get into office...

[Electric i]

Well to be fair, those corporations did pay for the politicians to get into office...


Agreed, they do deserve to get a return on their investment. Otherwise, what's the point?

[jmyoung]

I didn't see you complaining when freedoms were being attacked by the Bush administration. Can't have it both ways.

Umm. I don't see anything in Bartl's post that attempts to link this behavior to the Obama administration.

Do you support the legislation in question? If not, why be antagonistic?

[bartl]

I didn't see you complaining when freedoms were being attacked by the Bush administration. Can't have it both ways.
If you didn't see it, you weren't looking.

[bartl]

Umm. I don't see anything in Bartl's post that attempts to link this behavior to the Obama administration.
Actually, it doesn't look like Obama's style (frankly, it looks more like the kind of thing George Bush would have done).

[mikekerr3]

Actually, it doesn't look like Obama's style (frankly, it looks more like the kind of thing George Bush would have done).

Anybody have any idea when work o this started, I think the rules would be good if they applied to all media not just bloggers.

[badMike]

Actually, it doesn't look like Obama's style (frankly, it looks more like the kind of thing George Bush would have done).I'm not 100% sure I'm reading their site correctly, but I think all of the current FTC commissioners were appointed under Bush.

There's also quite a horrifying interview with an FTC rep who clearly doesn't understand how just about anything in the media works. The interview is here:

http://www.edrants.com/interview-with-the-ftcs-richard-cleland/

However, in the same interview and later ones, the rep says that the FTC is looking mostly to go after the advertisers and not individual bloggers. Hopefully this is true.

Personally, as somebody who runs his own website and occasionally receives complimentary DVDs, this type of thing completely pisses me off and terrifies me.

[mikekerr3]

Personally, as somebody who runs his own website and occasionally receives complimentary DVDs, this type of thing completely pisses me off and terrifies me.


Why does it terrify you the requirements to obey tis law are no onerous in any way, you just have to disclose what you have received

[badMike]

Why does it terrify you the requirements to obey tis law are no onerous in any way, you just have to disclose what you have receivedIt may not seem onerous to you, but it's damn fucking onerous to me.

This is a direct attack that says that individual expression is held in a different, LOWER regard than corporate media. This new law is essentially saying that critics working in a corporate media environment can be showered with free shit, but BECAUSE these critics are supported by corporate media that it's automatically assumed they operate on a higher ethical plane and cannot be influenced by that free shit over somebody NOT supported by corporate media.

Meanwhile, a person who is NOT supported by corporate media is automatically ASSUMED to be a criminal first who must disclose their business arrangements upfront so as not to be labeled a criminal. This is the antithesis of the American philosophy of innocent until proven guilty and it's nauseating. Once this rule goes into effect, I now have to worry that I have properly credited every piece of media I receive or be branded a criminal BEFOREHAND and be subject to a hefty, financially devastating fine.

[Charles RB]

Unless I'm missing something, this is the only bit on bloggers:

the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service.

Do comp copies to review count as "in-kind payment"? (If so, "I was sent this thing to review" doesn't sound that big a deal)

[badMike]

Do comp copies to review count as "in-kind payment"? (If so, "I was sent this thing to review" doesn't sound that big a deal)According to that interview I linked to, yes, comp copies to review count as "in-kind payment":

In the case of books, Cleland saw no problem with a blogger receiving a book, provided there wasn’t a linked advertisement to buy the book and that the blogger did not keep the book after he had finished reviewing it. Keeping the book would, from Cleland’s standpoint, count as “compensation” and require a disclosure.

http://www.edrants.com/interview-with-the-ftcs-richard-cleland/

Many bloggers, including myself, review products -- in my case, DVDs -- and provide what could be considered "linked advertisements," e.g. to an Amazon sale page, through which we make commissions on potential sales. It's also feasible that I could review a DVD sent to me by a distributor, then that distributor could buy an ad on my site either directly or via a program like Adsense, through which I could be additionally compensated.

I was sent this thing to review" doesn't sound that big a dealIt may not sound like a big deal to you, but it's a pretty fucking big deal to me. This is about pointing the finger at individuals and telling them they are crooks unless they make specific declarations up front that they are not criminals, especially when there are other people, i.e. critics working for a corporate media entity, who are engaging in the same exact behavior but do NOT have to make any declarations at all.

This is the way the film reviewing business works: Yes, we get free material to watch and review. There is no difference between what Roger Ebert does and what I do, except now Ebert has the presumption that he is working from an irreproachable ethical position, while I must now profess in every review that I write that I am not an unethical con artist.

That's the big deal: I don't like being called a fucking crook and then have to prove that I am not one. That's not how we do it in America. Everyone has the presumption of being innocent until proven guilty.

[Lord Destiny]

If this applied to any review (good or bad), using any means of expression (technical or otherwise), I would support it.

I'd also interpret "product" to be pretty much anything--including ideas. That way, all these "news experts" who are actually on the payroll of the side they advocate would have to declare--on air, at the beginning of their comments--they are paid to say those things.

[Steven Grant]

If this applied to any review (good or bad), using any means of expression (technical or otherwise), I would support it.

I'd also interpret "product" to be pretty much anything--including ideas. That way, all these "news experts" who are actually on the payroll of the side they advocate would have to declare--on air, at the beginning of their comments--they are paid to say those things.

If it applied to all media across the board, I'd certainly support something like that. (The FCC does have rules that, say, local news programs can't hide commercial promotion inside "news" stories, but that's almost never enforced.) What most offends me about the current "ruling" isn't the "revelation of influence" thing but the FTC's power grab on the Internet...

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

This is a direct attack that says that individual expression is held in a different, LOWER regard than corporate media. This new law is essentially saying that critics working in a corporate media environment can be showered with free shit, but BECAUSE these critics are supported by corporate media that it's automatically assumed they operate on a higher ethical plane and cannot be influenced by that free shit over somebody NOT supported by corporate media.

Not quite. The assumption is that those who work for corporate media earn their paycheck from corporate media and therefore don't rely on the largesse of those who supply them with reviewable materials. The assumption is that "bloggers" have no capital except what is provided to them (in kind, if not in cash) by those providing reviewable materials, therefore the blogger is beholden to them in ways "corporate reviewers" aren't, and therefore far more inclined to be nothing more than an "advertiser" for them, in order to keep the milk and honey flowing from the teat.

Like I said, I've worked in both forms, and the underlying assumptions are complete, biased rubbish.

What they should be going after is corporations who set up blogs through third parties that exist only to shill the corporation's product. But why surgically remove the offenders and punish their sponsors when you can blacken a whole breed?

I can't help but feel what this is really about is helping advertisers (commerce) regain control over their own message, something blogging undercuts badly because it contrasts a "voice of the people" (such is the image of blogging) against "the corporate voice" and the corporate voice almost always suffers for it.

As for whether you keep a book you reviewed making all the difference, what do they expect us to do? Return it to the publisher? Nobody does that, and publishers don't want them back.

- Grant

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

What they should be going after is corporations who set up blogs through third parties that exist only to shill the corporation's product. But why surgically remove the offenders and punish their sponsors when you can blacken a whole breed?


This is what I would assume they at least started with idea of targeting - marketers latest craze 'viral marketing' where they put up a youtube video or start a blog, pretending to be a real person, and after it causes a buzz and people follow the story, turns out to have been an ad all along.
Print ads that want to look like they are part of the magazine/newspaper have to state that they are advertisements, so I don't see why blogs or Youtube videos shouldn't.

[badMike]

Not quite. The assumption is that those who work for corporate media earn their paycheck from corporate media and therefore don't rely on the largesse of those who supply them with reviewable materials.Fair enough, that's probably correct. What's extra ridiculous on it's face is that newspapers and magazines derive most of their income from advertising, thus their reviewers' incomes are being generated by the same ads that lowly "bloggers" are being punished for accepting; it's just that there's an intermediate entity -- the corporation -- collecting the same money.

I've worked in both forms, and the underlying assumptions are complete, biased rubbish.I've written for both corporate media and my own blog, so I know it's all rubbish, too. Hell, I don't have a problem with corporate media and would love to write for one of them again -- if any of 'em were hiring. But, even if somebody HASN'T worked for corporate media, you know it's rubbish if you see all those newspaper film quote whores whose gushing quotes cover even the most awful of movies' posters and TV ads.

I was really happy to see you cover this topic in the main column this week, too, especially in the way you did. I was especially struck by your observation that this is a direct attack from the government to gain control of the Internet. Hey, if the FTC can regulate the Internet, then next it'll be the FCC and so on. It's rotten. And maybe after that happens, all these people who ask what's wrong with bloggers disclosing where they get their review materials from will finally get it. I just hope it doesn't get to that point.

[badMike]

marketers latest craze 'viral marketing' where they put up a youtube video or start a blogThat shit's been happening for years. I used to work for a video website and we'd be inundated with the worst marketing videos masquerading as "viral" videos. Nothing ever made with the intention to be "viral" ever actually went viral. Ok, maybe one exception: The first trailer for "Cloverfield."

The latest trend that has me pulling my hair out are these fake Twitter accounts that post every other Tweet with "Want your teeth to be whiter?" Then, they go around and follow other people's Twitter feeds to make themselves look popular. I always block 'em.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

That shit's been happening for years. I used to work for a video website and we'd be inundated with the worst marketing videos masquerading as "viral" videos. Nothing ever made with the intention to be "viral" ever actually went viral. Ok, maybe one exception: The first trailer for "Cloverfield."


They don't know what to do when they do go viral anyway.
If it's been a 'hidden' advertising campaign, all you'll do is cause backlash against the product (or Danish Tourism board), and if it is a funny video with a brand shot on the end - like that gorilla playing drums - no one cares about the branding, it's about the funny video that preceded it.
Unfortunately, and annoyingly, marketers have decided it's the in thing to brag about at their conferences, so it'll be here for awhile, until their next flaccid idea that has no effect on sales or anything really.

And for fun, and because I hate people in marketing as a rule, here's what James DeBragga, the head of Microsofts consumer product marketing said about the total failure of the Jerry Sienfeld Bill Gates ads, "The Bill and Jerry commercials were the first salvo in creating a conversation in the marketplace. We needed to not talk about stuff but to tap into the silent majority. In terms of sparking that conversation, we are very pleased with the outcome of that".
He's rebranding his failure to shift units into 'the start of a conversation with the consumer'.
What a cock.

[Steven Grant]

Fair enough, that's probably correct.

Yes and no. A reviewer for the Chicago Tribune gets paid by the Chicago Tribune, true, and theoretically doesn't have any proprietary interest in giving good reviews. This is a shallow interpretation for two reasons: the paper or other media outlet (TV station, magazine, etc.) may have its own reasons to promote the material; and while reviewers may not need to appease whoever feeds them review materials, they often like to appease whoever feeds them review materials, because once they start getting those items they want to keep getting those items, and pissing off suppliers isn't a good way to do that, usually.

In theory, the assignments/materials for review are handed out by an editor, and the relationship of the reviewer is with the editor and not the supplier, but that just as often isn't the case. Back when I reviewed music in NYC, it took virtually no time at all to get on a personal basis with promotions managers for various record companies, and if I wanted something I only had to call and ask for a review copy, so long as I didn't do it constantly. And I wasn't unusual.

I was really happy to see you cover this topic in the main column this week, too, especially in the way you did. I was especially struck by your observation that this is a direct attack from the government to gain control of the Internet. Hey, if the FTC can regulate the Internet, then next it'll be the FCC and so on. It's rotten. And maybe after that happens, all these people who ask what's wrong with bloggers disclosing where they get their review materials from will finally get it. I just hope it doesn't get to that point.

The FCC has already tried on several occasions to claim regulatory powers over the Internet. What none of these clowns seem to get is that the Internet is international! The EU has been trying to get in on the act as well.

I suspect a lot of it also has to do more with political bloggers, and all the various scandalous stories they've revealed where "Official Media" wouldn't. A lot of people on both sides of the aisle in government would like to put a halt to that. "Real" news outlets have basically come to refuse to report on a story until someone else is reporting on it, to put a layer of liability between them and the news. (In other words, even if newspaper A or TV network A gets wind that Dianne Feinstein prefers pepperoni made from human flesh on her pizza, they'll be disinclined to run the story because it's too hard to fact check and they don't want to be held liable if it's wrong, but if newspaper/TV network B reveals the same thing, then newspaper A will run a story basically reporting that newspaper B has reported it, which makes the story not Dianne Feinstein's cannibal pizza, but newspaper B's reporting of Dianne Feinstein's cannibal pizza. To say she's a cannibal might be libelous; to say newspaper B says she's a cannibal isn't.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

That shit's been happening for years. I used to work for a video website and we'd be inundated with the worst marketing videos masquerading as "viral" videos. Nothing ever made with the intention to be "viral" ever actually went viral. Ok, maybe one exception: The first trailer for "Cloverfield."

What I love is that "the press" has now discovered "viral videos," apparently without the slightest concept of what "viral videos" are. Every show from TODAY to 360 WITH ANDERSON COOPER to local news now runs YouTube clips of basically AMERICA'S FUNNIEST HOME VIDEOS rubbish, and these are supposed to be "viral videos." Piano playing cats and five year olds who recite speeches from movies and utter crap like that.

And I suspect the hidden message of that is "See? This is the only thing you'll find on the Internet. Stay here with us."

- Grant

[Charles RB]

Though Question Time is quite happy to point out YouTube as a place full of videos that prove Nick Griffin made all the dodgy racist comments he claims he didn't. There's something rather unnerving about the Justice Secretary saying "YouTube" on live TV, I thought for a minute he'd start talking about The Kids.

[Iangould]

Actually it reads to me as saying that if a blogger's review is used in an advertisement, then the advertiser has to reveal any compensation paid to the blogger.

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..

...
"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."

I'm pretty sure in this context an "endorser" is someone who allows their blog comments to be used in an endorsement as part of an ad.

Furthermore;

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.

It's almost as though the US government wasn't composed entirely of psychopathic power-mad tyrants just waiting for their chance to rip the still beating heart out of Lady Liberty.

[badMike]

Actually it reads to me as saying that if a blogger's review is used in an advertisement, then the advertiser has to reveal any compensation paid to the blogger.I don't know where you got your quotes from (please source next time!), but here's one from the actual "guidelines":

The blogger also is subject to liability for misleading or unsubstantiated representations made in the course of her endorsement. The blogger is also liable if she fails to disclose clearly and conspicuously that she is being paid for her services.(If you click, be careful, this is a pdf): http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf

If you read the larger section I pulled that from it defines "payment" as in the form of free product given to the blogger. And, as you can see, it clearly says that the blogger is ALSO liable. As Steven said, the FTC claims these are only "guidelines" and not laws, but they come with substantial penalty fees, so it may as well be a law.

[badMike]

"Real" news outlets have basically come to refuse to report on a story until someone else is reporting on it, to put a layer of liability between them and the news.Sadly -- and smartly you have to give credit for -- the conservative media movement has manipulated that practice to the extreme, mostly by planting idiotic stories on sites like the Drudge Report that the corporate media then reports on as "well, the Drudge Report is saying..."

That practice isn't as obvious as it used to be -- you don't hear about Drudge so much anymore -- but the news is filled with stories about "non-important conservative person X has said this about the president on Blog Y or Talk Radio Show Z."

Or the even worse practice is companies funneling money into PAC groups that then organize phony grassroots movements that then get phony "spokespeople" to appear in interviews.

Can't we stop that practice and leave dipshit nobody film bloggers like me alone?

[Steven Grant]

Or the even worse practice is companies funneling money into PAC groups that then organize phony grassroots movements that then get phony "spokespeople" to appear in interviews.

That's been standard for decades. The arch-right wing Heritage Foundation "think tank," for instance, has its viewpoint voiced on news programs and in articles with amazing frequency, as if they're totally disinterested and a-ideological

Can't we stop that practice and leave dipshit nobody film bloggers like me alone?

No, because that would be restricting political speech, and that's unConstitutional...

- Grant

[Iangould]

Over the past 6-12 motnhs I've seen what'd I'd characterised as exaggerated or baseless scare campaigns on the internet over the following issues:

- New FDA regulations will ban all forms of alternative or complementary medicine and mean that vitamins are only available with a Doctor's prescription;

- New FDA food preparation laws will wipe out small farmers;

- new product safety laws will outlaw most sales of handcrafts and children's toys;

- the Internet Security Act will allow the government to shut down critical websites;

- "Net Neutrality" will vastly inflate the cost of internet connections and wipe out small websites and ISPs

I'm sure I've missed a bunch more.

After the abuses of the Bush administration and the lack-lustre response to them by the Obama administration, people are understandably suspicious of their government.

There's also the superficial reasonability of "I'm not saying this WILL happen but it MIGHT so it's reasonable to to be concerned.'

The cumulative end-result is a sort of pervasive low-level paranoia which is not primarily partisan in nature but which in its practical effect assists the extreme right of American politics.

Firstly, it undercuts the ability of the government to act at all.

Secondly, it feeds the more full-blown paranoia of the far right.

I can pretty much guarantee that as I write this, posts are going up on right=wing forums about "Obama's Secret Plan to ban conservative bloggers" - complete with breathless comments about how "this is true - even liberals are talking about it."

If Ben Franklin were alive to day, the fire brigade would be being described "as a para-military government-controlled organisation armed with axes and allowed to enter private residences without a warrant" and we'd be hearing about how unfair competition from public libraries would drive private booksellers out of business and ensure that peopel only had access to government-selected books.

Edited to add: last time I checked vitamins were still on supermarket shelves; wooden children's toys were still listed on eBay; and Freerepublic.com hadn't been shut down.