FTC Cracking down on "review bloggers"

[digidoodles]

Found this:

FTC plans to monitor blogs for claims, payments by AP: Yahoo! Tech

============
Excerpt follows:

Savvy consumers often go online for independent consumer reviews of products and services, scouring through comments from everyday Joes and Janes to help them find a gem or shun a lemon.


What some fail to realize, though, is that such reviews can be tainted: Many bloggers have accepted perks such as free laptops, trips to Europe, $500 gift cards or even thousands of dollars for a 200-word post. Bloggers vary in how they disclose such freebies, if they do so at all.


The practice has grown to the degree that the Federal Trade Commission is paying attention. New guidelines, expected to be approved late this summer with possible modifications, would clarify that the agency can go after bloggers — as well as the companies that compensate them — for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest.


It would be the first time the FTC tries to patrol systematically what bloggers say and do online. The common practice of posting a graphical ad or a link to an online retailer — and getting commissions for any sales from it — would be enough to trigger oversight.


"If you walk into a department store, you know the (sales) clerk is a clerk," said Rich Cleland, assistant director in the FTC's division of advertising practices. "Online, if you think that somebody is providing you with independent advice and ... they have an economic motive for what they're saying, that's information a consumer should know."


The guidelines also would bring uniformity to a community that has shunned that.

Rest of story here: FTC plans to monitor blogs for claims, payments by AP: Yahoo! Tech
=========

Anyone care to weigh-in on how this will affect article marketing/review sites?

Thanks in advance!

[Steve Longoria]

that's a big task to take on for the FTC, geesh.

[printrobin]

I think it will take much time for FTC to implement this... this would surely effect Review Bloggers.

[MJ Schaefer]

I'm all in favour of regulation like this. Gives a fair shake to consumers. That said, I'd be amazed if they managed to make significant inroads.

[Steve Longoria]

Originally Posted by printrobin

I think it will take much time for FTC to implement this... this would surely effect Review Bloggers.

What if the Review Websites give honest reviews and not just hidden sales messages?

[WritingMadwoman]

Originally Posted by Steve Longoria

What if the Review Websites give honest reviews and not just hidden sales messages?

You could still do reviews, but you'd have to disclose that you are being compensated for it.

Wendy

[Steve Longoria]

Originally Posted by WritingMadwoman

You could still do reviews, but you'd have to disclose that you are being compensated for it.

Wendy

if you're being compensated on the product you're reviewing only though, right?

[VegasVince]

The FTC like most government agencies....reminds me of a crooked cop on the take.

They make the token bust on the sporadic "bad guy" here and ther-- to justify their existence...and make sure the world knows about it

Vinnie aint buyin' it.

The real modus oparandi and profit center of the FTC...is shaking down people like Bill Gates...who make too much money for their taste.

The FTC is another looter...in the guise of a public servant.



xxx Vegas Vince
Legend Shrugged

[bgmacaw]

Originally Posted by VegasVince

The FTC is another looter...in the guise of a public servant.

"That's what governments are for... get in a man's way." - Malcolm Reynolds Firefly.

[winebuddy]

there's over 100 million blogs out there - - what are they going to do? Hire a staff of 100,000 people?

[GeorgR.]

"If you walk into a department store, you know the (sales) clerk is a clerk," said Rich Cleland, assistant director in the FTC's division of advertising practices. "Online, if you think that somebody is providing you with independent advice and ... they have an economic motive for what they're saying, that's information a consumer should know."

ROFLMAO...this is the funniest thing i ever read.

So they seriously believe that your average sales-clerk is a honest person, but "online" its all about money.

Here's a little hints in regards to "real life" sales clerks.

1) The "best" product is usually the most expensive one. (Regardless whether this is actually the case)

2) No, you do NOT need a 2 year "screen protection" plan in addition to this new laptop

3) You also do NOT need batteries or whatever the clerk is telling you each and any time you enter a radio shack.

Its extremely naive to assume that all/most store clerks are always providing unbiased opinions and "real" advice.

[ragstworiches]

I guess it will just mean a little disclaimer is put on the site, I don't think this is an issue for anyone to worry about.

Phil

[WritingMadwoman]

Originally Posted by Steve Longoria

if you're being compensated on the product you're reviewing only though, right?

The article wasn't specific about that, but I imagine you'd have to have a disclaimer either on the blog itself - or even on every single review. But I agree with what others have said, it would be a challenge to monitor the millions of blogs out there. Of course, they could just pick a few to hit with big fines just to "make examples" of them.

An interesting question: how does everyone think such a disclaimer would affect affiliate conversions? Decrease, increase or stay the same?

Wendy

[Steve Longoria]

Originally Posted by GeorgR.

ROFLMAO...this is the funniest thing i ever read.

So they seriously believe that your average sales-clerk is a honest person, but "online" its all about money.

Here's a little hints in regards to "real life" sales clerks.

1) The "best" product is usually the most expensive one. (Regardless whether this is actually the case)

2) No, you do NOT need a 2 year "screen protection" plan in addition to this new laptop

3) You also do NOT need batteries or whatever the clerk is telling you each and any time you enter a radio shack.

Its extremely naive to assume that all/most store clerks are always providing unbiased opinions and "real" advice.

i think their point is that, with a sales clerk you know that any information you get from them is LIKELY to be biased since you KNOW they're trying to sell you something. Where as with a blogger, they're saying it's not as obvious.

[baca85]

Originally Posted by Steve Longoria

i think their point is that, with a sales clerk you know that any information you get from them is LIKELY to be biased since you KNOW they're trying to sell you something. Where as with a blogger, they're saying it's not as obvious.

Mind you the are a lot of naive people out there. Who do not even know information from a sales person is skewed.

[Steven Wagenheim]

The solution is simple...comply.

It can actually work to your advantage if you do it right.

Tell the prospect that you're giving them an affiliate link and that yes, you
will be compensated if they purchase from you. But tell them that you are
so sure that they'll be 100% satisfied with the product (you did actually
review it and think it's great, right?) that you're even willing to provide them
with a bonus if they purchase from you.

Finding bonuses for any niche is easy. There is tons of PLR out there for just
about any niche. Pick something up and offer it.

Plus, if you have a review site like mine where I give positive and negative
reviews, the chances of the FTC cracking down on you are slim. If they
see you're actually bashing products as well as praising them, they are
unlikely to come after you.

I have a review site up now for over 6 years with both good and bad
reviews. I'd be willing to bet my house that the FTC is never going to
come after me. The site is honest. Every review is honest, whether I am
using an affiliate link or not.

And if they did come after me, the overwhelming evidence of impartiality (I
actually have more negative reviews than positive ones) would certainly
clear me of any charges. And yes, I would go to court and fight the FTC.

I am that sure I will win.

Ultimately though, each person has to do what they think is right. If they're
afraid of getting shut down, comply. But using my tips above, you should
still have no problem making sales, especially since now everybody is going
to be on the same level field. Remember, you're not the only one who is
going to have to use these disclaimers. Eventually, with everybody using
them, most prospects will become numb to them, just like we are with
every other disclaimer already floating around on every sales page. I mean
how many of them do you actually read?

In short, I'm about as worried about this problem as I am about a meteor
the size of Texas hitting the earth.

[Martin.Avis]

My goodness, I thought the we in the UK live in a nanny state. It seems that the the US is becoming even worse!

Whatever happened to people using their common sense!

I'm quite sure that yet more government rules will serve only to expand the federal payroll and will ultimately do nothing significant to protect the American consumer (if that is indeed what this is all about).

I suppose the FTC could, with a lot of time and energy, monitor reviews on blogs created by American citizens on American servers, but the world is a big place. Good luck to them monitoring - or influencing - the rest of the world.

If this works, it is likely that the gains to the public will be minimal, while the inconvenience and loss of income to American entrepreneurs will be slightly higher.

But the politicians will be happy, I suppose, so it must be okay then.

Martin

[Kay King]

I agree, Steven.

If you go to the FTC doc linked in the OP's news story - read Section V beginning on pg 62 of that document. The FTC gives case by case examples in that section of what will - and will not - be acceptable.

Truth-in-advertising laws have been in place for a long time - this new set of regulations seems meant to update those rules to include venues of advertising that weren't available when the original regs were adopted.

kay

[Anna Johnson]

Tell the prospect that you're giving them an affiliate link and that yes, you
will be compensated if they purchase from you. But tell them that you are
so sure that they'll be 100% satisfied with the product (you did actually
review it and think it's great, right?) that you're even willing to provide them
with a bonus if they purchase from you.

Far be it for me to comment on U.S. law but this seems right to be. Be open about the fact that you're an affiliate or get rewarded in some way for posting specific kinds of posts / reviews and then there is no deception.

[bgmacaw]

Originally Posted by GeorgR.

1) The "best" product is usually the most expensive one. (Regardless whether this is actually the case)

Maybe, but more often it's the one with the best commission or spiff.

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by Traffic-Bug

This means sites like reviewme dot com would have a hard time staying business. The FTC is unnecessarily going after a legitimate economic/business model.

Why would sites like ReviewMe be affected? They already require bloggers to disclose that a review is a paid review, which, by my reading, would satisfy the FTC's new guidelines.

Originally Posted by digidoodles

It would be the first time the FTC tries to patrol systematically what bloggers say and do online. The common practice of posting a graphical ad or a link to an online retailer — and getting commissions for any sales from it — would be enough to trigger oversight.

That seems to be a bit too far. What next, requiring that television commercials open with a narrator saying "This is a paid commercial advertisement"?

I think we may very well be on the path toward Idiocracy.

[bbrian017]

Originally Posted by Traffic-Bug

This means sites like reviewme dot com would have a hard time staying business. The FTC is unnecessarily going after a legitimate economic/business model.

This is not a legitimate economic/business model. They are claiming a product is good because they get paid to. Not because it's good!

There's nothing legitimate about that!

[Jesus Perez]

WOW! Half of Blogger.com will get shut down! Competition will virtually disappear overnight!

</sarcasm>

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by Steve Longoria

if you're being compensated on the product you're reviewing only though, right?

WRONG!!!!!!!!! If you are being compensated! So if the review is to get the item at a lower cost, gain privileges on the site, or get a bonus of some sort, you would still have to reveal that.

Steve

[Chris Thompson]

My opinion is that it's a good idea to be honest with your readers because eventually the awareness of these business models will become very high among average internet readers. But in terms of the government being able to do anything about it? Good luck. People who don't want to be honest will simply move to hosting environments that are not under US control. This is the Internet. No government will be able to easily control what happens. If someone wanted to put up all positive BS reviews and thought there would be trouble, they would host it in a foreign country and still happily tie their .com URL to it.

[Lokesh Sharma]

Sorry didn't have time to go through the whole thread, so apologies if someone has already stated this.

Most of the "Pay you to Review/Blog" kind of websites already have terms when it comes to disclosure agreement. You can simply link the disclosure agreement in your sidebar, and believe me noone really cares about it (atleast the organic visitors).

Thus its a good thing to have a disclosure agreement in place.

Regards, L.

[LB]

The worst offenders are always outside the US.

This is another hoop for US citizens to jump through while those in other countries will continue to do as they please.

Remember "CAN-SPAM"?

Did that stop spam or just make it more risky to run your business?

[worlok]

Typical big government overreach. Does that mean that minisites that put together information yet push people towards their affiliate links would be classified as "bloggers" and now subject to back breaking regulation? The only silver lining here is that the government can't do anything right. They'll probably fold under the strain.

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by worlok

Typical big government overreach. Does that mean that minisites that put together information yet push people towards their affiliate links would be classified as "bloggers" and now subject to back breaking regulation? The only silver lining here is that the government can't do anything right. They'll probably fold under the strain.

The problem is that the government is strapped for cash and politicians are unable to restrain their spending habits, so they are going to look for revenue where ever they can find it.

The FTC isn't looking to "protect" anyone. They are looking for revenue in the form of fines and penalties.

[Steve Diamond]

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

And yes, I would go to court and fight the FTC.

I am that sure I will win.

Pardon me for being blunt, Steven, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

I know people who have gotten targeted by FTC complaints and can tell you what actually happens. Fairness and justice go out the window. It's all about who has deeper pockets and more lawyers. Unless you have a spare million dollars or so lying around, the answer is always going to be them.

One of my acquaintances spent $300,000 defending himself in the pre-trial phases but had to give up and settle because he ran out of money. His lawyers said he had a good case and would probably win in court, but it would take another $300,000 at least to go to trial.

Another acquaintance tried to act as his own defense lawyer, but quickly found that he could achieve very little traction. The real lawyers outmaneuvered him at every stage.

It sounds great in theory: "Truth, justice, and the American way" and all that. But in the real world it's all about who can spend the most money on litigation. The only ones who win are the lawyers.

So I agree completely with your main point: comply!

[Elmer Hurlstone]

Originally Posted by Martin.Avis

Whatever happened to people using their common sense!
Martin

Martin,

Because you're a nice guy and, based on what I've read from you over the years, are a proponent of personal responsibility you're, perhaps, under the mis-impression that "common sense" is—actually common.

Those that are naive or, and there are many, are unwilling to do a bit of due diligence prior to making a purchase will be the prime beneficiaries of these expanded regulations. They will be unable to legitimately claim ignorance.

We who are unashamed of being commissioned sales people and objective reviewers will likely have to add a bit of boilerplate to pages or blogs to comply with the regs. Like most boilerplate it will probably be ignored by the ones who need most to read, understand and follow it.

It's often the person who has removed the blade guard from the power saw that sees his finger flying through the air.

[Martin.Avis]

Of course, the reality is that the FTC don't need to, and won't, go after everyone they deem as non-compliant.

All they need to do is find another Frank Kern and throw the book at them.

There is nothing like sticking a large fine on a high profile player to make everyone else scurry to get in line.

How many Americans are brave enough (or stupid enough) to make income claims on their websites now?

Martin

[seasoned]

I hate to say it, but Steve Diamond is right on EVERYTHING except that even some seemingly rediculous FTC claims often have merit!

And "Truth, justice, and the American way" is a slogan used for superman!

One seemingly arrogant, and outspoken friend keeps pointing out that I "LIED" on some of my sites. Not a little, or infrequently, but OFTEN! They ARE jus playful jabs, even if truthful. He knows me better than that.

In truth, I showed him some raw copy that I ran through a program I created, but the copy was written by many OTHERS, and not by me! Sadly, I must agree with him. I very much dislike the copy which is not very honest. And one person here once sold information that he used to make a lot of money. Some was certainly from the case where he sold it to others on the claim he made so much. Of course, the others couldn't change the copy, it was old, etc... EVENTUALLY, the FTC hauled him off to court and he lost. Their claim? That there weren't enough people on the planet to even allow his current customers to make what he claimed. They were RIGHT! Some here might think it ludicrous, but it was kind of like a chain letter. Speaking of which, ANOTHER person here started with a chainletter, was hauled into court, and HE lost. HE even changed his name here!

Steve

[sbucciarel]

I think it's ridiculous that they think they can monitor a massive amount of blogs and I think the comparison between the sales clerk is ridiculous. Many sales clerks work on commission and they do not divulge to you that the product they are pushing gives them a higher commission than the lower priced products they are pushing. What is the difference? There is none.

[captivereef]

Stupid, the government is a bigger thief then all the marketers put together.

How far will they continue to reach!

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I think it's ridiculous that they think they can monitor a massive amount of blogs and I think the comparison between the sales clerk is ridiculous. Many sales clerks work on commission and they do not divulge to you that the product they are pushing gives them a higher commission than the lower priced products they are pushing. What is the difference? There is none.

There is an UNDERSTANDING that the salesclerk is biased. It is EXPECTED! The fact that they are employees, or paid, says WATCH OUT! Review sites are expected to be mostly UNBIASED! HECK, look at amazon.com! Some stuff is clearly marked as GARBAGE, and problems may even be clear with everything else in an area. Frankly, I like wading through that just to avoid junk!

Steve

[Steve Diamond]

Originally Posted by seasoned

I hate to say it, but Steve Diamond is right on EVERYTHING except that even some seemingly rediculous FTC claims often have merit!

Mmm, Steve, should I be taking this personally?

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by captivereef

Stupid, the government is a bigger thief then all the marketers put together.

How far will they continue to reach!

Yeah, the SSTF, if private, would have been shut down, and the people running it would have been THROWN IN JAIL! Obama would NEVER hold congress to the level he currently holds banks. There is actually a LAW that EXEMPTS politicians from truth in advertising laws. The very fact that they can pass such laws is against the law.(Can you say "Conflict of interest"!?!?) Obama doesn't even TRY to be a good example HIMSELF!!!!! HECK, were is TEFRA!?!?!? Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Frankly, that is FRAUD, contempt of congress, and embezzlement! Congress should be prosecuted for THAT!

Still, the FDA and FTC do SOME good, and often get undue criticism from here. The problem is NOT the organizations or laws. It is dissemination and enforcement!

Steve

[Harvey Segal]

My main concern is . . . why the heck is everybody called Steve posting on this thread

Steve (seasoned)
Steve Diamond
Steve Wagenheim
Steve Longoria

Harvey

[seasoned]

Originally Posted by Steve Diamond

Mmm, Steve, should I be taking this personally?

It is just that some just feel they can walk into court, and win. You made it clear that they are more likely to end up waisting time and/or losing. Winning is not that common. Besides, the FTC has MILLIONS of people they can haul into court. MOST get little attention because of few complaints. The ones they pick are likely ones they feel are blatent, big, easy to prosecute, and have a number of complaints. That makes THEIR job easy, and defense hard. And they obviously have money to burn, LITERALLY!

Steve

[jakesellers]

I believe the FTC is specifically referring to "false claims and conflict of interest" which is probably more targeted at "fake blogs" vis a vis bloggers who engage in compensated puffery.

[Steve Diamond]

@seasoned: Yes, I agree. I was just wondering why you wrote that you hated to say that I was right. Never mind. Just a mild attempt at humor. I know what you actually meant.

[Steve Diamond]

Originally Posted by Harvey.Segal

My main concern is . . . why the heck is everybody called Steve posting on this thread

Steve (seasoned)
Steve Diamond
Steve Wagenheim
Steve Longoria

Harvey

Yeah, it's just too confusing. Let's ban all the Steves for the day.

[quantikev]

This is incredible to me. There are massive problems with the banking system, all the way up to the federal reserve.

And their interested in implementing massive censorship of the Internet? They're more worried about what everyday individuals are doing?

What's more incredible - Commercials can appear all day long backed by 'scientific studies' in media viewed by hundreds of millions of Americans. They have almost no way of telling when something said is false, and endless damaging deception is occurring (and has occurred for at least two centuries) this way.

Feds To Get Power To Target Websites Making “False Claims”

This could potentially allow them to go after 'anyone' who writes for money. Any topic, any niche. Just how arbitrary is it going to be?

If I say vinegar aggressively reduces acne on my blog, and it doesn't have significant research in mainstream medicine, I can be what? Fined? Shutdown? And the company that advertises on my site?

Are we still the most free country in the world? How many fabulous inventions would 'not' have existed if the equivalent of these laws existed in the beginning of the 20th century?

The proposed guidelines (PDF) state that “deceptive speech is not protected by the First Amendment,” and that “The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the government can restrict, or even ban, such speech.” Of course, the issue of whether such speech is deceptive will be decided by the government itself.

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by Steve Diamond

Yeah, it's just too confusing. Let's ban all the Steves for the day.

Hey Steve, speak for yourself.

I'm in enough trouble already.

[bgmacaw]

"Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman's tool is values; the bureaucrat's tool is fear." - Ayn Rand

[nevillealston]

Yes, it is indeed a HUGE task to be taken on by the FTC....

I mean, how would they effectively get to "Crack" down on the review bloggers, since there are literally millions of them (us ) out there!

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Harvey.Segal

My main concern is . . . why the heck is everybody called Steve posting on this thread

Steve (seasoned)
Steve Diamond
Steve Wagenheim
Steve Longori

You won't see me posting here.

Steve

[nichedemon]

A blog comment is an opinion- paid or unpaid. Consumers need to take responsibility for their decisions rather than blame everybody else for their stupid decisions. Didn't we all land up in the mortgage crisis and now blame the mortgage companies, federal Reserve, Uncle Jim flipper down the street et al!?

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by nichedemon

A blog comment is an opinion- paid or unpaid. Consumers need to take responsibility for their decisions rather than blame everybody else for their stupid decisions. Didn't we all land up in the mortgage crisis and now blame the mortgage companies, federal Reserve, Uncle Jim flipper down the street et al!?

The problem is that politicians pander to the people that refuse to accept personal responsibility for anything that happens in their lives. There are plenty of people that will pat themselves on the back and tell the world how brilliant they are when they make a good decision, but when they back bad decisions, it's someone else's fault.

Do people legitimately get scammed? Yes. But, based on my experience, most people that complain about being "scammed" weren't really scammed; they were victims of their own greed or did not carefully read the offer or fine print, if they read any of it at all.