FTC to look at article marketing

by 35 replies
47
This is probably of interest to quite a few here on the forum...


-------------
The Federal Trade Commission will examine the growing field of "sponsored content" in digital media, the organization announced Monday.

The agency will hold a workshop in December on the ads, which look similar to stories posted on news and social websites and have become increasingly common as media look for new ways to make money.

The FTC, which has the authority to bring charges against companies that deceive consumers, now has nonbinding guidelines on the use of the sponsored content ads. The workshop could be a first step toward expanding or strengthening them.

More:
FTC to examine
#main internet marketing discussion forum #article #ftc #marketing
  • The title is kind of misleading though - It seems to be articles that masquerade as news -newsmax being the first that comes to mind.
    • [ 7 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply

    • Nailed it.

      This is not about article marketing but about fake news stories that looks like news stories but are really pushing products.
      • [ 4 ] Thanks
  • If you write an article about how great a new camera is and slip your Amazon affiliate link into the article, that is what we call article marketing and what they call sponsored content.
    • [2] replies
    • Mmhmm but there are already guidelines for affiliate marketers which people should be following.

      I take back my original comment as I was thinking they were talking about the fake news stories but I think it's more about general sponsored content which you can find on a lot of big news sites and big blogs these days and it's not always clear to the reader whether it's a regular news story or not. I was thinking of a very specific kind of ad I've seen but they seem to be talking slightly more general here. But still, I don't think it's as general as all of article marketing for affiliate marketers.

      Ya the little guy has to follow the rules too but this seems aimed much more at the bigger guys who publish sponsored newsish articles for advertisers for big bucks.

      Anyway splitting hairs but don't think it's really much to worry about if you like to play by the rules and I think it's much less to do with article marketing and affiliate marketing and more to do with sponsored content on news sites and news blogs.
    • Nope...if you actually read your link its not even about embedded links its about messages being presented alongside other non commercial content.

      "The workshop will bring together publishing and advertising industry representatives, consumer advocates, academics, and government regulators to explore changes in how paid messages are presented to consumers and consumers’ recognition and understanding of these messages."

      Links are not misleading. Now if the link goes to a page that looks like news story or is deceptive then fine but if it links to a normal amazon page then there is nothing deceptive or misleading about their sales pages.

      and btw never been into affiliate marketing. I am just seeing the article you link to for what it really is.
  • Fairly straightforward. I don't understand why this is news. Simple: don't deceive. Don't fake people out with 'real'-looking 'news' advertorials.
  • Actually in this link within that article the FTC specifically mentions native advertising (which is dropping a text ad or link within the text of the article). So this does indeed affect most of us doing plain 'ol article marketing.

    ---
    It used to be pretty clear. The entertainment portion of a show ended and the commercials began. The two-column article ran on one side of the newspaper and the ad ran on the other. Or the webpage had the content in the middle with a banner ad running across the top. Things are more complicated now. Some call it “native advertising” or “sponsored content.” Whatever the name, it’s for sure ads in digital media are starting to look a lot like the surrounding content.

    more:
    And now a word from our sponsor: FTC announces "native ad" workshop | BCP Business Center
  • to me its the same thing as before. They want to make sure people know it has to do with getting a payment out of someone period. They are cutting down on the trickery.
  • I do overly sing the praises of some companies I have an affiliate relationship to; but to cover my behind, I always disclose the relationships I have with every company I do business with in a footer disclaimer.
  • Banned
    Not so. This isn't about article marketing. It's about deceptive "news" stories with concealed commercial sponsorship. I suggest you amend the thread's title, because at the moment it's misleading, as several others have mentioned above.
    • [ 7 ] Thanks
  • Have you ever seen one of those ads that says something like "Florida mom makes $30000 from home" on MSN news or elsewhere and it looks exactly like a news article? That's what this is about.
    • [ 2 ] Thanks
  • Is anyone else sick of the double standards on these regulatory bodies?

    When will they be getting on the case of billion-dollar ad agencies?

    It's not just in marketing. It's in finance too. It's everywhere.

    And it's not just regulatory bodies. Paid-traffic providers have the same double standards.
  • I'd say most marketers don't have anything to worry about then, as long as they're being straightforward.
  • I agree that the thread title is misleading, but I don't know that everyone is too smart by just ignoring this as nothing to be concerned about. You never know what the FTC is going to come up with as far as regulations goes. This could have a bigger affect on people than you expect.

    Hopefully not, but it is certainly worth following. Not that there is necessarily anything that can be done about it no matter what the workshop comes up with. Of course, this won't have anything to do with article marketing in the true sense. It could impact review writing, and other similar practices.

    Michael
    • [1] reply
    • That's what you call article marketing.

      Having a link back to my site in the bio of an article is not the same thing. I'm not looking for a possible quickie click with the possibility of a one-shot sale. I'm looking for the chance to get people on my list or subscribed to my site so we can build a mutually profitable business relationship over the long haul.

      Switching sides, as a publisher, a gushing "article" with an affiliate link would never see the light of day on one of my sites. If I were to ever accept sponsor money for posting content, it would be clearly and conspicuously labeled that way.

      As a newspaper editor friend once said, "if you want me to publish an article, write me an article - if you want me to publish an ad, buy a ****ing ad..."
      • [ 9 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • Like others have said this is old news. I know in the past there were a lot of fake newsites and new articles were designed to look legitimate and promote garbage make money products. So unless you're promoting this type of stuff or the creator of them, I doubt there is much to worry about.

    It has nothing to do with real article marketing.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • Regardless of how you define article marketing, if there is textual native advertising dropped within the body of the article then this applies to you. Native advertising comes in multiple forms. That is just one of them.

    I used the term article marketing in the thread title because native advertising is a favorite method of monetizing articles around here.
    • [1] reply
    • Doesn't matter fig sticks how anybody defines article marketing. the fact is the story you link to is very specific about what it is talking about but you just WANT it to apply to article marketing in general. Its not what the article states as anyone who reads it can see

      Thats the entire point. Native advertising does come in multiple forms and the article you linked to has to do with A PARTICULAR FORM that the FTC has an issue with not all native advertising.

      Yes I gathered you have a bone to pick but again what bone you have to pick does not make the link you referenced say what you want it it to. It is talking about messages presented besides non commercial content and it being confusing to the public. No matter how much you beg otherwise if I link to amazon while reviewing a product the reader is not being duped after clicking the link that it leads to anywhere but an online store called amazon. There is no deception or ambiguity. Amazon is and looks like an ecommerce store.

      Completely different scenario which your piece is NOT addressing.
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • Sounds to me like the FTC Is bored and needs something to do....lol
    • [1] reply

    • I think the FTC has a rightful role in this problem.

      Consumers don't want to be deceived.

      Companies that manufacture products don't want their businesses compromised by knock-offs and fakes that exist on the basis of the popularity of a particular brand.

      Companies building an Internet presence often see their domains having traffic siphoned off by other domains infringing on trademarks.

      Advertising can be designed to confuse or generate income from customers that don't pay close attention to all the details prior to clicking the "buy now" button. (I just got a "statement" in the mail saying I was about to lose a domain if I didn't pay $60 to a company I have never dealt with - probably hoping I would think their invoice was legitimate.)

      The fact is, deception is everywhere there is a buck to be made. And though it may seem like this is a battle that can never be won, maybe having a few deterrents in place will help to somewhat control the problem.

      Just my thoughts,

      Steve
      • [ 2 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • I wish they would look into mistitled, ratchet threads.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • It will be interesting to see how this FTC investigation unfolds.
  • Aren't fake news stories obligated to put a notice above the article that states it is an advertisement? They used to have that rule, I hardly think they would have done away with it. but who knows?
  • Didn't the FTC travel down this road a few years ago?
    • [1] reply
    • Yep, and they will again. It's kind of like crabgrass - you never really get rid of it.
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • This is unheard of to me before now and very interesting! I heard a month ago of two companies suing each other because one company copied off another in posting trade news. Not sure if the FTC stepped in on that one or not.

    However, this could always go south with control-gone-wrong.
  • Just like everything the FTC gets involved in, no two people can agree on what they are doing.
Join the discussion

Next Topics on Trending Feed