InfoWorld Home / Adventures in IT / Notes from the Field / This blog has been brought to you by the Federal...
October 06, 2009

This blog has been brought to you by the Federal Trade Commission

The FTC has issued rules for bloggers who accept compensation for saying nice things about products or companies. Cringe has a few things he'd like to get off his chest.

| Print | 12 comments|
261 Recommendations

Bad news, freebie bloggers: The FTC is coming down on you like a tray of dishes -- and not just on bloggers, but anyone who uses social media. If you receive money or something for free and you blog, tweet, write up a positive review on Amazon, or share something nice about it with your 4,987 closest Facebook friends, the FTC wants you to disclose that fact or face fines of up to $11,000.

In principle, this sounds almost reasonable. Nobody is well served when Big Bad Corporate America buys online endorsements. Which, of course, they do -- like when a rogue Belkin executive got caught offering to pay people to write positive reviews of the company's products on Amazon last January. (Though at 65 cents per review, they don't pay much.)

[ Stay up to date on Robert X. Cringely's musings and observations with InfoWorld's Notes from the Underground newsletter. ]

Unfortunately, the FTC's 81-page guide has more holes than OJ's alibi. The rules are so confusing and arbitrary as to be entirely unenforceable. They attempt to create distinctions between bloggers and journalists (how about journalists who blog?) and between "traditional media... with independent editorial responsibility" and blogs that review products, which do not exist in the real world.

As Harry "The Technologizer" McCracken argues:

...a blog is only a method of displaying content. One that's used by everyone from college students to the largest media companies in the land. It has nothing to do with the quality of the content or the business model behind it. And the FTC doesn't explain what it means by the amazingly nebulous phrase "independent editorial responsibility." Is Technologizer not an "Internet news website with independent editorial responsibility" because it's published in blog format? Are the standards different when PCWorld.com, which is unquestionably an Internet news site, republishes Technologizer posts? Is USA Today's Ed Baig a different person when his words appear as blog posts than when they appear in a printed newspaper? The FTC either sees distinctions I don't or has failed to consider such scenarios.

Related Content...

White Paper

D2D Virtual Tape Library Replication Primer

This whitepaper explains the terminology and concepts behind Data Replication technologies and establishes some sizing rules through worked examples. Learn the new paradigm in disaster tolerance—protect data anywhere.

Download now »

White Paper

An Alternative to Virtualization for Datacenter Cost Savings

Server virtualization is a popular option for dealing with mounting datacenter costs. Another equally promising approach is the use of an Application Delivery Controller. Citrix NetScaler provides a low-cost way for organizations to reduce their server count and accrue cost savings from a reduction in space, cooling, power and personnel.

Download now »

White Paper

Why Your Firewall, VPN, and IEEE 802.11i Aren't Enough to Protect Your Network

The emergence of WLANs has created a new breed of security threats to enterprise networks.

Included in HP ProCurve WLAN solutions is security technology that alleviates threats from WLANs through:
* Monitoring wireless activity inside and out of the enterprise
* Classifying WLAN transmissions into harmful and harmless
* Preventing transmissions that pose a security threat to the enterprise network
* Locating participating devices for physical remediation

Download now »

White Paper

Bringing the Edge to the Data Center

Effectively address data protection challenges, implementing solutions that help store and protect business–critical data while cutting costs and improving efficiency and reliability.

Download now »
12 of 12 comments
Sign In or Register to comment
MAS 6-Oct-09 11:08am
I guess Jon Leibowitz and the rest of the FTC rather infringe on free speach instead of stricter regulations in conventional advertising media.

FTC Notice: no person(s) or institution(s) have compenstated me in any way for making this statement.

Gray_Hair 6-Oct-09 12:56pm
1 reply
OMG!!! CRINGE! You will be on terrorist watch lists 'til You die now! You actually solicited for C4 on the net, how could you be so careless?!?!
Robert X. Cringely 12-Oct-09 4:30am
I'd settle for a bundle of firecrackers and a couple of M80s.
nwjh 6-Oct-09 12:59pm
What happens if my blog page happens to include advertising inserted by whoever runs the blog site, but that I don't control, and some of it relates to something I'm blogging about? Am I indirectly benefiting because the advertising allows me to blog for free?
'Unworkable' seems the correct interpretation, but it has two advantages for the FTC, etc. (1) We did something about bloggers doing deceptive marketing. (2) We have legislation that allows us to pursue and prosecute people who express opinions that we don't like. I'm not sure I like the look of this.
The problem with 'unworkable' is that it leaves no-one sure what OK and what's illegal. Bad luck if you get to be a test case, especially if the prosecuting attorney is trying to beef up his CV in a bid for public office.
tomg 6-Oct-09 8:39pm
In 1993 the Supreme Court stated: "The commercial marketplace, like other spheres of our social and cultural life, provides a forum where ideas and information flourish. Some of the ideas and information are vital, some of slight worth. But the general rule is that the speaker and the audience, not the government, assess the value of the information presented. Thus, even a communication that does no more than propose a commercial transaction is entitled to the coverage of the First Amendment."
Kernos 7-Oct-09 7:11am
Well this is obvious a scheme by lawyers to drum up more business for lawyers. Personally I do not this lawyers should be able to legislate or regulate due to conflict of interest.
gunner@gulftel.com 7-Oct-09 9:55am
Well, at least the FCC can say they're doing something - even if it's impossible to actually implement their actions. I find attempting to punish "bloggers" without a firm definition of a "blogger" will prove either fruitless or prohibitively expensive. Either way, for bystanders, it's likely to prove entertaining.
Bryce 12-Oct-09 12:50pm
You mentioned commenting on a blog may be a form of blogging. In full disclosure, I once commented on a Blog and got a hideous yellow bag from the blogger. Never used it though. It said something like "I spy for Cringe" I could be mis-quoting though. ;-)
Pronounce 12-Oct-09 3:51pm
May I suggest the very green www.freecycle.org method of disposal for your unwanted items (like those listed in this blog). Craigslist is also a great place to offload things. I've given my old cell phones away to NFP organizations who recyle them to raise funds. If neither of those methods seems good I wait until I get a load of items and take them to my local recycling facility (www.freegeek.org).
rcprimak 12-Oct-09 10:39pm
1 reply

Here's what CBS-2 Chicago says prompted the FTC Rules:

There are these women who call themselves the "Mommy Bloggers". They pretend to be offering other new Moms tips on parenting. But in fact, they are blogging about specific products and services, with full details on where and how to purchase the products or sign up for the services. They make no mention of the fact that they get free products and services, and are directly paid, for each Positive Mention of each product or service they are blogging about.

That is the sort of blatant profiteering from the naivete of others which the FTC is seeking to prosecute. And well they should!

So, when I comment that I use Avast! Anti-malware Free Edition and Comodo Firewall Pro with Defense+, and I find these to be excellent products, I do not need to include a disclaimer that I never got paid for my endorsements.

But if Symantec offers me cash or free products or subscription extensions for making positive mentions of their products and services (and I have received no fewer than ten e-mails recently offering just such compensation) I sue as hell better mention this fact if I even comment in someone else's blog or post an answer at Yahoo! Answers favoring Norton over some other anti-virus solution.

See the difference?

Old Geezer 13-Oct-09 8:29am
Yes, I see the difference, and it has nothing to do with free speech in either sense of the word. FTC rules should not have tried to make distinctions between blogs and any other format. A paid endorsement is just that, regardless of the media involved. An undisclosed paid endorsement is unethical at best; even if the review/endorsement is accurate and confirmed by truly independent sources. The FTC idea is good, the execution lacks competence. PS: Nobody has even paid me squat for my opinion; not even to shut up and go away.
sgzdev 16-Oct-09 10:51am
Whatever happened to caveat emptor? Advertisers lie all the time, why should so-called-blogs be any different? Actors say they use/recommend products whether they do or not. Am I going to use Boniva just because Sally Field says she does?

Sign up to receive InfoWorld Resource Alerts

Subscribe to the Robert X. Cringely: Notes from the Trenches Newsletter

The one-stop resource center for IT professionals.

©1994-2009 Infoworld, Inc.