main
Report a problem

America to crack down on blogger payola

Matthew Hopson   on 06 October 2009 - 10:20 · 16 comments & 3520 views

Advertisement (Why?)
US regulators are to crack down on bloggers who fail to disclose money or gifts received from companies when reviewing their products. In the new policy from the Federal Trade Commission, offending bloggers could eventually face fines of up to $11,000 (£6,900) per violation, according to the BBC.

So-called payola schemes have increased in recent years, with marketers realising the potential of encouraging bloggers and forum contributors to produce reviews or testimonials on their products in exchange for money of freebies.

Although the guidelines released by the FTC are not binding by law, they are interpretations of the law that hope to help advertisers comply with regulations, such as those on disclosing endorsements.

In a statement the FTC said, "The revised guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, 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."

Until now, the FTC's policy on endorsements had not covered bloggers, causing concern for consumer groups. "Consumers are increasingly dependent on the internet for purchase information," said Jack Gillis of the Consumer Federation of America, "There's tremendous opportunity to steer consumers in the wrong direction."

Reactions from the blogosphere have been somewhat mixed. Wayne Sutton, a social media strategist and podcast host at TalkSocialNews.com agreed, saying, "We're in a time when companies will try (to) leverage individuals who are community leaders or have a large audience for brand awareness... but if you want to keep them (readers/followers), being honest or 'transparent' is the best way to do so."

Meanwhile, Jeff Jarvis, a professor of journalism at New York's City University attacked the policy in his blog. He wrote, "I think that openness is the best fix for questions of trust and advise companies and politicians and certainly governments to become transparent by default as enlightened self-interest. But mandating this for anyone who dares speak online? Foolish." The new policy will take effect from December 1st.

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 16 additional comments
(1 reply) #1 +Vice on 06 Oct 2009 - 10:42
chchonline is covered as his in Canada so this shouldn't affect him right
#1.1 GP007 on 06 Oct 2009 - 11:28
That's right. But I think this is a good thing, many times, so called "reviews" are BS and writen because said blogger/site w/e, gets gifts/money in the process. This practice falls in the same category as false advertisement imo.
(1 reply) #2 bob_c_b on 06 Oct 2009 - 12:22
It would be nice if we could take reviews seriously again, do it.
#2.1 Vakerorokero on 06 Oct 2009 - 18:48
This is great for everyone, except kotaku.com a site that hates Nintendo for not sending gifts to them. One time the owner even said "Nintendo, where's our Dsi so we can review it properly??"

#3 Bemani Dog on 06 Oct 2009 - 12:27
At first I thought this was about fake bloggers, but now I see it's about payola.
(3 replies) #4 Magallanes on 06 Oct 2009 - 13:09
US regulators are to crack down on bloggers who fail to disclose money or gifts received from companies when reviewing their products. In the new policy from the Federal Trade Commission, offending bloggers could eventually face fines of up to $11,000 (£6,900) per violation, according to the BBC.


SAY WHAT?.
I don't known what it is the difference between the payola scheme and the rest of the marketing. Let's say, showing MacDonalds as a healthy product is guiding customer to the wrong direction, and it is legal to do such ads.

Also, many reviewer pages work in such fashion, for example the infamous IGN.


#4.1 +0sm3l on 07 Oct 2009 - 02:36
That's exactly what I was thinking. What's the difference between this and a commercial?
#4.2 XerXis on 07 Oct 2009 - 09:16
0sm3l said,
That's exactly what I was thinking. What's the difference between this and a commercial?


a commercial is made by the company that sells the product, everybody knows that. If a blogger receives money for reviewing a product and fails to mention it you can never be sure if he is an independent source or just advertising for the company. That's the difference, seemed pretty clear to me
#4.3 +0sm3l on 08 Oct 2009 - 04:19
No... the company pays another one to market their product, make commercials etc. Same thing
(3 replies) #5 Dead_Monkey on 06 Oct 2009 - 13:16
And in other news, GameSpot.com announced that it will be ceasing operations.
#5.1 Neoauld on 06 Oct 2009 - 14:18
Dead_Monkey said,
And in other news, GameSpot.com announced that it will be ceasing operations.


ahahahahhahaa
#5.2 ajua on 06 Oct 2009 - 15:38
lol
#5.3 Shiranui on 07 Oct 2009 - 03:03
Dead_Monkey said,
And in other news, GameSpot.com announced that it will be ceasing operations.


I'll give you a 9.7 for that.
(2 replies) #6 RAID 0 on 06 Oct 2009 - 18:15
So does this mean the US government will stop taking lobbyist money?
#6.1 toadeater on 07 Oct 2009 - 00:16
RAID 0 said,
So does this mean the US government will stop taking lobbyist money?


It's not the government's fault. It's the fault of complacent and cowardly American citizens who don't do anything about it.
#6.2 pc_tool on 07 Oct 2009 - 12:09
toadeater said,
It's not the government's fault. It's the fault of complacent and cowardly American citizens who don't do anything about it.


+1 This is the sad reality

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)