Bloggers can no longer legally hide if their opinion was "bought"

m8o · 10-05-2009, 04:02 PM

Pentax news? No, not really Pentax news, if only to provide visibility and disclosure to what may actually be behind people who make us think they have an ax to grind.

So, both to those posting rosey reviews of a product or scathing reviews of a product:

FTC to Fine Bloggers up to $11,000 for Not Disclosing Payments

FTC Publishes Final Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials

Should be interesting if we see discosures popping-up in places we may not have expected it... or finally seeing them where we may have suspected it.

pxpaulx · 10-05-2009, 05:28 PM

In other words if a blog isnt a blog, they have to fess up. nice! I think being paid for blog posts is kind of defeating the point of a blog. I was under the assumption a blog was simply a web log, or pretty much an open forum journal style of personal exposition. Not so much anymore I guess!

junyo · 10-05-2009, 10:24 PM

Or, it's another way for companies to smack down independent reviewers/websites by having the FTC dig through the finances of anyone that gives them a bad review.

Or maybe I'm just a cynic about the government's need and/or ability to fix a social non-problem.

falconeye · 10-06-2009, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by m8o

to provide visibility and disclosure to what may actually be behind people who make us think they have an ax to grind.

Actually, the new paragraphs apply to forum posters as well.

And having obtained a free test unit (for the limited period of testing) already is a "material connection". Glad to have mentioned it here and in my blog while I was alpha testing the K-7

**Rondec** · 10-06-2009, 04:48 AM

It's basic honesty. People have the impression when they read blogs that they are impartial -- maybe more so than other news/reviewing outlets. However the biggest blogs often have contacts with commercial venues that push products. Pretty underhanded.

Shaloot! · 10-06-2009, 06:58 AM

also goes to show don't believe everything you read on the internet...

don't believe me?? :P

Pentax_XTC · 10-06-2009, 07:03 AM

If a local TV station does a story about General Electric or Turner Entertainment; they are required by law to state that General Electric or Turner Entertainment own the TV station or are the parent company of the owner. This way it is full disclosure so you can decide if the story was biased or not. Honestly these stories when they have to disclose the ownership of the TV station are probably the most balanced and unbiased stories they do.

m8o · 10-06-2009, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

And having obtained a free test unit (for the limited period of testing) already is a "material connection". Glad to have mentioned it here and in my blog while I was alpha testing the K-7

Good point. Though, what comes to mind too is it is a connection but would one consider it a 'gain' likely to sway one's opinion unless you get to keep it? I think it's human nature to be thankful to the company or operation making something available in an early and exclusive fashion, and thereby perhaps influence the opinion portrayed, especially if one doesn't receive early promotional items often. But I think what's being addressed with this is there's a different degree of 'influence' if someone gets to keep something from the company or organization making the promotional item available, or one is connected to them with some otherwise unknown relationship in some way, to provide everyone with visibility of that relationship by law.

konraDarnok · 10-06-2009, 09:43 AM

In principal I agree, but I wonder if this will now start a trend in the opposition direction?

It certainly opens the door for some interesting trolling possibilities -- people claiming corporate sponsorship with no such affiliation -- being jerks and reflecting poorly on the fictitious corporate benefactor.

Ratmagiclady · 10-06-2009, 10:36 AM

Well, to be honest, after seeing so much behavior that seems extremely pro-or-anti-this or that brand out there, I think some disclosure might well be in order, generally. It seems that when people have agendas they aren't exactly being helpful. I've been suspicious there's been a lot of 'viral negative advertising' out there, ...and for all we know, where there's possibly actual issues somewhere, there's sort of a 'people been crying wolf' factor involved.

*isteve · 10-06-2009, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Ratmagiclady

Well, to be honest, after seeing so much behavior that seems extremely pro-or-anti-this or that brand out there, I think some disclosure might well be in order, generally. It seems that when people have agendas they aren't exactly being helpful. I've been suspicious there's been a lot of 'viral negative advertising' out there, ...and for all we know, where there's possibly actual issues somewhere, there's sort of a 'people been crying wolf' factor involved.

Hear hear!

*isteve · 10-06-2009, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by junyo

Or, it's another way for companies to smack down independent reviewers/websites by having the FTC dig through the finances of anyone that gives them a bad review.

Or maybe I'm just a cynic about the government's need and/or ability to fix a social non-problem.

Good point, but they would be inviting a reciprocal investigation.

This is not really a social issue, its an issue of corporate misrepresentation. If a company discretely pays someone in kind, or in cash, to rubbish someone elses products and support theirs, then clearly that company is attempting to bypass laws regarding misrepresentation.

A company is NOT allowed to directly or indirectly make false claims about a competitor or its own products. If they are sponsoring a blogger to do just that they are just as guilty as if they had hired a PR company or ad agency to do the same.

This is really about enforcement of existing laws, not new laws.

**Rondec** · 10-06-2009, 12:15 PM

The reality is that when I read reviews on Amazon, I seldom read the five star reviews, or the one star reviews. The three and four star reviews are where most people will stick a real review and tell you the truth, positive and negative, about a product. Amazon and other places benefit from unreasonably glowing reviews on products, because people are more likely to buy things if they are recommended by other "normal" individuals.

inferno10 · 10-06-2009, 01:00 PM

Someone post that FTC ruling to RH's blog, stat!

*isteve · 10-06-2009, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by inferno10

Someone post that FTC ruling to RH's blog, stat!

Sadly he's out of their jurisdiction.

Not hard to figure out who is paying him though.

10-05-2009, 04:02 PM	#1
m8o Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI] Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,102	Bloggers can no longer legally hide if their opinion was "bought" Pentax news? No, not really Pentax news, if only to provide visibility and disclosure to what may actually be behind people who make us think they have an ax to grind. So, both to those posting rosey reviews of a product or scathing reviews of a product: FTC to Fine Bloggers up to $11,000 for Not Disclosing Payments FTC Publishes Final Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials Should be interesting if we see discosures popping-up in places we may not have expected it... or finally seeing them where we may have suspected it.

10-06-2009, 07:03 AM	#7
Pentax_XTC Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Duluth, GA Posts: 365	It's been around in different forms... If a local TV station does a story about General Electric or Turner Entertainment; they are required by law to state that General Electric or Turner Entertainment own the TV station or are the parent company of the owner. This way it is full disclosure so you can decide if the story was biased or not. Honestly these stories when they have to disclose the ownership of the TV station are probably the most balanced and unbiased stories they do.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version E-mail to a Friend	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sports "Highside Exit" took 1st Place in DPReview "Missed It by THAT much, Part 1" Challenge	MRRiley	Post Your Photos!	27	02-21-2010 08:26 PM
Buying First "Real" Camera and Need Opinion On ZX-5 w/Accesories	brandontowey	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	2	02-15-2009 07:13 AM
"Accidentally" bought an Auto Promura 200mm	Vylen	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	01-28-2009 10:54 PM
Have Any Of You Bought An "Inoperative" From KEH?	vinzer	Photographic Technique	6	11-23-2008 05:10 AM
"Hunger for a DA50-135?" or "The DA50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?"	Douglas_of_Sweden	Post Your Photos!	4	08-13-2008 06:09 AM

10-05-2009, 05:28 PM	#2
pxpaulx Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 2,869	In other words if a blog isnt a blog, they have to fess up. nice! I think being paid for blog posts is kind of defeating the point of a blog. I was under the assumption a blog was simply a web log, or pretty much an open forum journal style of personal exposition. Not so much anymore I guess!

10-05-2009, 10:24 PM	#3
junyo Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 418	Or, it's another way for companies to smack down independent reviewers/websites by having the FTC dig through the finances of anyone that gives them a bad review. Or maybe I'm just a cynic about the government's need and/or ability to fix a social non-problem.

10-06-2009, 02:25 AM	#4
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,863	Originally posted by m8o to provide visibility and disclosure to what may actually be behind people who make us think they have an ax to grind. Actually, the new paragraphs apply to forum posters as well. And having obtained a free test unit (for the limited period of testing) already is a "material connection". Glad to have mentioned it here and in my blog while I was alpha testing the K-7

10-06-2009, 04:48 AM	#5
Rondec Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 17,353	It's basic honesty. People have the impression when they read blogs that they are impartial -- maybe more so than other news/reviewing outlets. However the biggest blogs often have contacts with commercial venues that push products. Pretty underhanded.

10-06-2009, 06:58 AM	#6
Shaloot! Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 67	also goes to show don't believe everything you read on the internet... don't believe me?? :P

10-06-2009, 07:17 AM	#8
m8o Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI] Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,102 Original Poster	Originally posted by falconeye And having obtained a free test unit (for the limited period of testing) already is a "material connection". Glad to have mentioned it here and in my blog while I was alpha testing the K-7 Good point. Though, what comes to mind too is it is a connection but would one consider it a 'gain' likely to sway one's opinion unless you get to keep it? I think it's human nature to be thankful to the company or operation making something available in an early and exclusive fashion, and thereby perhaps influence the opinion portrayed, especially if one doesn't receive early promotional items often. But I think what's being addressed with this is there's a different degree of 'influence' if someone gets to keep something from the company or organization making the promotional item available, or one is connected to them with some otherwise unknown relationship in some way, to provide everyone with visibility of that relationship by law.

10-06-2009, 09:43 AM	#9
konraDarnok Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Photos: Albums Posts: 962	In principal I agree, but I wonder if this will now start a trend in the opposition direction? It certainly opens the door for some interesting trolling possibilities -- people claiming corporate sponsorship with no such affiliation -- being jerks and reflecting poorly on the fictitious corporate benefactor.

10-06-2009, 10:36 AM	#10
Ratmagiclady Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,502	Well, to be honest, after seeing so much behavior that seems extremely pro-or-anti-this or that brand out there, I think some disclosure might well be in order, generally. It seems that when people have agendas they aren't exactly being helpful. I've been suspicious there's been a lot of 'viral negative advertising' out there, ...and for all we know, where there's possibly actual issues somewhere, there's sort of a 'people been crying wolf' factor involved.

10-06-2009, 11:00 AM	#11
*isteve Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 1,187	Originally posted by Ratmagiclady Well, to be honest, after seeing so much behavior that seems extremely pro-or-anti-this or that brand out there, I think some disclosure might well be in order, generally. It seems that when people have agendas they aren't exactly being helpful. I've been suspicious there's been a lot of 'viral negative advertising' out there, ...and for all we know, where there's possibly actual issues somewhere, there's sort of a 'people been crying wolf' factor involved. Hear hear!

10-06-2009, 11:06 AM	#12
*isteve Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 1,187	Originally posted by junyo Or, it's another way for companies to smack down independent reviewers/websites by having the FTC dig through the finances of anyone that gives them a bad review. Or maybe I'm just a cynic about the government's need and/or ability to fix a social non-problem. Good point, but they would be inviting a reciprocal investigation. This is not really a social issue, its an issue of corporate misrepresentation. If a company discretely pays someone in kind, or in cash, to rubbish someone elses products and support theirs, then clearly that company is attempting to bypass laws regarding misrepresentation. A company is NOT allowed to directly or indirectly make false claims about a competitor or its own products. If they are sponsoring a blogger to do just that they are just as guilty as if they had hired a PR company or ad agency to do the same. This is really about enforcement of existing laws, not new laws.

10-06-2009, 12:15 PM	#13
Rondec Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 17,353	The reality is that when I read reviews on Amazon, I seldom read the five star reviews, or the one star reviews. The three and four star reviews are where most people will stick a real review and tell you the truth, positive and negative, about a product. Amazon and other places benefit from unreasonably glowing reviews on products, because people are more likely to buy things if they are recommended by other "normal" individuals.

10-06-2009, 01:00 PM	#14
inferno10 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: San Francisco, California Posts: 342	Someone post that FTC ruling to RH's blog, stat!

10-06-2009, 04:01 PM	#15
*isteve Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 1,187	Originally posted by inferno10 Someone post that FTC ruling to RH's blog, stat! Sadly he's out of their jurisdiction. Not hard to figure out who is paying him though.