"That $11,000 fine is not true. Worst-case scenario, someone receives a warning, refuses to comply, followed by a serious product defect; we would institute a proceeding with a cease-and-desist order and mandate compliance with the law. To the extent that I have seen and heard, people are not objecting to the disclosure requirements but to the fear of penalty if they inadvertently make a mistake. That's the thing I don't think people need to be concerned about. There's no monetary penalty, in terms of the first violation, even in the worst case. Our approach is going to be educational, particularly with bloggers. We're focusing on the advertisers: What kind of education are you providing them, are you monitoring the bloggers and whether what they're saying is true?" The FTC's Richard Cleland
Last week, I posted about a new FTC guideline that requires disclosure if a blogger is reviewing products (specifically books or movies in my blog) and has received promotional copies, payment, or freebies in trade for their sharing their opinion. Now, this sounds good generally, there being some blogs that masquerade as honest review sites but which are paid to promote goods under the guise of giving an honest opinion. But the vast majority of bloggers was left with a sense of uncertainly and fear they'd be targeted for a hideously expensive fine or three...
Well, thanks to Sabrina over at the Coffee Quill blog, here's a link to Richard Cleland of the FTC's response to the furor. He seems to think it's a tempest in a teacup, and that we bloggers will receive plenty of warning if it's discovered we've been B.A.D. bad. (Which is a relief.) The pertinent issue for the Oh My Gawd fear of reprisal from Big Brother is above. But the entire article is quite good.
Of special note is Mr. Cleary's description of what constitutes word of mouth:
"When it comes to word of mouth and blogging, there's no difference. With word of mouth, there are instances when you're not necessarily hired by an agency but set up by a company. You get the inside info and get to be the first to have access, so you can earn bonus points for every person you tell--that is what I consider word of mouth. If you're paid to sell somebody's product in this way, and you deliver an endorsement, it doesn't matter in terms of how many people you send it to, but it does in terms of public interest and whether what the blogger has done is worth the inquiry. If you have 20 friends or 16,000, obviously, we'll look at the one with 16,000."
Now, what the general population's understanding of word of mouth is that people say what they think of something to people they know, whether in writing or verbally. But his (e.g. the FTC's) definition is that word of mouth is something for which a blogger is compensated. I presume this is also including free review copies or swag of any kind related to the product in hand. So what I have to ask is, if I mention my new smart phone by brand, do I have to do a disclaimer for that, too, even if it's only in passing? (Not that I am going to bother with something that trivial very often, but I did go on about my digital tablet when I got it because I loved it. These rules can drive you crazy. Hence the just-to-be-safe disclaimer at the top of the blog!)
Additionally, you might find this article about spyware from large company sales sites a bit apalling.


Recent Comments