"If you're a blogger and you're really upset about this, you're telling me that you're now pissed that you have to now disclose all of your back-room dealings, and that doesn't instill much confidence in your reporting."
Sure, it may require that bloggers report gifts and incentives. But the law is basically unenforceable. There are millions of blogs in existence and the FTC cannot police them all. While I'm sure that the FTC is only intending to go after the extremely successful blogs, it would be preferable to see some kinds of limits built into the guidelines so we actually know where the FTC is intending to enforce these guidelines.
Second of all, this is the internet. So if someone seriously wanted to get around this, they would just have to host their blog someplace where the FTC doesn't have authority.
It's not possible to police millions of bloggers, but IIUC if some company with deep pockets enlists thousands of bloggers in a stealth "social marketing" campaign, and the ruse is discovered, the company can now be fined for deceptive trading practices.
While this would be a good use for the guidelines, http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm seems to imply that the onus is on the blogger to declare material connections. So while it might help with astroturfing, I don't see it really stopping a company with deep pockets from sending out cash and items to review to bloggers.I also would not see the guidelines increasing liability for the company if the ftc is holding bloggers responsible for declaring endorsements.
Comments
"If you're a blogger and you're really upset about this, you're telling me that you're now pissed that you have to now disclose all of your back-room dealings, and that doesn't instill much confidence in your reporting."
Sure, it may require that bloggers report gifts and incentives. But the law is basically unenforceable. There are millions of blogs in existence and the FTC cannot police them all. While I'm sure that the FTC is only intending to go after the extremely successful blogs, it would be preferable to see some kinds of limits built into the guidelines so we actually know where the FTC is intending to enforce these guidelines.
Second of all, this is the internet. So if someone seriously wanted to get around this, they would just have to host their blog someplace where the FTC doesn't have authority.
Edit: changed FCC to FTC
It's not possible to police millions of bloggers, but IIUC if some company with deep pockets enlists thousands of bloggers in a stealth "social marketing" campaign, and the ruse is discovered, the company can now be fined for deceptive trading practices.
While this would be a good use for the guidelines, http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm seems to imply that the onus is on the blogger to declare material connections. So while it might help with astroturfing, I don't see it really stopping a company with deep pockets from sending out cash and items to review to bloggers.I also would not see the guidelines increasing liability for the company if the ftc is holding bloggers responsible for declaring endorsements.