IAB to FTC: Dump the new blogger rules
The Internet Advertising Bureau has come out against new guidelines proposed by the Federal Trade Commission that would require bloggers to disclose their affiliations with sponsors, marketers, and free giveaways. The reason? The IAB claims that the rules unfairly regulate online media more than offline.
"What concerns us the most in these revisions is that the Internet, the cheapest, most widely accessible communications medium ever invented, would have less freedom than other media," IAB president and CEO Randall Rothenberg wrote in an open letter to FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz. "These revisions are punitive to the online world and unfairly distinguish between the same speech, based on the medium in which it is delivered. The practices have long been afforded strong First Amendment protections in traditional media outlets, but the Commission is saying that the same speech deserves fewer Constitutional protections online."
He illustrated it with a personal example:
So there I was last Saturday, about to send out on my Twitter feed--which automatically updates my Facebook page and links to my personal blog--a photograph of this wonderful baked halibut dish I'd just made as a surprise for my wife. I was in the middle of typing a rave review of the recipe, which I'd pulled from my favorite cookbook, "Delicioso! The Regional Cooking of Spain" by Penelope Casas. But before I could press the 'post' button, I stopped and canceled the whole thing.I remembered that the book was a freebie, sent to me by an editor at the Alfred A. Knopf publishing house 13 years ago. And I didn't want you guys to haul me into court and fine me for violating the rules you've just promulgated to muzzle social media.
The FTC has said that the rules, which stipulate that violations may face up to $11,000 in fines, are designed for education rather than punishment. But Rothenberg isn't buying it.
"The Guides do allow you to pursue bloggers," he insisted. "They do hold individuals more liable than larger corporations. They do explicitly say online social media have less protection than offline corporate media. They do obstruct online companies' opportunities to drive cultural conversation more than offline companies'. They do threaten with prosecution book publishers, movie producers, and other companies that supply products to individual social media conversationalists."
The bigger problem is that offline media isn't subject to the same restrictions, he explained. And, according to the letter, clamping down on one medium but not another constitutes a First Amendment violation.
The FTC has not yet responded publicly.
Caroline McCarthy, a CNET News staff writer, is a downtown Manhattanite happily addicted to social-media tools and restaurant blogs. Her pre-CNET resume includes interning at an IT security firm and brewing cappuccinos. E-mail Caroline. 
Someone obviously hasn't been paying attention to anything Herr Pelosi, the Czars, or any of the other Anointed Ones have said or done. They oppose leaving anything cheap or freely accessible. Every power grab makes everyday life more difficult and expensive for anyone working for a living, with increased government control over every productive activity.
The Party may be slowed on this issue, but they'll just come up with another takeover. We need to flush the Control Freaks out of DC before they condemn us to the stagnation, chains, and poverty of Old Europe.
A trillion dollars in political kickbacks?
Net "neutrality" power grabs?
Bills to give emergency control of any internet provider to the President?
Sending the FTC after bloggers?
Asking people to forward any criticisms to the White House?
"Fairness Doctrine" to muzzle opposing views?
"Hate speech" legislation?
Monitoring libertarian websites?
Paying members of The Party to post anonymous cheerleading comments?
Anybody with a Ron Paul bumper sticker is a domestic terrorist?
Shut up and quit dissenting or you're a racist extremist who isn't being "bipartisan"?
Anyone opposed to Omnipotent Government is a "Nazi"? (<-- Nancy Pelosi's words)
On the other hand, full disclosure in print and broadcast media could be a good thing. Now, most newspapers, magazines and even TV shows have a web version. Doesn't that really mean they are subject to the same Guides?
They make radio DJ's tell when they are being paid for touting a business or service or product.... why shouldn't they do it for bloggers online?
We have scammers paying bloggers a ton of money through affiliate networks to shill products they've never even seen. The FTC should come down hard on these scammers.
This rule needs to go the way of the DoDo Bird--Extinct!
Simple, easy, and something even a braindead zombiefied monkey should be able to do!
It's really not fair if "reviewers", one of our few legal ways of assessing whether many things are worth purchasing, are being paid to plug things regardless of their genuine opinion.
Ethical media relations require always providing bloggers (and all other media and various publics) with full disclosure. The practice of offering or gifts or payment should have been discouraged by clients, who should have insisted that that agencies secure positive editorial coverage based solely on the merits of a brand.
These FTC rules will not present any challenge for those who execute their communications campaigns in a fully transparent manner. After all, time and the Internet shows that the truth comes out eventually.
The FTC is not in anyway trying to squash free speech, they are trying to protect the public and allow for free speech to continue. If you think about it, someone who is getting paid to write a blog they are not speeaking freely as the content is not from their heart and thoights.
That's a function of integrety but everone else will always question their judgment when they know about the connection.
If you believe in this new rule (and the intent behind it is good) you also need push to have everone disclose everthing like paid advertisers pushing to get their way on published content and such. The larger idea behind this rule cuts a lot deeper than it would seem at first blush.
The total value of all goods and services purchased online is about $250 billion give or take a few billion. How much of this $250 billion pie is actually influenced and peddeled via affiliations by bloggers? I would guess again that this is a rounding error on Walmarts balance sheet, as we need to put things into perspective. The FTC has created a rule that punishes the small guy (since that is what a blogger is). The rule is stupid. It needs to be dropped.
There are way more important areas which the FTC needs to concentrate on, then to create specific rules targeting bloggers.
The IAB wishes to continue making it possible to bribe or pay bloggers for their reviews essentially without having that payoff be known to the readers of those blogs, correct?
I don't care what example they give- their intent is pretty darn clear.
I used to be involved in the automotive industry where we were given new tools from companies like Easco/Snap-On/KD/Sears, etc. to test out and give a review in an industry press publication. It was always made clear in the disclaimer in the publication that the tools were given to us for the purposes for review and were returned back to the OEM when complete. Often what happened is when we were done with them for our tests, we'd end up just forwarding them to the next magazine for the same purpose. The same set of review tools went around to different groups that way. You didn't get to keep them. To keep something like that is just unethical.
It's the same way for automotive reviews too. It should be openly disclosed what your incentive is to give the review and what your relationship with the company is.
- by bluemist9999 October 22, 2009 11:49 AM PDT
- From what I understand, the FTC is just making clear that bloggers have the same obligation of disclosure that offline journalists do.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(22 Comments)In my opinion, excellent products don't need bribes to earn excellent reviews. The product stands alone in demonstrating its value and quality.
So, basically, the IAB is implying many of the products they endorse aren't good enough to earn their reviews without bribery.
What did I miss here?