FTC: Bloggers Must Reveal When Paid for Reviews

Status
Not open for further replies.

NegativeX

Distinguished
Sep 4, 2008
56
0
18,580
Good.

I can name a half dozen sites where it's blatantly obvious the "reviewers/bloggers" are paid off, by the company they are reviewing a product for.

Any effort to help push truth in advertising is a-ok' in my book.
 

NegativeX

Distinguished
Sep 4, 2008
56
0
18,580
"“If a product is provided to bloggers, the F.T.C. will consider that, in most cases, to be a material connection even if the advertiser has no control over the content of the blogs.”"
----------------------------------------

As long as the reviewer/blogger states that he cannot keep the product as compensation, I don't see a problem with having to disclose this fact.

We all already know, in order to review something, you generally have to "use" it.
 

MiamiU

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2009
29
0
18,580
[citation][nom]jhansonxi[/nom]I can't see this having much of an impact since the complaints would be hard to prove without an inside source.[/citation]
with a fine up to $11,000, i'm sure people that live of misinforming consumers will think twice of doing it at the very least.
 

hellwig

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
817
0
18,930
I can't say I've read too many blogs for product reviews. Sites run by companies (like Tom, TGDaily, Anand, etc...) do need to be regulated, and probably already were before this new law. Blogs are personal opinion (and carry an inherent disclaimer that they might contain 100% B.S.). That fact that people get sued for their personal opinions, and the fact that these personal opinions regularly make the news (if not sourced as news themselves) is just stupid. Why regulate blogs? Just ignore them.

At least the cost of having to print a newspaper or broadcast a TV show meant someone was accountable in someway. Creating a free account on blogger and saying your a respectable journalist doesn't account for squat.

If you don't realize a blog, twitter, facebook, etc.. is just individuals spouting their own opinions, you shouldn't be on the internet. Remember when it was found out the CNN twitter account Ashton Kutcher was competing against wasn't even owned by CNN?
 

tayb

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2009
663
0
18,930
I don't think I need to be informed when a blogger reviews an item that was given out to reviewers to be reviewed. Most of the time that is already stated or assumed because most people don't just make a habit of buying up tons of electronics and reviewing them. Doesn't quite fit the same category as being paid money to write a positive review and certainly shouldn't warrant the same $11,000 maximum fine.

Not disclosing that you are being paid to write the review by the company that makes the product or an affiliated company? Sure. Not disclosing that you are reviewing a review model that was given out to reviewers? Eh, probably not an $11,000 crime. What we are going to see now all over the place is "This is a review of XXXX. This product was given to us for review by XXXX. It is not ours to keep. Etc." Kind of silly.
 

ryanegeiger

Distinguished
Sep 9, 2009
23
0
18,560
Right, but at the same time, if someone says "we are being paid by X company X amount of dollars to review this..." that's going to carry some weight. What I think this will prevent is companies trying to BUY positive reviews rather than the reviewers themselves changing much.

Cough*KaneandLynch*Cough.
 

virtualban

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2007
625
0
18,930
[citation][nom]El_Capitan[/nom]How about the people posting comments about the product or service? I am 100% sure there are companies who hire people to post negative comments about competitor's services and products, while posting positive comments about their own services and products. People can't tell the difference, and you can easily create numerous fake login accounts and create multiple e-mails.[/citation]
I still remember all those protecting Vista even when beaten with arguments on almost every point they made. Now, open source must have paid those who opposed Vista as we all know MS does not have the money and will to manipulate the market in any way.
 

jerreece

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2006
400
0
18,930
The positive thing from all of us, is that it would require sights similar to Tom's Hardware to state whether they are given compensation or some sort of perk to review a particular product.

That will help sites like Tom's Hardware with regard to the folks who repeatedly insist that such sights are inappropriately biased toward one particular manufacturer or brand.

I could see this being a win/win for everyone. Bloggers/Reviewers have to be open and honest, and readers get to know the truth. In return, bloggers/reviewers earn more trust from their readers.
 

ryanegeiger

Distinguished
Sep 9, 2009
23
0
18,560
[citation][nom]virtualban[/nom]I hope theescapist and zeropunctuation reviews are not paid by anyone except listeners. They're fun.[/citation]

Yahtzee (ZP) always talks about whether or not he has to pay for a game or gets it sent to him... it's part of his schtick. I doubt he get's paid by anyone other than the company he works for seeing as how he often reviews games that aren't even being sold anymore. That and who would pay to have every flaw in their game ripped out and shown bleeding to the world?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.