In the eyes of imaginative and opportunistic advertisers and marketers, bloggers and online influencers are the new celebrities and athletes. Brands are showering them with endorsement deals rich with products, cash, trips, exclusive access to information, and VIP treatment each and every day, creating a new genre of star spokespersons.
Many expert and lifestyle “citizen” bloggers and online weblebrities are creating communities around their personas as they freely and actively share personal and identifiable experiences online, in social networks and also in the real world. Those who can successfully connect their stories to others in and around their peer groups earn trust, visibility and authority – limited only by ambition and ingenuity. They’re rewarded for their presence and ability to point their followers in strategic directions.
These new brand ambassadors are almost the perfect instruments for surreptitiously sparking and cultivating a groundswell of desire within desired target markets.
Consumers look to experts and trusted peers for guidance and insight when making decisions.
But who’s to say that the information they’re receiving from their trusted sources is indeed truthful and honest? Many of these followers are blind to the fact that some of these authorities are actually directly or indirectly compensated for their opinions and insights.
Journalists and reporters on the other hand, most of them anyway, are held to strict editorial guidelines and policies that denounce the practice of receiving products, gifts or compensation in exchange for editorial coverage. There’s at least a line that separates ethical press from advertorials —whether it’s crossed, is another story.
But in the new online world of citizen influence, there’s no line on the horizon—at least not yet. Driven only by loosely defined and sporadically practiced methodologies that promote at-will disclosure and transparency, many brands, intentionally or deliberately, are blurring a consumer’s ability to discern the distinction between partisan and genuine experiences.
The New FTC Guidelines: Even Citizen Journalists Must Disclose Paid Endorsements
That’s all about to change. Under new guidelines proposed by the Federal Trade Commission, brands and bloggers both may be held liable should either the FTC or scorned consumers deem that their actions or claims misguided them, or misrepresented the actual performance or efficacy of the product or service in question..
According to the FTC, the ability for a consumer to exercise better judgment and common sense is indefensible when a glaring absence of disclosure is pervasive.
Earlier this year, The FTC published recommendations to update its guidelines concerning the use of endorsements and testimonials in advertising and public relations. A new set of guidelines, enforceable by the FTC Act, is due soon.
The Guides, 16 C.F.R. Part 255, are designed to assist businesses and others in conforming their endorsement and testimonial advertising practices to the requirements of Section 5 of the FTC Act. The Guides interpret laws administered by the Commission and therefore are advisory in nature. However, proceedings to enforce the requirements of law can be brought under the FTC Act. The Commission would have the responsibility of proving that a particular use of an endorsement or testimonial was deceptive.
In its review of the proposed guidelines, BusinessWeek observed, “The world’s more ambitious bloggers like to call themselves ‘citizen journalists.’ The government is trying to make sure these heralds don’t turn into citizen advertisers.”
I disagree with BusinessWeek’s observation and so does the FTC.
In a discussion with Mary Engle, the acting deputy director for the Bureau of Consumer Protection, she articulated to me, “It’s not about preventing citizen journalists from becoming citizen advertisers, that’s just not true. We’re acting to ensure that bloggers don’t create a bias in the consumer decision-making process. Consumers just need to know that what they’re reading is technically an advertisement.”
Whether the post is compensated with cash or with free product or rewards, the FTC views them equally. Engle observed, “The real test is whether or not the consumer’s impression or decision would change if they knew the post was sponsored.”
The FTC Guides advise that an advertisement employing a consumer endorsement on a central or key attribute of a product will be interpreted as representing that the endorser’s experience is representative of what consumers will generally achieve.
It’s about responsibility and credibility.
But honestly, why chance it?
The practice of paying bloggers and influencers or providing them with free products not only clouds their ability to share an impartial story, but also risks the credibility and trust of brands and influencers among the very people they’re trying to inspire and galvanize.
With or without the new FTC guidelines, the practice of disclosure is not an option when the potential for significantly damaging customer relationships in a very public spotlight is at stake. Unfortunately, such disclosure is not at the forefront of most marketing programs.
Free Products are Gifts that Keep on Giving
Ignorance is bliss, until it’s not…
In 2006, Microsoft introduced its Vista operating system to consumers using traditional and new media. In one of the programs, bloggers of varying levels of influence, received Acer Ferrari notebooks to potentially review and share their experiences of the OS and also the notebook. Initially, it wasn’t made clear to these bloggers that disclosure was encouraged. I saw many variations of the packages and letters. Depending on which version a blogger did or didn’t receive, instructions and intentions were also vaguely communicated. What was commonly perceived and understood by other bloggers and ultimately consumers, was that these expensive notebooks were theirs to keep whether or not they shared anything online. To say it created a blogstorm of controversy would be a gross understatement. The lessons learned here served as precedent for those seeking guidance, but didn’t necessarily translate intro industry-wide standards.
Brands view the practice of sending products to bloggers and online influencers as a natural extension of their product PR campaign. In many cases over the years, companies simply didn’t expect to receive product back from reviewers, whether or not they were employed by a publication bound by editorial guidelines against the acceptance of gifts or free products. Bloggers and online influencers, until the recent FTC attention, were viewed no differently.
Sending free products, according to the FTC, is viewed as compensation, which translates into an advertisement or paid endorsement.
Under the FTC guidelines, disclosure is required in any case where the brand is hopeful of obtaining a published review of the product, when its return, either explicitly or implicitly conveyed, is not expected. This attempts to ensure the protection of all parties against liability or legal action.
Sponsored Posts and Conversations
Whether or not disclosure is evident and forthright, the question really is, whether or not the practice of giving gifts to encourage reviews or outright paying for them is ultimately effective and sound for channeling influence, community building and revenue generation for the long-term.
I am now talking about “sponsored conversations”: outright paying for posts and conversations versus simply sending free product or rewarding influencers with various other incentives and hoping for complimentary posts and discussions in exchange.
A recent report published by Forrester Research defines sponsored conversations as, “A marketing technique in which marketers provide financial or material compensation to bloggers in exchange for their posting blog content about a brand.”
In the report, which is available for $749, Forrester recommends adding sponsored conversations to the corporate marketing toolbox, “Sponsored conversation is controversial; many bloggers believe it threatens bloggers’ reputation for independence. But we think this practice is here to stay. Why? Because bloggers want to get paid and marketers want to pay them.”
According to the FTC guidelines, if there were a financial or other relationship between the advertiser and the endorser that would affect the credibility of the endorsement, that relationship would have to be disclosed under Section 255.5. So, as long as the blogger is clear that the post or conversation is “sponsored,” all guidelines are respected and satisfied.
Wait, what about the brand?
Just because bloggers want to get paid and brands want to pay them, doesn’t make this a no-brainer business practice. Or, put another way, does it actually enhance the product/company brand or the personal brand of the blogger in the long run?
Some of the biggest brands in the world are already experimenting with paid posts including, 1-800Flowers, Black&Decker, Cold Stone Creamery, Dell, Disney, MTV, Sears, Sony Pictures, and TiVo. For example, Kmart recently sent several high profile bloggers on $500 shopping sprees in exchange for “sponsored posts” about their experiences.
I suppose, it’s in the way that you use it . . .
So, let’s examine something of deeper impact and consequence. Every community thrives on interaction rooted in respect and defined by credibility and trust—at least that’s the way it’s supposed to work.
For bloggers to risk or leverage their existing, and more importantly, potential credibility in exchange for blogola is either absurd or shortsighted. It might be simply gratifying and motivating for now. Maybe the bigger picture has yet to come into focus for many bloggers and the act of recognition is enough. And, for brands to either take generations of a brand ’s integrity or shape its new and emerging identification on the backs of bloggers who’ll loan their stature and reputation is brilliantly foolish. In the end, it’s the consumer who holds the power to decide his or her degree of affinity and affiliation or mutiny and backlash.
Integrity and Reputation vs. Buzz and Google Juice
The impending FTC guidelines and whether or not bloggers and brands are at risk of legal punishment isn’t the issue. We just have to deal with it. We can choose as consumers whether or not we want to engage with this content.
The real discussion should center on why a company or blogger should even care to participate. The things we do for money are governed by personal boundaries. As individuals, we define those lines and how clearly we wish to view and abide by them.
If we examine Forrester’s case for sponsored conversations, we’re essentially fueling word of mouth by paying for social or topical authorities to share their views about our company or product brand in their domain. This is important. We’re talking about paying people to write about a company or product on their existing, personally-branded content platform associated with it’s already existing, captive audience. This theoretically sparks Webwide buzz that connects a brand to the community of would be customers who rely upon these personalities and voices in the both the blogosphere and statusphere to make informed decisions.
Seems simple enough, except two things are going to prevent this from effectively promoting the sponsoring brand over time — 1) disclosures read like warning signs; 2) Google is downgrading any blog or site that actively publishes paid content.
Let’s walk down this path a bit farther . . .
As a consumer, when’s the last time you read an advertorial and walked away inspired or informed? Other than the Snuggie or ShamWow, when is the last time you actually watched an infomercial, let alone bought a product or shared it with your friends because of what you viewed?
Perhaps this is the wrong audience for a discussion probing the shrewdness of the typical consumer. But, I bet many of you reading this now are responsible for the direction, visibility, and perception of a brand. So as brand managers, your brand is what the market says it is, tethered to the credibility and stature of the people who collectively voice their thoughts about it (paid and unpaid). In the world of pay-per-posts or sponsored conversations, brand association starts to paint a picture of guilt by association, not necessarily the building of strategic brand presence or resonance.
This is a deeper discussion of reputation and trustworthiness versus funding word of mouth buzz and viral marketing. To simply state that “disclosure” alleviates and resolves all risks involved with sponsoring conversations trivializes the discussion.
Brand Ambassadors and Inspired Communities
Whether we like it or not, many new companies are offering brokered services to facilitate “pay to play” campaigns in Social Media. Concurrently, many brands are also running these programs from within.
Clearly a balance scale exists where integrity and paid buzz are on opposite sides. So the real question is, how do you leverage the laws of perception management in your favor? One way to do so is through traditional public relations.
Identify target bloggers and work genuinely with them on developing a meaningful story that helps and informs their community. Bloggers will write about products and brands they really care about. You don’t have to pay them to do that. It comes naturally.
This is not to say that there is no place whatsoever for paid endorsements on the Web. Obviously paid endorsements work when the platform for conveying paid messages is understood and accepted. Celebrities have effectively pushed products in commercials without tarnishing their brand for decades. Essentially, the difference is the forums and networks in which these paid messages appear and the fact that the celebrities are usually aboveboard about the fact that they are endorsements.
Look to the existing business of paid endorsements to build and manage a campaign that effectively reaches and compels potential customers without the negative attributes that cling to pay-per-posts.
Hiring or recruiting influential weblebrities and online experts is not unlike the model for linking real world celebrities to brands through commercials, events, appearances, or other dedicated vehicles to promote the alliance and the story. These campaigns, when conceptualized and executed properly, effectively link the product/company brand to the celebrity’s persona and prestige to convey a relationship that connects to consumers through their affinity to the spokesperson. The idea is to create and host a two-way street that still inspires word of mouth and viral marketing.
For example:
Mozy hired iJustine as an official spokesperson airing content on Mozy.com as well as across multiple social networks including YouTube and iJustine branded properties.
Wal-Mart established Elevenmoms, an expert group of independent bloggers who receive free sample products to review and then freely choose which products to review based entirely on their personal opinion and experience.
Baby-products manufacturer Graco launched the Graco Nation Ambassador Program, a dedicated community of select Graco fans.
Based on the company’s successful foray into influencer relations with its Flex loaner program, Ford is currently trying to spark consumer buzz for its impending launch of the Ford Fiesta by enlisting every day consumers to share their experiences online and in social networks.
In the end, sponsored conversations will continue to receive funding, as brands try to insert themselves into the conversations online. The FTC is simply striving for truth in advertising. The point is that when establishing a paid Social Media campaign, anything that is less than clear, honest, or actively contributing back to the bottom line of the business or to a brand’s resonance is actually taking away from it.
(Photo credit: Flickr/Jennifer Rensel)
Using bloggers and blogs as paid reviews is simply a smart marketing and advertising technique. I know what you are talking about when you say Kmart gave money to a few bloggers to spend and then post about it.
Everybody does it.. So what’s the big deal?!
http://www.wannadevelop.com
if it is not broken, don’t fix it.
What are you trying to get across here that sponsored bloggers are less credible than those independent ones. FYI, it’s very difficult to be independent nowadays, if you want to turn your blogging into a full-time job. Who’s going to pay you if you decline all sorts of ads?
I think that as long as the writer discloses everything I have no problem with it…But I would imagine that would get rid of the power of the whole thing.
exactly. Do you think I’m going to buy something if I think the only reason you are supporting it is cause you got a free trip to Jamaica with it? I won’t.
I’m a little unclear as to whether publications (print and online) are supposed to say, in every review they do, that they receive products for review. Should a book or music reviewer state, at the beginning of every review, that the book or CD was sent for free? If members of the media go to a show, event, or festival to review it and get in via a press pass, is that supposed to be clearly stated at the beginning of every review?
Yes.
Most publications do print such messages, even a small hobby magazine I subscribe to. What also isn’t mentioned is that most “traditional” publications have entirely separate sales and editorial staffs. In other words, the writers and editors don’t deal with the sales, marketing, or PR at all. That’s almost impossible for an independent one-person blog.
I’ve noticed on many blogs it can be hard to distinguish sponsored “factual” posts, independent “factual” posts, and opinion posts.
@aep528
It’s true that most “traditional” publications have entirely separate sales and editorial staffs. But it’s completely untrue to say that “writers and editors don’t deal with the sales, marketing, or PR at all.” Writers and editors deal with sales and marketing and PR on a daily basis. Sales and marketing and PR are requesting products of advertisers to be included in editorial constant on a regular basis.
Unnecessarily long post…
It is your idea and you was not forced to read it
yup. seems new writer on tc.
Great post. It was refreshing to read a story that was thoroughly investigated for a change… “Long Post?” You sir, are a fucking idiot.
Actually it could have been a lot tighter, covering all the same ground more efficiently. Nothing wrong with pointing that out.
If there is any incentive (sponsored reviews, free samples) for the reviewer, it should be mentioned in the review. Once your credibility is damaged, it’s hard to regain it.
this is not gonna be a problem for me at all
@pathik Are you saying that every book reviewer, music critic, camping gear magazine, fashion magazine, home decorating magazine, cooking magazine, etc. has no credibility because they review free samples? It’s been standard policy for years for companies to submit products for review. That’s why I am asking. Have we entered into a new era where no publication will review any product without stating at the beginning of each review that they received products to review? And is there a difference between the reviewer asking for products to review and receiving unsolicited products for review? For example, most musicians or their labels send CDs to music publications hoping for review. Is it unclear to the readers that the review copies were given for free? Does that need to be stated now?
@Suzanne Lainson
Every magazine writer and editor is a stretch. But certainly a majority of magazines have far greater credibility than they warrant, because they don’t disclose that incentive that Pathik mentioned.
It’s one thing for music labels to send CDs to Rolling Stone for them to hopefully review (positive or negative). It’s a whole different thing for Craftsman tools to say “Hey Men’s Health, remember that 4-page ad spread we bought, we’re going to need you to give our new ratchet set a favorable review or we’ll have to pull our ads.”
And whether you’d like to believe this or not, that happens every single day at the majority of major consumer publications. The only difference between magazines editorial ethics guidelines and the radio payola scandals is that the magazines do a better job of veiling their obvious bias.
couple of thoughts -
- i don’t know if these have changed from what was released a year ago at http://www.ftc....P064101tech.pdf but those guidelines made it clear that both the advertiser and the blog have exposure. that means, for example, that sea world had exposure in the recent julia allison situation where she didn’t disclose the paid relationship.
- the hbo/gawker situation over the weekend is another interesting example of a problem, but not one seemingly covered by these guidelines. truth in advertising is still an issue on the internet. That situation appalls me.
If a publication was to accept free stuff in exchange for favorable coverage, it would be exposed to some sort FTC fines, probably. But more importantly, if it came out, the publication would lose credibility, which is its best feature.
One enterprising investigative journalist could easily create the same situation for bloggers. The reason that most of these folks give us advertorial crap is not because they think we dont care; it’s that they think they can get away with it with their reputation intact.
David
Pot, this is kettle.
It was only a matter of time before someone called it.
If a blog does get paid (in cash of product), it should be disclosed in the post. It helps the blog editorial team maintain its credibility, if it ever becomes an issue later.
I think that this is less a missive on how to get paid, folks, and more of a commentary on information that is credible. If you’re being compensated in some — or any — way for writing something, then you should disclose that information. Take, for example, when you read an article on a site like MSNBC (and YES, they do fall under the traditional journalist purview). Anytime — and it doesn’t matter how insignificant the reference might be — they mention an affiliate company or brand, the say so. No fuss, no muss. I don’t think anyone is going to have an issue with Garage Band A submitting a demo CD to a reviewer in hopes of getting some sort of attention, be it good or bad, nor will anyone question whomever reviewed the music. The issues start, I think, when bloggers, writers, etc. start excepting real swag in exchange for their opinions. Try as we might, we are only human and maintaining an impartial voice when someone’s given us a free computer, cash or some sort of shiny new toy is difficult. It just is; the lines get blurry. If you’ve been given anything, no matter how small it might seem, you should say so. Whether bloggers are new-age celebrities or not, there ARE people out there who are listening to what you/we/they say. Better to be up front about things from the start, rather than have your integrity called into question later.
Occasionally, trying to woo bloggers with free stuff backfires. Here’s a funny case where Sprint tried to give a free phone to Joel Spolsky.
How long will it be until discussion forums, Amazon reviews (et al), Twitter, Friendfeed and Facebook are looked at in a similar manner?
This concept of biased recommendations extends far beyond blogs.
If people are being paid to post in any of those locations, as some companies have been caught doing already, then yes it does apply. But in most of the examples you give, the commentary comes from people who purchased the product/service themselves, and have no relationship at all with the company. I can write a completely biased review of a company that I believe treated me poorly, without running afoul of the guidelines. That’s not what this article is about.
Other than the Snuggie or ShamWow, when is the last time you actually watched an infomercial, let alone bought a product or shared it with your friends because of what you viewed?
Get off your elitist high horse. Last year the infomercial industry did $100 Billion in sales. 30% of Americans bought something from an infomercial.
It’s a good way of keeping the honest.
I find these sponsored conversation to really detract from blogs. Sure, some bloggers might be able to pull it off, if fully disclosed, but often they just end up as badly written sales pitches that screams, payola.
Lots here to digest, Brian. In agreement pretty much across the board except for this: you said, “Sending free products, according to the FTC, is viewed as compensation, which translates into an advertisement or paid endorsement.” I confess, don’t know if I’m disagreeing with FTC or with your reading of the FTC’s proposed guidelines. Fact is, sending a product for review and accepting that the review may be positive OR negative cannot possibly be compared with advertising, where the marketer is in control of the message. I’m a PR person who works primarily with packaged goods clients and firmly advocates disclosure, continuing to send free product for bloggers to review, and counseling my clients that in so doing, they cede control of the message to the blogger. That may be endorsement, but it certainly isn’t advertising. I blogged about this recently: http://ssmirnov...why-it-matters/
Not all products can be easily returned after a review. For example, I subscribe to a hobby magazine that reviews kits. In order to thoroughly review the kits, they must be assembled. It therefore becomes impossible to return the kit for it to be sent to another reviewer. Should the company sending the review item request the assembled kit back and then destroy it?
As I mentioned in a previous comment, for this particular magazine, the review items are sent to the sales department, then passed on to the editorial staff to determine which will be reviewed. There is no direct contact between the reviewer and the provider of the review item.
So was this post sponsored by Forrester Research? That’s a pretty expensive report you’re plugging.
I honestly think this is overreach. These kinds rules make the assumption that all blogs are conversational, journalistic, etc. Some blogs are supposed to be nothing more than ads for products.
Should billboards warn us that the hottie we’re looking at isn’t just eye candy content? She’s trying to get us to buy something. What about regular websites or a Wordpress theme that doesn’t look like a blog. What about affiliate links?
This is about the grayest topic the FTC could have ever stuck it’s nose into. In fact, it’s too gray to ever be successful. Learn how to pick your battles FTC.
I agree completely. It’s over-reach. The second that you stop talking about the product in question, and start talking about those who converse about it, “You have left the building”. The FTC has no business in this area.
What is the purpose of judging reputation based on disclosure? How is it not more important that any recommended products, be good products? It only makes sense trust those with good recommendations and vice versa. How would a product be better, simply because the writer had to buy it?
In the end, the consumer chooses to buy the product. No one can make them. It’s their own fault if they decide to follow bad advice. Government agencies in general need to stop trying to make up for the ignorance of some consumers. People need to think about their own actions, stop trying to blame others.
If people are looking for credibility, that why we have BRANDS. Pretty ancient concept that’s stood the test of time. It’s why TC cites the NYT more than the National Enquirer.
Everyone always says that they started off blogging for themselves and all of a sudden they got a huge following. This led to advertisements, “endorsements” and other freebies, w00t!
Phill Kaplans Fuckedcompany started off as nothing more then a place for people to complain and 4 million viewers a month later, he had to create a Ad company to manage all his sponsors before there was even online advertisements!
The same goes for TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington, he wanted to start a tech blog, did he ever dream it would get this massive? Probably not. Now we have a minimum of 10 ads on the side of every article to keep the cash flowing, nothing wrong with that. I also really dont care about anything which gets sent to them, they deserve it.
Celebrities dont always disclose who is paying them, though sometimes it’s blatantly obvious. Bloggers shouldnt have to either, especially if it is going to be controlled by the FTC who has a “great” track record with things like this.
does that mean that TC will now have to disclose money recieved from twitter?
So that means that articles at techcrunch will look like this.
Sponsored: Twitter reaches 25 million uniques this month.
So where does it end? If my Dad gives me $100 for Christmas and I use it to buy a new coffeemaker, and I mention on my blog that hey, I got a new coffeemaker for Christmas and here’s what I think of it, but I don’t say AND MY DAD GAVE ME THE MONEY TO BUY IT, then have I not disclosed a SPONSORED review?
I recently attended an event sponsored by Stouffers. When I wrote about it, I said thanks to Stouffers, I got to go to Kansas City and meet with employees and experts to talk about a Stouffers campaign. I did not list every single snack that was in the gift basket in my room. Did I break some kind of disclosure rule?
I think common sense has to prevail, here.
Mike, this is obviously an issue you take seriously and you’ve argued about the problems with izea quite clearly in the past. If you strip away any compensation (money, praise, promotion) from people, it seems most people would agree it’s just not right.
The question I have is, did you guys read the entire FTC document? There are other things with more profound implications than this, although this is a big deal. Such as the way celebrity and extreme testimonials will have to include disclosures informing consumers these results are not typical etc.. In fact under these new guidelines Jared from Subway might not exist as a spokesperson.
Good article and well thought through regarding the paid post aspect of the FTC’s new proposal.
There should be something to place to let people know if an endorsement post online is “sponsored” or not. It’s only fair and right.
There are a lot of sweeping statements being made…here, in the Forrester report among others…about a very diverse set of marketing activities. Other media channels, not just the Internet, have branched out into new ways of promotion…product placement has become ubiquitous alongside more traditional advertising and critic/journalist outreach methods, for example.
I don’t think it’s shocking or new or unique to the blogosphere. I don’t think the sky is falling. But I do agree that those who want to be taken seriously and retain their credibility (both on the brand AND blogger side) need to establish standard ethical practices. I think it’s appropriate that the FTC guidelines also assign responsibility to the *advertiser* in this, not just the publisher.
For BlogHer, our policies focus on three things:
1. Disclosure
2. Clear physical separation of editorial and advertorial
3. Context
We outlined what are policies are, how we execute them, and why we set them in this post. The goal, in the end, is to provide value to the advertiser, while safeguarding the blogger-reader relationship. We think it can be done.
Maybe we are ignoring the elephant in the room here –missing the big [real] picture: this is the federal government attempting to control American citizen’s freedom of speech. Again.
Journalists, reporters, bloggers or anyone else who dare to recommend a product or service by any means, would have to comply with a federal agency’s mandatory “ethical” guidelines… or else.
Once again, it sounds to me that with the new administration, we are getting closer and closer to Fidel Castro’s and Hugo Chavez’s ideal of a “better” society.
Socialism is here folks. Washington is just warming up…
Did I miss something? Bloggers are not quite celeb. endorsers or athletes yet—are they? When a mommy blogger signs for 7 figures, then you can start comparing them to LeBron and Kobe.
The FCC is going to monitor the blogosphere?
Do i need to get liability insurance cause my blog is popular?
Magazines have been receiving products from companies for a while now and featuring those products in the magazines without full disclosure. I think this practice has just extended to bloggers. So while I think disclosure is great for consumers, it’s unfair to get up in arms about bloggers getting free products when popular magazines have already had similar disclosure issues for a long time now.
I have to agree with some of the comments regarding things like books and CDs for review. I’ve worked in both music PR and music blogging specifically, and review copies are the norm. Every reader knows that. Sending a review copy doesn’t ever guarantee a positive review or endorsement from the blogger – sometimes quite the opposite. In fact, it doesn’t even guarantee placement. Many of those review copies never get read or listened to, nonetheless reviewed. It’s not payment. It can actually be one of the more obnoxious parts of the job (listening to lousy CDs when sorting through press kits to decide who to review is far from always fun). That’s why I outsource it now to a music journalist.
Wondering how that would apply to his reviews. The review copies come to me, not him. I send him the CDs I want reviewed (sending him essentially research material to complete an assignment). He’s being paid by me as a contractor. Not sponsored. The company in no way incentivized the writer, and when I did it wasn’t an advertiser relationship but one of client / contractor.
Also curious how the rules would apply to affiliate links in blog posts. They influence content just as much as outright advertisements (you only earn when people buy), but you may not be solicited by advertisers (you find the products to promote on your own). They may not even be directly paying you, as in some cased you’re compensated instead by the affiliate network.
And of course the international issues abound. What if your blog is hosted overseas but you write from the US? What if you’re a US blogger, but you’re contracted to write for a blog in the UK or Canada, or wherever else? What if the blog is based in the US, but the writer is based elsewhere? Would that blogger have to abide by US rules, or would their employer? What if it’s an open group blog project with no “employer?” I’m all for disclosure for paid posts, within reason. As someone who’s worked in book and music PR though, I see definite gray areas when it comes to review material vs flat-out “freebies if you post about us.”
Thoughtful post. No easy answers, but disclosure seems like a minimum requirement for bloggers reviewing free products and paid posts should be labeled clearly and prominently. Likely that negative reviews will be few when compensation is involved, but those reviewers who are honest will probably be asked to do more reviews due to respect gained by their own audience. Imagine seeing a post labeled as “This Post is a Paid Review” where the author trashes the product or service. They won’t be asked again by that company, but others seeking honest reviews will seek that blogger out and pay them for their honesty if they believe in the value or utility of their own business.
I think there’s a palpable difference between taking free stuff from lots of sources as a reviewer versus having an affiliate relationship with a specific retailer or product that the reader can’t see. However, usually the reader CAN see, since the affiliate’s advertisements and links are everywhere. In this case, why should there have to be a separate disclosure? Also, if the affiliate is to a major broad spectrum retailer like Amazon, it seems crazy to be demoted by Google on that basis for plugging products, since as a blogger you are picking the items you like from a vast assortment, and they are usually available from many different sources. This hardly feels like “false advertising” to me, or even like something that needs to be routinely disclosed.
I think this is a great. It’ll separate a real BLOG entry from advertorial and it’ll keep Bloggers honest. “Over here is my opinion” and “these are my paid endorsements”. It might even lead to better quality writing. Why not reveal how much the endorsement / affiliate fee is worth while we’re at it? People aren’t stupid. Let’s be totally honest when we BLOG – instead of all this cloak and dagger crap. None of us are making that much money. Are we afraid that people will get jealous when they find out how much we earn? Well, yesterday I eared $1.30 from Google adsense. C’mon guys! Governance is coming – and so it should! Adam Smith has had his say and now look where we are.
“Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should!” The pandora’s box today’s communication technology opens can lead to manipulative tactics that can make everyone look bad.
There is a time and place when a product category user is receptive to try a new entry and provide feedback, simply because they will benefit from improved value in the category.
Better to spend those dollars finding the receptive “who, where and when” than bribing the squeaky wheels and losing brand integrity.
Too bad the FTC has to intervene to raise the bar.
Katherine at comradity.com
Brian, I found this to be an insightful and well reported piece with many points for further exploration and discussion. It is also critical to be discussing these issues as brand managers attempt to effectively integrate digital influencers into their strategies and those same influencers seek ways to enhance and expand their brand. Another issue, rarely discussed is the pay for play that happens behind the scenes. Many companies pay people to seed blog comments, forums and other social media platforms in an effort to gain visibility with their target base and the search engines.
I was just thinking of a few people who mention brand names on a regular basis in their tweets, and I have assumed they are being paid to plug those brands whether in fact they are or not. Most people don’t routinely brand-name drop in conversational writing so those who do seem pretty obvious.
Note that it is “the way things are done” for reporters to get “favors” from sources. In most cases, it’s stories, usually via “access” but occasionally as text to reprint. However, it’s not unknown for reporters to get money; look at how many of them have spouses or children who are employed by the folks who they supposedly cover.
But, if a blogger gets a free George Foreman grill, that’s now literally a federal case.
What would you suggest a blogger do?
Because the bottom line is that I am not an altruist and I have a lifestyle to maintain.
The article misses a key point: The government should not be getting involved with how online journalism operates.
If a blogger chooses to be paid for his posts, his reputation will suffer in the long run.
Editorial guidelines at newspapers have evolved over time, because it builds trust to separate editorial control and ad sales. Trust is required for a newspaper to be successful. The government wasn’t needed to come up with those rules or enforce them.
Reputable bloggers already follow similar procedures or else risk their reputation. Consumers can choose whom to listen to. The government should stay out this.
Brian,
I think you’ve done a great job on this post!
The length is a positive in my view, not a negative.
One aspect which you did not cover (as far as I can see) is that sponsored blogs fail to take advantage of the best type of marketing: authentic posts and comments from real people.
KMart could have gotten actual customers to say just about the same thing it paid high-profile bloggers to say.
What was KMart afraid of? Why didn’t they start out with real customers?
I wrote a post on this aspect of the debate.
http://www.nooo...mart-are-wrong/
I’d love to get your thoughts.
Thanks,
Josh
Perhaps this kind of discussion will become irrelevant within a year or two when most of the review writings will be outsourced to other countries.
I recently had an ad company call me and say can you remove the word marijuana from your blog?
I said how about I add 2 “F*ck YOU”.LOL
The ‘government” has no say in what I write, do or say period.
I used to be against paid post (still am personally) and selling links( never did) but when you see google and companies selling links hey I’m not going to ever stop a blogger from eating
Great job on the post
Stumbled
Instead of the blogger getting free samples of the product. The brand should offer to have an exclusive giveaway of X amount of products (depending on the cost to the brand) for the blogger and that way more people get to sample the product and it’s not paying for a positive review basically. The brand could get more feedback, the blogger benefits by getting more buzz and everyone wins and everyone knows the brand is working with the blog/site.