Athletes Can Start Endorsing A Brand In Hours... But A Blogger Does It And It's A Federal Issue?

from the hmmm... dept

Tue, Oct 20th 2009 5:23am — Mike Masnick

As the FTC still wants to stick by its questionable guidelines concerning bloggers "endorsing" products, I found it interesting that the NY Times was profiling a new online service that more easily allows brands to sign endorsement deals with star athletes. Basically, they just need to fill out a few forms, and within hours, that athlete may be the face of the local car dealership. Now, I don't see anything wrong with this, but I'm curious as to why this is somehow okay, but when a blogger fails to mention that he or she got a book for free, the FTC will consider fining them? Does anyone actually believe that the star football player shops at the local Ford dealer?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: athletes, bloggers, disclosure, endorsements
Companies: ftc

77 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

JB, 20 Oct 2009 @ 5:42am

Why It's OK:
It's pretty obvious. When an athlete (or anyone else) appears in a commercial to endorse a business it is clearly understood that they are being paid to appear in the commercial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 5:45am

Mike, it's pretty simple:

If you are paid by a company to work for them, to promote them, or other, and fail to disclose it while talking about them, you could mislead people into thinking your opinion is unbiased - when in fact, you are getting paid (or receiving some other form of compensation).

Now, an athlete standing in front of a camera, giving an interview, say a NASCAR driver, saying "The Bubble Gum Chevy ran great today" while wearing a suit that says "Bubble Gum" on the front of it, next to a car that says "Bubble Gum" all over it isn't in the slightest misleading.

Heck, even your "moron in a hurry" type person could see the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- zaven (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 6:20am
  
  Re:
  I kinda have to agree. For the most part, it's usually accepted that when a athlete is doing a commercial for a product, they are being paid to do it. It seems like it's the other way around and they feel the need to say so when they AREN'T being paid to endorse the product.
  
  I'm not sure I get the comparison at all though between bloggers disclosing that they were given a product for free, and a service which helps athletes make money by setting them up with endorsement deals though? Seems like a great idea.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - pixelpusher220 (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 9:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    "It seems like it's the other way around and they feel the need to say so when they AREN'T being paid to endorse the product."
    
    This is exactly the point. An endorsement that isn't being purchased is obviously worth more than someone just paid to say 'this is great!'. When appearing in an ad, it's assumed the actor/athlete/whoever was paid for their time. Bloggers aren't appearing in ads, they are just writing and commenting. Athlete's get endorsement deals so that they will actually use the products (Nike shoes, golf clubs, etc). That shows people that the 'pro' is using the product - and athletes get fined if they are found to be using something else too. We don't get to see a blogger using a specific printer or piece of software.
    
    Since a blogger is commenting on products, it's perfectly reasonable to require disclosure that they were or weren't paid (whether cash or free goods) to get that comment posted.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 9:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Disclaimers about paid cash are one thing, to me, but freebie products are routinely sent out to be reviewed in a number of industries, and I think it's a grayer area there.
      
      The publishing business, for instance, sends free copies of books to newspapers to be reviewed all the time, and some of those books get blasted. In fact, it's probably fair to say that no major book reviewer pays for the books they review....ever. But we find a reviewer who we trust through trial and error and somehow we don't regularly get hosed on their recommendations.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - pixelpusher220 (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 9:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Books and other published materials are a different thing. Once they are 'read' they don't really have value anymore. Reference materials etc perhaps an exception, but the 'use' is a much more one time type thing. I also think the publishing industry has much more strict, no pay for play, traditions which have been learned over many years. Blogging by nature is very decentralized and not subject a larger controlling industry.
        
        Reviewing something means having it in your possession. The duration of that possession becomes the issue.
        
        If a car reviewer was given a free car to continue to use after the review was complete, that's a pretty big bias in play.
        
        If the bloggers simply try out a device and then give it back, there isn't any issue. It's the continued use of the freebie they are reviewing that causes the appearance of loss of objectivity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Luci, 20 Oct 2009 @ 1:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I disagree that a novel somehow loses its value just because it's been read. Just because the story has been 'consumed' once does not mean that it no longer has value to a person. I would even submit that you, too, have read and re-read a given book a number of times.
        
        The fact is that to many of us a good book increases in value after it has been read. A story that makes us sit and think, or sparks the imagination, is one that we want to read again and again, and thus increases in value.
        
        This only holds true for certain books to certain people, sure, but then we all have our own tastes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 10:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In fact, it's probably fair to say that no major book reviewer pays for the books they review....ever.
        
        That's fine. And as long as they send it back before they publish their review, they shouldn't need to bother to disclose that either. But, if they're accepting the book as a personal gift then I think they should disclose it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 11:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Disclaimers about paid cash are one thing, to me, but freebie products are routinely sent out to be reviewed in a number of industries, and I think it's a grayer area there."
        
        I am a 3rd party reviewer for a bunch of large publications. I review a lot of gadgets and tech toys. Typically I get to keep them. One of the most notable was my review on the PS3 when I removed the HDD, installed linux on it and booted to linux from a PS3. Obviously the Kernel was compiled specifically for the hardware.
        
        SONY did not like it and made me return the PS3 stating that I had no intention of giving them a good review. I made it clear to them when they sent it to me that I will review the product the same way I review everything. Fair and impartial. I'll even postpone my reviews by a couple weeks sometimes if I am having difficulties with a product, just to gain additional data.
        
        I have never heard of anyone being jerked around by the FTC on any of this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 9:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    So, if some guy comes at you aggressively and punches you in the face, it should be okay (everyone knows he meant you harm!) but if he first sides up to you and says he's your friend, then punches you, he should be fined, because he made you think he's your friend!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jason, 20 Oct 2009 @ 11:43am
  
  Re:
  Yes, but what obligates a blogger to offer ANY disclosure whatsoever? It's just a freaking blog!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bri (profile), 21 Oct 2009 @ 5:49am
  
  Re:
  "If you are paid by a company to work for them, to promote them, or other, and fail to disclose it while talking about them, you could mislead people into thinking your opinion is unbiased - when in fact, you are getting paid (or receiving some other form of compensation)."
  
  There's your problem. News outlets have no obligation to the truth and as such, there is equally no obligation to remain unbiased.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Barcinski, 20 Oct 2009 @ 6:09am

AC if it's that simple, how come lobbying isn't a criminal offense? And politicians listening to lobbyists.... hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cash, 20 Oct 2009 @ 6:53am
  
  Re: Barcinski
  Because advertisers have to follow something call advertising laws, politicians do not.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 6:17am

How is radio handled? Listening to talk radio, all I hear from the hosts are commercials from them plugging EVERYTHING; gold, pest control, kitchen cabinets, kitchen counter tops, real estate, cars, etc. etc. etc. Not once have I heard any type of disclosure.

Did the host get a free or price reduced car to plug the dealership? Did they get a free timeshare to plug that shady land deal? These commercials run many times an hour. I'm sure that the host is compensated, but it's never overtly stated. If the host then mentions the product outside of the commercial in an offhand way (during regular programming) should they be required to disclose at that time that they are a paid shill?

If a host talks about the coming collapse on a financial show, do they need to temper that with a disclosure that they also recorded a commercial for gold?

Seems like it's the wild west of promotion out there, but only blogging is getting the spotlight for some reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 6:24am

Answer
Mike:

When you start dunking from the freethrow line, hurling sixty-five yard passes, throwing low and outside sliders in the dirt to whiff Albert Pujols, or slide in front of a puck bulleting towards a net at 100 mph, let's revisit this discussion, shall we?

Hell, I'll even take you hopping on one foot for two full minutes while patting your head and rubbing your belly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Darker Helmet, 20 Oct 2009 @ 6:56am
  
  Re: Answer
  >When you start dunking from the freethrow line, hurling
  >sixty-five yard passes, throwing low and outside sliders
  >in the dirt to whiff Albert Pujols, or slide in front of
  >a puck bulleting towards a net at 100 mph, let's revisit
  >this discussion, shall we?
  
  In other words, when Mike takes half his brain and 90% of his IQ aways and reduces himself to being a trained ape, you will listen to him.
  
  Interesting... because so much progress in today's soceity comes from sports.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 7:22am
    
    Re: Re: Answer
    "In other words, when Mike takes half his brain and 90% of his IQ aways and reduces himself to being a trained ape, you will listen to him."
    
    Exactly.
    
    Have you ever watched those trained monkeys? They're AWESOME! I will by anything the monkey with the symbols tells me to buy.
    
    I hear he's been shilling an automatically calibrating SRC3000 sarcasm detector. Maybe you should look into one...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 7:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Answer
      Those SRC3000's are junk. You should upgrade to the new SRC3407 with the micro-eyeroll detector.
      
      Full disclosure: The company that makes the SRC3407 gave me several hundred thousand dollars to say that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 7:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Answer
        Yeah, but have you heard of the plans for the SNRK-Max6669? Feature set includes:
        
        1. Afore mentioned micro-eyeroll detector
        2. Snark sniffing wetware
        3. Voice inflection inspection detection and correction
        4. Auto laugh prods that force you to laugh if the device detects you failed to laugh at an appropriate time
        5. Autodeath inducer for corny jokes
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TheStupidOne, 20 Oct 2009 @ 8:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Answer
        but does it work on the interwebs??
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 8:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Answer
        "but does it work on the interwebs??"
        
        It would, but unfortunately it does not have the resources require to properly run Vista....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jason, 20 Oct 2009 @ 11:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Answer
        What's the range on #5 - as in how far away do I have to stay?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 20 Oct 2009 @ 6:31am

Say it ain't so?
You mean Tiger Woods doesn't actually drive a Buick? Why would a young, star athlete not drive an old man's car? Oh sure, he probably has a dozen sports cars but surely there he has a Buick somewhere in his garage? Maybe tucked away for retirement?

Seriously though, I think most people realize that athletes are lucky to be able to spell the products they endorse much less use them. But I also agree that bloggers don't necessarily have to disclose when they receive an item for free or a fee either. They should disclose it for the sake of their reputation, but I think most people would assume they don't necessarily pay for everything they review.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sean, 20 Oct 2009 @ 9:44am
  
  Re: Say it ain't so?
  I am sure Tiger at least drove that Buick when they were filming the commercials.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JustMe, 20 Oct 2009 @ 6:35am

I think most people are morons
And they truly don't understand about paid endorsements.

But let's turn AC's comment around...

Bloggers, who take the time to review some random product generally aren't doing it out of the goodness of their heart. I expect that most big-time bloggers with polished websites (and ads), the type who get a lot of traffic and are ranked high in search engines, are in it to make a couple of bucks. We all understand that.

Sure, there are people out there who run blogs about their favorite hobbies and stuff, but even a moron in a hurry doesn't think that Mike is shilling NutraFabSoylentGreen because he lost 30 lbs and grew a full beard overnight. They know that he was paid to shill NutraFabSoylentGreen.

So what is the difference? Mike's point is that the FTC is treating two classes of people differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 6:49am
  
  Re: I think most people are morons
  When the athletes start writing and publishing editorial copy, give me a call. Otherwise, even a moron in a hurry can tell the difference between a commercial and a news article.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jason, 20 Oct 2009 @ 11:52am
    
    Re: Re: I think most people are morons
    "Otherwise, even a moron in a hurry can tell the difference between a commercial and a news article."
    
    Yes, but what does that have to do with blogs?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ed Felten, 20 Oct 2009 @ 6:41am

FTC rules do cover these cases
The FTC guidelines do cover paid endorsements by athletes and celebrities. In fact, most of the verbiage in the FTC guidelines is about these more traditional types of endorsements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jakdor, 20 Oct 2009 @ 7:16am

Have I missed the point....?
Perhaps the world has passed me by....but why would say a Tiger Woods or indeed any celebrity endorsement persuade you to buy a product......I buy what I buy because the product works for me and fulfills the task I require of it in the form that I require. The fact that said sportsman can 'dunk from the freethrow line, hurl sixty-five yard passes or putt a 65 footer after a 350yd drive' means sod all frankly. Accomplished as they may be in their own 'arena', what added cachet would owning a product endorsed by them bring, apart from the tag 'sucker', since said product will be 20x over priced to pay their huge fees : Vis - Gillette Razor Blades -

As for a blogger endorsement....more than likely it would be done from the heart and 'own experience' thus a tad more believable and reliable.

But hey...why take away the fun from the FTC.... I mean, what else have they got to do all day...... Sorry, but sarcasm is all that comes to mind on this point.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 7:17am

When a blogger at a book review site tells me that a book is good...I say to myself...hmmm...might want to check that one out.

When I see an ad on TV with an athlete telling me Product X is good, I usually take a bathroom break.

I might be the exception to the rule though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 7:34am

So when another "cool" nimrod like Steve Jobs tells you to buy something, you don't run out and do it?

Just who is the trained monkey here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brooks (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 7:50am
  
  Re:
  We're all trained monkeys, thanks.
  
  And some might argue that when Steve Jobs tells people to buy something that he's invested millions of dollars in (personally, even, considering his stock position) and which he's been involved in the development of, it just might have more weight than when an athlete who has never even seen a particular car dealership endorses it.
  
  Same's true of Balmer, Ellison, etc. They've got vested interests, of course, but they are at least domain-knowledgeable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 7:45am

Ugh
Mike, you've got to lay off some of this stuff that you're so personally invested in. It makes for poor posts.

1) This is a new service. It took the FTC 10+ years to look at blogs. Maybe they will regulate this service. I personally don't like the FTC's blogger rules in either letter or intent, but it's ridiculous to whinge that the FTC hasn't yet moved on a service that appeared six months ago.

2) When an athlete endorses a car dealership, everyone knows the arrangement. The FTC was concerned (maybe wrongly) that blogs blur the line between news, editorial, and paid shilling. It is kind of a different thing.

3) Weren't you the one going all morally indignant when Pandora started suggesting that its competitors should be subject to unfair regulation? Didn't you write a lot of stuff about how they disappointed you were that they were lobbying to have unfair treatment applied to others rather than fighting the unfair treatment they were subject to? Pot, meet kettle.

I love Techdirt. The XKCD CwF + RtB (you've got to get a catchier acronym) article made my morning. You do good work. And then sometimes you come across as not a lot better than the people you criticize. Please stop writing about issues that directly affect Techdirt unless you get can get some distance, ok?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 10:28am
  
  Re: Ugh
  1) This is a new service. It took the FTC 10+ years to look at blogs. Maybe they will regulate this service. I personally don't like the FTC's blogger rules in either letter or intent, but it's ridiculous to whinge that the FTC hasn't yet moved on a service that appeared six months ago.
  
  I'm not saying the FTC should regulate this service. Just the opposite. I'm saying it's silly to impose regulations.
  
  2) When an athlete endorses a car dealership, everyone knows the arrangement. The FTC was concerned (maybe wrongly) that blogs blur the line between news, editorial, and paid shilling. It is kind of a different thing.
  
  Does everyone know the arrangement? Yes, you and I do -- but many people assume that they legitimately are interested in that product.
  
  3) Weren't you the one going all morally indignant when Pandora started suggesting that its competitors should be subject to unfair regulation? Didn't you write a lot of stuff about how they disappointed you were that they were lobbying to have unfair treatment applied to others rather than fighting the unfair treatment they were subject to? Pot, meet kettle.
  
  Yes. Exactly. But... um... there's no pot/kettle thing here. I'm saying that the regulations are silly and don't make sense. I'm not saying anyone should be more regulated.
  
  Please stop writing about issues that directly affect Techdirt unless you get can get some distance, ok?
  
  This doesn't effect Techdirt, because we don't do reviews/endorsements etc.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 11:47am
    
    Re: Re: Ugh
    2) When an athlete endorses a car dealership, everyone knows the arrangement. The FTC was concerned (maybe wrongly) that blogs blur the line between news, editorial, and paid shilling. It is kind of a different thing.
    
    Does everyone know the arrangement? Yes, you and I do -- but many people assume that they legitimately are interested in that product.
    
    You're really being absurd now. I'd say there are very, very few people who wouldn't know that a celebrity in a commercial for a car dealership was probably paid for his/her endorsement. In fact, it's so absurd I'm going to have to mark this one for future reference.
    
    This doesn't effect Techdirt, because we don't do reviews/endorsements etc.
    
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091019/103942.shtml
    
    Also, I've sometimes wondered if you have any investments in competitors to some of the companies you disparage.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jason, 20 Oct 2009 @ 12:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ugh
      The Insight Community > totally different format from the blog proper, so distinguished by TOTALLY DIFFERENT FORMATTING. Brilliant how that works!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 12:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ugh
      This doesn't effect Techdirt, because we don't do reviews/endorsements etc.
      
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091019/103942.shtml
      
      That's neither an endorsement nor a review. It's a case in the Insight Community, where it's clearly disclosed who the sponsor is. What, exactly, is the problem there?
      
      Also, I've sometimes wondered if you have any investments in competitors to some of the companies you disparage.
      
      I don't do any direct investing. All of my money is either controlled by a financial adviser who has it parked in some mutual funds, or is in index funds.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 1:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh
        That's neither an endorsement nor a review.
        
        It seems to me that it might at least fall under the "etc." part of your statement.
        
        It's a case in the Insight Community, where it's clearly disclosed who the sponsor is. What, exactly, is the problem there?
        
        If the sponsor is clearly disclosed, then there *isn't* a problem. See how that works?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 1:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh
        If the sponsor is clearly disclosed, then there *isn't* a problem. See how that works?
        
        Um. You were the one insisting that these rules would change what we do. And, yet, this shows that we do in fact clearly disclose.
        
        I'm at a loss. What's your complaint? I said from the beginning that disclosure makes sense, just not FTC requirements for disclosure.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 2:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh
        Um. You were the one insisting that these rules would change what we do.
        
        Um, no, that's just not true. I never made any such claim and you should know so. I'm really disappointed to see you stoop so low.
        
        And, yet, this shows that we do in fact clearly disclose.
        
        Good, keep it up and there shouldn't be a problem with that.
        
        I'm at a loss. What's your complaint?
        
        If you're really thinking I wrote things I didn't, then I can see your confusion.
        
        I said from the beginning that disclosure makes sense, just not FTC requirements for disclosure.
        
        Yep, you're all for disclosure, as long as it's optional.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 2:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh
        *Applying ACB Gone*
        
        Now, in your death throws, answer Mike's question and tell us who you work for, you hypocritical, translucent fuck....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 3:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh
        Now, in your death throws, answer Mike's question and tell us who you work for, you hypocritical, translucent fuck....
        
        Mike hasn't asked me who I work for, so where's the hypocrisy? But just to satisfy you I will tell you that I have no sponsor and receive no compensation for my posts in the form of money, gifts or otherwise.
        
        And you better be careful with that ACB Gone, you might get a little on *yourself*. Or is the helmet supposed to offer protection?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 21 Oct 2009 @ 6:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh
        "Mike hasn't asked me who I work for, so where's the hypocrisy?"
        
        Hmm, well, I could certainly be mixing up my ACs. That's the problem with anonymous commentors, even though I support anonymous speech. Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear, he eats you.
        
        "But just to satisfy you I will tell you that I have no sponsor and receive no compensation for my posts in the form of money, gifts or otherwise."
        
        Not an answer to my question, actually, but if you're not my favorite Weird Coward or Anonymous Harold then I'm no longer all that concerned.
        
        "And you better be careful with that ACB Gone, you might get a little on *yourself*. Or is the helmet supposed to offer protection?"
        
        I admit to a bit of hypocrisy on this one, though that's because I am more interested in being able to attribute a series of comments to a single source rather than not knowing which AC is commenting where (like in this exact case, apparently).
        
        However, I would gladly unmask the helmet and give the site my real name if my favorite anonymous coward did as well...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2009 @ 5:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh
        ...I am more interested in being able to attribute a series of comments to a single source rather than not knowing which AC is commenting where (like in this exact case, apparently).
        
        Even if posts appear to be made by different "registered" users, you still don't know that they're actually different people and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. That's because Techdirt doesn't do the kind of identity investigation/verification that would be necessary to ensure that people can't have multiple accounts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nobody, 22 Oct 2009 @ 3:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh
        I'm at a loss. What's your complaint? I said from the beginning that disclosure makes sense, just not FTC requirements for disclosure. Any company that is engaged in questionable endorsement practices isn't going to voluntarily disclose anything.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brooks (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 7:45am

Ugh
Mike, you've got to lay off some of this stuff that you're so personally invested in. It makes for poor posts.

1) This is a new service. It took the FTC 10+ years to look at blogs. Maybe they will regulate this service. I personally don't like the FTC's blogger rules in either letter or intent, but it's ridiculous to whinge that the FTC hasn't yet moved on a service that appeared six months ago.

2) When an athlete endorses a car dealership, everyone knows the arrangement. The FTC was concerned (maybe wrongly) that blogs blur the line between news, editorial, and paid shilling. It is kind of a different thing.

3) Weren't you the one going all morally indignant when Pandora started suggesting that its competitors should be subject to unfair regulation? Didn't you write a lot of stuff about how they disappointed you were that they were lobbying to have unfair treatment applied to others rather than fighting the unfair treatment they were subject to? Pot, meet kettle.

I love Techdirt. The XKCD CwF + RtB (you've got to get a catchier acronym) article made my morning. You do good work. And then sometimes you come across as not a lot better than the people you criticize. Please stop writing about issues that directly affect Techdirt unless you get can get some distance, ok?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brooks (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 7:46am
  
  Re: Ugh
  Sorry for the dupe. Feel free to delete. Doubleclicked the dratted mouse.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call me Al, 20 Oct 2009 @ 8:08am

Personally I think that if someone is reviewing a product and offering an opinion on whether I should buy it or not then they should disclose to me if they are being paid by them or their competition.

Having said that I can see that there is an element of double standards at play here in regards to the athletes. However, as someone above said, it is generally very clear that athletes are being paid for their services in those cases. I would rather FTC and their ilk didn't get involved in this because I'd find it pretty patronising and frankly people should be smart enough to figure it out for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steven, 20 Oct 2009 @ 8:43am

I write about 100 book reviews a year, I get most of my books free. I don't disclose it on every post, and I don't always give glowing reviews. Now I get so many free books If I am really not enjoying it I tend not to finish it or review it. If it is really bad I will write a negative review without finishing it but state that in the review. However these rules are coming down not from book reviews but from large ticket items, TV's, cars ... that review sites are getting for free and then if they want to keep getting stuff they need to write glowing reviews. I have never had a publisher ask for a specific review (All press is good press). I have however had authors ask me to remove my negative reviews from my blog and amazon. Some even lobbied amazon or were amazon press books and had them removed from that site.

My 2 cents worth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 9:29am

Two Standards:

One for Corporations, the Elite, and Government.

The other for the 'serfs'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sondun2001 (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 9:59am

Not The Same
Yeah man, I agree with the other posters. It is understood an athlete or celebrity is is being paid. A blogger goes into details, and for the most part, readers assume it's an unbiased review of a product, and will greatly influence there decisions to purchase such product. I don't ever take a commercial / athlete endorsement serious on making purchasing decisions, besides maybe becoming more aware the product exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Reveal and Revel, 20 Oct 2009 @ 10:10am
  
  Re: Not The Same
  The problem?
  
  Mike would have a fair bit of disclosure to do here, I think. There are plenty of companies who pay him (fee, or travel, or other) to speak or to work for them, some of which come up in discussion here. It would change the tone dramatically if he had to mention that the person he is talking about is "a partner of techdirt" or "has hired me for public appearanced" or "has published my articles in the past" or "employs me as a consultant".
  
  These are all very key points in the process, it would change the nature of many of the posts here. My feeling is that Mike's whining on the subject may have to do with the changes he would have to make to stay on the good side of the law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 10:23am
    
    Re: Re: Not The Same
    Mike would have a fair bit of disclosure to do here, I think.
    
    Nope. Not true. We do all the disclosure necessary.
    
    Mike would have a fair bit of disclosure to do here, I think. There are plenty of companies who pay him (fee, or travel, or other) to speak or to work for them, some of which come up in discussion here.
    
    This is also not true. The few companies that I have done speaking gigs for have never been companies I've spoken about here. Most of the speaking I do is at conferences.
    
    It would change the tone dramatically if he had to mention that the person he is talking about is "a partner of techdirt" or "has hired me for public appearanced" or "has published my articles in the past" or "employs me as a consultant".
    
    Nope. Wouldn't change the tone in the slightest (we have done disclosure messages when appropriate and it's never been a problem), but it's incredibly rare, because there's almost never any sort of disclosure issue at all.
    
    These are all very key points in the process, it would change the nature of many of the posts here. My feeling is that Mike's whining on the subject may have to do with the changes he would have to make to stay on the good side of the law.
    
    Nope. Not a single change needs to be made. I'm not sure why trolls continue to insist this must be the case.
    
    Guess it's because they have no real argument.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 11:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Not The Same
      Mike, example: How many people have you written about here who are also part of CwF project? How many people do you write about who have hired you for a speech or presentation? Has Wired or any other magazine paid you for work? Would discussing some of the things Chris Anderson does with HP perhaps be off limits because HP is also a major corporate supporter of Techdirt?
      
      Can you see that a little bit?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 1:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Not The Same
        Mike, example: How many people have you written about here who are also part of CwF project?
        
        The people who were involved in the CwF + RtB project were all clearly disclosed, and the project did not involve us getting freebies. Everyone involved was involved because we approached them and asked them to be involved, because we liked what they were doing, not because they paid us anything or gave us anything free.
        
        How many people do you write about who have hired you for a speech or presentation?
        
        None.
        
        Would discussing some of the things Chris Anderson does with HP perhaps be off limits because HP is also a major corporate supporter of Techdirt?
        
        Huh? I don't know what Chris Anderson does with HP at all. And HP advertises on the site (representing significantly less than 1% of our revenue -- so hardly a "major advertiser"), but has no say in editorial and never has. Again, there's no disclosure here. Do newspapers "disclose" every time an advertiser in their paper is also in the news?
        
        You're really reaching here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 1:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not The Same
        Mike, you miss the point, it isn't just about getting freebies. If this was only about freebies, it would be simple.
        
        However, let's say you have someone, Doctor X, who is part of CwF. He writes a book, and you liberally quote from it, link to it, and generally say he has a clue. Now, you didn't get a free book, but you have a direct business relationship with Doctor X. So every time you talk about Doctor X, you would need to disclose that relationship.
        
        It's just like CNBC mentioning their relationships, when talking about other companies owned by their parent, or people who are also CNBC contributors. It isn't about a freebie, it's about allowing readers know.
        
        As for Chris Anderson, he appears to do some work for HP, HP pays techdirt. Didn't HP do some work with your think tank thing?
        
        It isn't about advertising revenue, it's about other revenue streams that may exist, perks offered, whatever.
        
        For that matter, what about Cybearsonic or whatever it is called? Anything you publish in the future about them would almost certainly have to be tagged as "paid to be one of our think tank cases" or something similar.
        
        Don't think of it as just a questions of freebies. That isn't the whole deal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 1:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not The Same
        However, let's say you have someone, Doctor X, who is part of CwF. He writes a book, and you liberally quote from it, link to it, and generally say he has a clue. Now, you didn't get a free book, but you have a direct business relationship with Doctor X. So every time you talk about Doctor X, you would need to disclose that relationship.
        
        Why? I'm serious. Every time a newspaper writes about a company that advertises in the paper, do they need to disclose that? I notice you ignored this when I asked earlier.
        
        In the meantime, who are you and who pays you? Based on your reasoning, you are violating those same disclosure rules by not clearly identifying.
        
        It's just like CNBC mentioning their relationships, when talking about other companies owned by their parent, or people who are also CNBC contributors. It isn't about a freebie, it's about allowing readers know.
        
        Indeed. That's why we do disclose stuff like that whenever it makes sense.
        
        As for Chris Anderson, he appears to do some work for HP, HP pays techdirt. Didn't HP do some work with your think tank thing?
        
        How the hell am I supposed to know what Chris Anderson does? HP has advertised on the site and used the Insight Community twice. That has nothing to do with editorial.
        
        It isn't about advertising revenue, it's about other revenue streams that may exist, perks offered, whatever.
        
        Sure, and if THERE WERE ANY, we would disclose.
        
        For that matter, what about Cybearsonic or whatever it is called? Anything you publish in the future about them would almost certainly have to be tagged as "paid to be one of our think tank cases" or something similar.
        
        Again, why? While I might disclose anyway, mostly to show how being a part of the program helped them out, if it's just a news story... what difference does it make?
        
        Don't think of it as just a questions of freebies. That isn't the whole deal.
        
        And that's the problem, isn't it. The FTC's rules are not at all clear.
        
        You are violating your own interpretation of them, by not disclosing who pays you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
okwhen (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 10:17am

Full disclosure
I read the 28 comments and some of them were quite good. I totally agree that receiving compensation for endorsements, mandate full disclosure. Corporations spend billions on advertisements per year and without results, this would stop. Are people stupid, you bet? However, these corporations secure top scum-sucking parasites A.K.A "Non ethical scum-sucking parasites psychologist" that mind screw the lower intelligent animal A.K.A the average shopper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 10:31am
  
  Re: Full disclosure
  I read the 28 comments and some of them were quite good. I totally agree that receiving compensation for endorsements, mandate full disclosure.
  
  Indeed. I believe that full disclosure makes sense, but that doesn't mean it should involve the FTC. I think that if a blogger regularly blogs about stuff he got for free then his credibility will be dinged because of it.
  
  I'm all for disclosure, just not the way the FTC is doing it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 11:56am
    
    Re: Re: Full disclosure
    Indeed. I believe that full disclosure makes sense, but that doesn't mean it should involve the FTC. I think that if a blogger regularly blogs about stuff he got for free then his credibility will be dinged because of it.
    
    OK, well lets get rid of the laws against hot checks, counterfeit money and fake credit cards. If someone goes around regularly passing such stuff then their credibility (credit rating) will be dinged because of it. No laws needed. [/sarcasm]
    
    I'm all for disclosure, just not the way the FTC is doing it.
    
    Yeah, you're all for disclosure, as long as it's optional.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jason, 20 Oct 2009 @ 12:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Full disclosure
      Big difference there:
      
      Hot checks, counterfeiting, and cc fraud ought to be crimes. Being a soulless shill, though utterly pathetic, shouldn't be criminalized.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
okwhen (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 10:18am

Full disclosure
I read the 28 comments and some of them were quite good. I totally agree that receiving compensation for endorsements, mandate full disclosure. Corporations spend billions on advertisements per year and without results, this would stop. Are people stupid, you bet? However, these corporations secure top scum-sucking parasites A.K.A "Non ethical scum-sucking parasites psychologist" that mind screw the lower intelligent animal A.K.A the average shopper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 10:34am

Has anyone actually read the new regulations or did you stop when you hit the word "blogger" and start posting. Bloggers are specifically mentioned, but the new guidelines apply to all persons or organizations that endorse any product. It must be disclosed that they were compensated to endorse the product. This to say that you were paid or otherwise compensated for saying that you like these "widgets".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 10:38am

Financial Advisers
I see the slippery slope here. Next someone will be telling us that financial advisers and others that go around reviewing and recommending, for example, stocks should have to disclose it if they are also being given free stock in the companies whose stock they are recommending or whose competitors they are disparaging. That's just absurd!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- known coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 12:46pm
  
  Re: Financial Advisers
  Actually financial advisers are suppose to disclose if they are recommending stocks and investements they either have postiions in, or have relationships with the company.
  
  I think the FTC is right here, there is a difference between editiorial content and advertising content, and that needs to be made explict.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Suzanne Lainson (profile), 21 Oct 2009 @ 12:20am
  
  Re: Financial Advisers
  Financial advisors who recommend stocks in print already do disclose if they have a financial interest in the company. Most don't own stock in companies they review to avoid conflict of interest.
  
  I'm not sure the laws regarding financial advisors who recommend stock to their clients, but I do know that clients who lose money from bad advice have sued.
  
  Let's just say that in the financial industry, if you don't provide full disclosure for everything you do, you run the risk of getting yourself in trouble.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 10:41am

I'm with anonymous coward. ^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 10:43am

I'm with both anonymous cowards, however I was given a bottle of boutique water for my opinion of this thread. ^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 10:57am

This comment paid for by ACB Gone Inc.
Are you having trouble with trolls? Shills? Just can't stand that anonymous coward acting like a clown and stinking up your website like a skunk's vagina?

How do you get rid of those pesky anonymous cowards once and for all?

It's as easy as ACB!

That's right, with ACB Gone, those anonymous cowards will be gone quicker than Kenny Chesney's "girlfriends" when they walk in on him balls deep in the pool boy. ACB Gone is made of a special blend of herbs and spices like Bill Gate's sweat, leaves of a juniper tree, 5 hour energy drink, two parts Guiness Extra Stout, and a dash of hope.

Just apply ACB Gone in generous proportions to the targeted anonymous coward (we suggest submerging them in it for several hours) and watch how he/she can no longer make idiotic statements, flame your commentors, or quote bogus statistics that were disproved back when Penny Marshall was still getting laid.

How much do would YOU pay for ACB Gone? $30? $50? $6.7 Million? Well, if you act now, ACB Gone is only $19.95 per 20 gallon industrial sized package. You'll be drowning AC's in NO TIME!

But wait, there's more! Order in the next twenty minutes and we'll throw in this Angry Dude bobblehead doll for FREE! He comes molded in plastic, patent rejection slip in hand, with a spring loaded head and a mean scowl on his face. This bobblehead isn't terribly useful, but hey, neither is the real life version!

CALL NOW!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Inquiring Mind, 20 Oct 2009 @ 12:25pm
  
  Re: This comment paid for by ACB Gone Inc.
  I have a quick question about your product. Does it only work on AC's that actually post as AC, or does it also work on the sneakier variants that pretend that posting under an assumed identity is somehow different?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Free Capitalist (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 12:34pm
  
  Re: This comment paid for by ACB Gone Inc.
  Wait a minute... Penny Marshall got laid? Who was she endorsing at the time?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Oct 2009 @ 12:46pm
    
    Re: Re: This comment paid for by ACB Gone Inc.
    "Wait a minute... Penny Marshall got laid? Who was she endorsing at the time?"
    
    I'm not sure, but I'd like to think that the answer to your question is Squigy...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nobody, 20 Oct 2009 @ 11:39am

I think there needs to be a way to distinguish what are essentially advertisements from legitimate reviews of products. If someone is compensated in some way by a company, they will probably have a more favorable outlook towards that company and it's products. I think that bloggers getting free units to review is irrelevant when compared to magazines that give a inferior product excellent reviews to keep advertisers happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anon, 21 Oct 2009 @ 7:32am

"Does anyone actually believe that the star football player shops at the local Ford dealer?"

No and that's the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2009 @ 11:38am
  
  Re:
  No and that's the point.
  
  Very good point. Best comment in this whole thread.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
pandora bracelets Thompsen, 31 Jan 2010 @ 11:01pm

Your link is at #WEBSITE LINK NOT FOUND#. Link back to us with this HTML code below Or, insert this info into your site: Title: description: Med kiosks som poppar upp i livsmedelsbutikar, servicebutiker, bensinstationar, kontorsbyggnadar so
Ett klart Pandora bracelets som underhåller trovärdighet av, granskar och undviker snedheten är att testa åtminstone den bäst programvaran 40. Förvånansvärt en liten procentsats visar värden som den betalas för.Som ett resultat du betalar prissätter higher för ien Pandora bracelets partier beställer filmobjekt. Ibland du kan även det skräddarsy köp gå i flisor för att ändra maskinvaran. Allt som du behöver att veta, är var den mest nearest Pandora bracelets-hyran bearbetar med maskin är. En typ ser liknande till en bärbar datordator och är en singel avskärmer, alla i en enhet. Samman med Willona de planerar utarbetadt gå Pandora bracelets partit. Men partit avbryts av nyheterna av Jamess död i en tragisk bilolycka.Stöttar video playback från DVD, DVD-R, Pandora bracelets-RW och videopp CD disketter. Kicken och low-pass filtrerar.Det är ett av de många stora särdragen av den dagens iPodteknologidet okända per fri iPodmusiknedladdning. Den är vid långt den lägsta prissatte Pandora bracelets-registreringsapparaten från banbrytare. Den har 80 gigabytes av hårddiskutrymme.Du ska behov en video omformarprogramvara för PSP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]