Has the New York Times Run Afoul of the FTC's Endorsement Guides?

from the ethics,-ethics dept

Fri, Apr 16th 2010 12:12am — Paul Alan Levy

Terry Heaton and Jeff Jarvis have commented recently on the conflicts of interest implicated by the adulatory coverage of the iPad in the New York Times and other media companies. They point first to the expectation that widespread adoption of the iPad will foster consumer adoption of a platform where media giants can show their content for a fee — thus enabling them to move more easily to a paywall revenue model.

Dan Gillmor shares these concerns, but notes an even more concrete conflict of interest — Apple’s advertising of the iPad consistently features a screenshot of the New York Times app, including of course the Times’ logo. Although Apple no doubt hopes to show that its device can be used to read the Times, surely attractive content to many of its target consumers, the image is also terrific advertising for the New York Times. Gillmor indicates that he has no doubt that Times’ reviewers truly believe the contents of their swooning coverage of the iPad, but argues that the benefit that the Times is receiving is a conflict of interest that ought to be overtly acknowledged and discussed by Times management. Yet, he reports, nobody from the Times has been willing to respond to his questions about the issue, such as whether the Times has received any compensation for the display of its logo on the iPad as shown in the ads. Gillmor raised these concerns a week ago, and the Times has yet to address publicly the possible conflict.

One may well wonder whether Apple or the Times has violated the Federal Trade Commission’s Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising. The placement of the Times’ logo in Apple’s ads is surely a thing of great value, and readers of the Times’ reviews might well want to take the provision of free advertising to the Times into account in deciding whether to give full credence to the objectivity of the Times’ news reports and reviews of the product. The benefit of having such advertising could well be a “material connection” that has to be disclosed both by Apple and by the Times under section 255.5 of the FTC Guides, as illustrated by Example 7.

Surely, what’s good for bloggers who praise products ought to be good for the New York Times and professional journalists.

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: apple, endorsements, ftc, ipad
Companies: ny times

15 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Modplan (profile), 16 Apr 2010 @ 12:30am

I find it odd that iPad is advertised showing the web version of the site, not a native app the NY Times and co. so gladly hope will save their business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael Long (profile), 16 Apr 2010 @ 1:18am

Conspiracy
Then again, perhaps the adulation heaped upon the iPad by the press, papers, magazines, web sites, and bloggers is... justified?

Naw. Must be a conspiracy. (grin)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chargone (profile), 16 Apr 2010 @ 2:55am

Re: Conspiracy
it is possible that it is neither, or a little bit of each and a whole lot of something else, mind you. fanboyism and wishful thinking go a long way all by themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2010 @ 3:19am

I do swear, if I read one more thing about the Jesus Pad I will go on a killing spree.

The Iphone was understandable, it was fundamentally different. From an end users experience it was game changing. But the Ipad.. not so much. Every time I look at one, or even think about one, I keep coming up against its limitations. In another 4-5 year of constant refinement, development, and hardware upgrades; it could be the product I keep reading about everywhere. But the reality of the product, and the thing I keep seeing talked about, are not the same thing.

And the laughable thing, which no one seems to ever mention anywhere. The day an android table is released, no matter how rushed or god awful it is, it'll be closer to being what all these reviewers are gushing about. Why? Because while you can't really use Google Apps easily on an android phone, on a tablet, the amount of money and development Google has dropped into that department over the years comes into its own.

I don't want one of those either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChronoFish (profile), 16 Apr 2010 @ 3:27am

iPad is just a media viewer
The iPad is *just* a media viewer which is why Hollywood and The Media love it.

-CF
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2010 @ 5:00am

content is advertising
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2010 @ 5:26am

"One may well wonder whether Apple or the Times has violated the Federal Trade Commission’s Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising."

Makes no difference, these guidelines weren't intended to be enforced against big media giants and mainstream corporations, only against individuals and startups and small businesses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technopolitical (profile), 16 Apr 2010 @ 5:41am

honest reviews , with good writing
Any regular reader of the Times tech section , and esp Mr. Pogue reviews there ,,know they ain't for sale .

"Looking at the iPad From Two Angles"
By DAVID POGUE

"Apple’s iPad seems to be hated by techies and loved by everyone else. Here are separate reviews for the two audiences"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/technology/personaltech/01pogue.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jsl4980 (profile), 16 Apr 2010 @ 6:20am

Re: honest reviews , with good writing
He is a very good writer, but just because he's a good writer doesn't mean his company isn't violating the FTC's rules.

I think the point of this post is to point out how ridiculous the FTC's rules are and not to bash the NYT or the iPad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technopolitical (profile), 16 Apr 2010 @ 6:52am

Re: Re: honest reviews , with good writing
"I think the point of this post is to point out how ridiculous the FTC's rules are and not to bash the NYT or the iPad."

True, the rules a a little off-base.

I guess just get sensitive about the times tech section before my morning coffee. (note to self ,, coffee first -- then read techdirt)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2010 @ 8:10am

Re: honest reviews , with good writing
Any regular reader of the Times tech section , and esp Mr. Pogue reviews there ,,know they ain't for sale .

On the contrary, that article omits the biggest criticism by far among "techies": that the iPad is not meant to be capable of running any program by any developer, but only those apps approved by Apple in its notoriously inconsistent, anti-competitive, and at times downright absurd review process.

The fact that the article links to Slashdot seems to suggest that the author would have at least, say, searched for iPad on that site and been made quite aware of this criticism, so I can't help but wonder whether this omission may have been disingenuous. A weak negative review followed by a strong (and twice as long) positive review is probably more effective advertising than just a positive review.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
onikitsune, 16 Apr 2010 @ 8:15am

Does anyone see a connection?
This is an issue that wouldn't have crossed my mind. If you're going to show a newspaper on the ipad you really only have two or three choices. Although I don't read the NYT, I recognize it's image and history identifies it as "The newspaper of record." Why wouldn't it be the showcase for news on the ipad?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2010 @ 8:20am

this is different from techdirt, where the masnick appears to play into his sponsors hands without indication? where the masnick writes positive articles about people who also write for this site? i see that ups is long gone from the site i guess their brown board stuff with mike is done and now they leave the building fast.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 16 Apr 2010 @ 8:26am

Off the subject ... and watching the first shoe drop ...
Steve Jobs did a great job hyping the iPad to the News Paper Industry. This is your salvation! This is your hope! This is what will turn things around for the Newspaper industry!

and the second shoe drops ...

Steve jobs main concern is the sale of hardware period. If he make money off subscriptions so be it. He isnt doing this to save the news papers he is hyping this to sell more iPads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
phil (profile), 17 Apr 2010 @ 12:14pm

Mr Pogue Mr Conflict of Interest
Pogue and the NY Times have a history of overlooking conflicts of interest in his reviews. He's one of the most prolific publishers of manuals for Apple products, has early access to them, and profits off the sales of Apple products. He had to apologize for accepting a free hard drive repair worth $2000 after writing a column of praise about the repair service. While Pogue is a terrific writer, he's opinions are likely influenced by all of his other relationships.
[ link to this | view in thread ]