Via the Nameless Libertarian, this:
The long-running debate over freedom of speech on the internet took a new twist yesterday, when America’s most important regulators – the Federal Trade Commission – decided to approve new rules to stop independent bloggers from hiding their links to advertisers.
More accurately, the FTC has put forward a new series of guidelines designed to encourage fair and transparent product reviews online – including an attempt to regulate “payola” on websites and blogs. The possible consequence of breaking those rules? A fine of up to $11,000 (more than £6,800 in real money).
Payola schemes – where web users are offered money or gifts to write about certain services or products – have increased in recent years, as marketers realise that there’s a lot of hay to be made by using freebies and cash incentives to encourage bloggers, web users and forum contributors to produce reviews or testimonials. At its worst, it is a form of astroturfing, the pernicious practice of trying to trick people into thinking that has widespread support from ordinary members of the public.
The Nameless one points out that this could well make its way across the pond and I wouldn’t be at all surprised. Anyway, the Nameless Libertarian does not advertise anything on his blog. I have had this discussion before.
Nothing on this site is paid for by advertisers and I reject out of hand all overtures to put up paid links or sponsored posts. There are no adverts, there are no sponsored posts and I do not intend to change this policy. Like TNL, I make not a bean from this blog. It is entirely independent as are the opinions expressed. I intend to continue in that vein.
Good for you, I do the same (I’ve only had two or three people email and ask me to link to their site anyway, so it’s not like I’m offended or anything *sniff*)
But why would they try to ban product placement? Most people have a sixth sense for this sort of thing – even little kids watching children’s telly can distinguish adverts from the actual programme (even though the content might be the same, i.e. an advert for a Thomas train set in the middle of an episode of Thomas the Tank Engine).
And if you don’t have a sixth sense for that sort of thing, then no amount of disclaimer is going to help you.
.-= My last blog ..Killer arguments against LVT, not (26) =-.
What about Lobbying institutions that are responsible for most of the ‘astroturfing’ by creating artificial ‘media events’ etc? Will certain fake charities and similar organisations receive the same treatment as bloggers who make the odd extra buck here or there? No? Well quelle suprise.
.-= My last blog ..One for Delcatto =-.
The only reason I advertise (in very small amounts) is that I have to cover my bandwidth costs for hosting my website – which sadly isn’t cheap if you want a decent service.
I take Mark’s point that most people might be able to spot a dodgy review, but not everyone has that kind of tech savvy when surfing the web.
.-= My last blog ..Tory war on alcohol-fuelled violence continues =-.
Bill, indeed.
LFAT – yes, I take Mark’s general point, too and agree with you that some folk aren’t that savvy.
I see disclosere as the ethical thing to do and both the Devil’s Kitchen and Tim Worstall are rigorous in this. However, it should not be a matter for legislation.
I don’t really see the issue – what’s an ad here or there if the blogger wants to run it?
.-= My last blog ..Some Issues from the Conference – Polarized Politics =-.
The issue – as far as the FTC are concerned is undisclosed endorsement – paid for posts rather than advertising. An advert is pretty obviously paid for.
My issue is that I do not like advertising particularly unless I am looking for a specific product or service. In that instance, I’ll buy a trade magazine and browse the ads. I know where to find them when I want them. I don’t want them shoved in my face willy nilly. Given that, I won’t do to others that which irritates me.
That said, Adblock pretty much makes sure I don’t see ads for the most part.
Then how does the FTC justify allowing product placement in films and TV?
Surely the only issue is whether tax is paid on the income (after allowing for costs).
Best regards