Federal Trade Commission's rules spread sunshine on blogs

October 12, 2009 http://www.suntimes.com/news/cepeda/1819436,CST-EDT-esther12.article

FTC's rules spread sunshine on blogs

BY ESTHER J. CEPEDA

Of all the twists and turns the convergence of traditional, Internet and social media has taken, the latest stands a good chance of elevating the trifecta of journalism, marketing and blogging.

Under threatened fines up to $11,000, the Federal Trade Commission has just announced that it wants bloggers to be upfront, conspicuously clear and direct when they receive free goods, services or cash from a person or organization in exchange for writing about them.

The rules, slated to go into effect on Dec. 1, are aimed at increasing the probability that a consumer who finds a Web page that appears to be a personal blog written by a regular Joe or Joette sharing experiences about a product, service or company can easily know whether Joette was paid to write about it or not.

Beware buyer -- if you weren't already. In a world where word-of-mouth recommendations are commonplace on blogs and in 140-character bites through Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn -- and authentic customer experiences carry more weight with potential buyers than corporate propaganda -- what you see isn't always what you get.

There is a lot of quid pro quo going on in the blogosphere, and it's difficult to pin down. For instance, a mommy blogger receives a box of diapers in the mail with no strings attached -- not far afield from the traditional practice of sending a product to a paid, full-time staff journalist to interest the journalist in writing about it. No biggie.

If the unpaid blogger didn't spend her hard-earned cash for the diapers, what do her comments really mean? We can certainly debate that one.

It's a different matter altogether, however, if a company sets up an ongoing relationship with that mommy blogger and she receives multiple cases of diapers per week in exchange for promoting that specific brand. A blogger may even get a small cash stipend for keeping the product visible on his or her blog, Facebook or Twitter status. Not really a problem if the blogger just tells readers so they can decide for themselves whether they can trust what's written.

Substitute any product or service or experience -- "my ride on the CTA bus" -- and it still boils down to the right of consumers to know whether they can feel confident that what they're reading is an authentic first-person consumer account or a paid endorsement. Or, for that matter, whether it's a paid criticism of a competitor's product.

The new rule won't be easy to impose. The distinction between an amateur blogger and a professional journalist is not always clear. But if the FTC can make the rule work, it's a win-win-win for all involved.

Because prolific bloggers who live on love for their subject matter are the bane of full-time paid journalists who live for facts, journalists can feel better about the move toward transparency and disclosure. Basically the FTC's intent is to keep some joker from passing himself as an authentic citizen expert. And, yes, maybe full-time journalists will give thoughtful pause to their own practices of accepting gifts, favors or freebies, too.

Marketers will be discouraged from trying to manipulate their supposedly valued consumers by paying peanuts to bloggers -- in cash or in swag -- rather than investing in real value and good customer service, an approach that will earn them honest-to-goodness accolades from big media and regular Joes and Joettes alike.

Finally, bloggers: Chicago is bursting with great ones who will be even better with a little more sunshine. Take heart. Despite the guilt by association perhaps implied by the new FTC disclosure rules, the term "blogger" someday may not be such a dirty word after all.

AUTHORS NOTE:

As an on-line journalist, I have always made it my personal practice to only write about products or services (on my blog, in my columns appearing in other publications, and on my Twitter/FB/LinkedIn statuses) if I have independently purchased them with my own money. I also routinely pass on freebies offered so that if I do want to write about a product, I need not worry about it looking like I'm doing so because I was provided with any sort of compensation. If I ever did request or get products or services and felt the need to write about them, I would certainly disclose that plainly and clearly in the body of the piece, rather than as a link to a separate page elsewhere on this site.

When writing about organizations, I disclose whether I have any present or past professional or personal relationship with or connection to them in the body of the piece and not as a link to a separate page, though I have steered clear of writing about any organizations where I have been employed.

Feel free to comment on whether you, reader, feel that is an appropriate amount of disclosure and transparency. Thanks ~EJC  

Comments

Because prolific bloggers who live on love for their subject matter are the bane of full-time paid journalists who live for facts, journalists can feel better about the move toward transparency and disclosure. Basically the FTC's intent is to keep some joker from passing himself as an authentic citizen expert. And, yes, maybe full-time journalists will give thoughtful pause to their own practices of accepting gifts, favors or freebies, too.

[Esther J. Cepeda]

Claudia, I ABSOLUTELY think content developed by a trained journalist has value, which is why I do what I do. I don't really know what you mean by "authentic journalism" so I can't say whether their days are over or not. I do think some, but not all, consumers care about where there content comes from and whether it is trustworthy or not.

[Claudia Sena Freed]

Good point Esther. I agree with you that most media consumers can't tell a blogger apart from an expert. But don't you think that there should be some value proposition when it comes to content developed by a trained journalist? Do you think the days of authentic journalism are over? Do you think media consumers care who produces the content they read?

[Esther J. Cepeda]

Hi Claudia,
The most important thing to know is that a very large percentage of the population who reads newspapers, blogs, and internet websites are not able to differentiate from what is professionally reported news/Journalism (what CNN and The Chicago Tribune, and the AP - and me, too, for that matter - does) and what is professional expertise and the line that bluirs them. For instance: David Pogue of the New York Times - he's ais the personal-technology columnist for The New York Times. Each week, he contributes a print column, an e-mail column and an online video. In addition, he writes Pogue's Posts, one of The Times's most popular blogs.
He is not a journlalist, per se, but he is an expert in the field of consumer electronics and publishes reviews and books as part of his non-NYTimes career. So how do you classify him?

And how does anyone classify him in the realm of "bloggers"? See? It's a tough, blurry line.

[Claudia Sena Freed]

Esther: I am not an amateur blogger or a professional journalist but I am very interested in your statement: "The distinction between an amateur blogger and a professional journalist is not always clear."
Can you help me understand what you mean?
Thank you. Claudia