Comments on: Does this mean we’re legit?

By: Pomidor

Pomidor — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:48:28 +0000

I dont really understand why you say “Can you say can o’ worms?”
What is wrong, or complicated, or unfair, with simply stating at the end, or anywhere visable, of the blog post or review that the person who wrote the article recieved a free sample by the producer/distributor and was asked to write a review/post?

Overall I agree in principle with the new regulations; blogs and other, lets say independent, web media are give off a sence of security to the consumer, and producers do take advantage of this fact.

From your artice I get the impression that although you cannot find any real flaw in the new regulations, you do feel the need to moan, groan and whine about them a bit, perhaps because you somehow feel that this will be the end of the freebies. Get a grip.

—
Pomidor

By: ljclark

ljclark — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:50:58 +0000

Ooh, yeah, good point, Patricia.

By: Patricia

Patricia — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:43:20 +0000

“an unimpeded flow of giveaways” – hmm, yes, please. Remember a while back the mini-hoopla over these really awful movies that were being advertised with quotes from “reviews” just raving about the movie? Turns out they were paid reviewers as in paid by the movie people.

By: Ken Moorhead

Ken Moorhead — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 04:00:56 +0000

Glad to see this being talked about. I think this is an issue that, as Frederic pointed out, could create tension/paranoia in a community at first, but it seems to me that ethical bloggers (who may well have disclosed their receipt of giveaways already) have nothing to worry about.

A tangential topic to look at might be the stance of the IRS… at what point do giveaways and gifts become non-monetary income?

By: ljclark

ljclark — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:06:01 +0000

Thanks for weighing in, fellas. Your opinions run the gamut, which is always fun. As far as pure principle goes, I’m with Slim. But in real-life terms, I’m with Cleve. Like both Fred and Cleve point out, print publications do seem to be exempt from these rules — perhaps because the speech they’re expressing is perceived as somewhat controlled by editorial guidelines, etc., while the blogosphere is perceived (rightfully) as the wild west. But you gotta wonder — was the new ruling triggered by consumer complaints about being deceived by bloggers/stealth shills, or did the suits in the FTC suddenly get freaked out by the proliferation of online voices and conclude that deception in the blogosphere is somehow more dangerous than in the traditional media?

By: Br. Cleve

Br. Cleve — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:05:54 +0000

Another example of Big Government steadily increasing its presence into your life. Music writers have received free records/CDs for decades;film critics see movies at free screenings or get “screener” DVD’s in the mail (although thats being phased out due to torrent uploads). That’s just a couple of examples. An informed person accesses multiple reviews and realizes that there’s all sorts of chicanery behind much information that’s out there. Anyone who believes a celebrity blogger gets what they deserve. The industry will merely invent new ways of getting its product advertised and talked about — the government outlawed payola in the music biz in the 50′s, but it never stopped it; it just changed its M.O. Same thing will happen with this issue.

By: MC Slim JB

MC Slim JB — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:10:43 +0000

The spirit of this thing makes sense to me: it’s aimed at the growing industry of selling favorable reviews while pretending to be unbiased. If you’re the blogger equivalent of The Phantom Gourmet, pretending to be a real reviewer while repeatedly servicing your advertisers and ignoring places that don’t pay the graft, you have to fess up, because there will be some in your audience naive enough to believe you’re not a whore. If you are whoring, you’ve got to hang out a sign to that effect.

Of course, the devil is in the implementation and enforcement. But I hope and expect that bloggers who write with integrity, who aren’t pimping themselves out in return for sponsorship or comped eats and drinks, should be just fine.

By: Frederic

Frederic — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:32:29 +0000

This was heavily discussed on the CSOWG (cocktail & spirits online writers group) and the first reaction was a mixture of paranoia and disgust. The next wave included examples of blanket disclaimers people came up with (SpiritsReview being a good one and open sourced the wording to it). And the last wave was a clarification that they were not going to go after reviewers in general (if you believe what they say, that is), but only those that misrepresent the product.

Besides, I don’t review products. I just provide recipes of what I drank, right?

The worst part about it is that print publications are not governed by these particular laws. Perhaps it just means we’re legit but don’t have a political lobby to stop these laws from coming about.

By: KEEBLER

KEEBLER — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 04:44:27 +0000

wait. hey gertsen…
did we forget to charge lauren for all those drinks at the grand ma party????
rats.