FTC Says, "You MUST Announce Sponsors" - A must read for bloggers

[Button]

http://www.lockergnome.com/cellphones/2009/10/05/ftccanfinebloggers/

That's where I first learned this.

Here's another source:

http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSN0538099520091005

Anyway, if you aren't doing it already, you must disclose sponsors if you are paid to review products. I think most people already do that anyway, but apparently the FTC will fine the company you are being sponsored by, if you don't. This is now FTC regulation so keep it in mind.

Wanted everyone to be aware of this. I know we have a lot of bloggers on here making money from blogs. I believe this is only if you were funded by the company, or any company, for reviewing products. If you did it willingly, I guess maybe you'd have to write something to say it was not sponsored.

Be good, everyone. ;)

[SouthernFriedJulie]

Thanks for the links, Button!

A lot of people have misconceptions about the regulations. You don't have to put up a big disclaimer if a company ends you a product to try, only if you're paid to post about something or receive a gift in exchange for posting.

I write reviews and have for some time now. I get a lot of items to review, but I make sure each company knows that I will only give my honest thoughts on the product and no payment of any kind will be accepted for a 'good' review.

You can also post that in your blog's guidelines for product review submissions. Take a peek at the submissions policy for MomGadget (this is not my blog, but I do write there):

http://momgadget.com/review-submissions-policies/

The link is right below the blog logo. It's made very clear to consumers and companies that no money is accepted. If you follow this type of honest disclosure, you'll be fine.


Just wanted to post this because of some misconceptions, My husband came home last night telling me all about this 'new' FTC thing...he was a little disappointed when I told him this was old news to us bloggers!

[veinglory]

My reading of it is that a free reveiw copy must also be discosed somewhere if it is retained by the reviewer. It is a form of compensation. (I tended to do this anyway, as many reviewers do).

But, yes, any reviewer giving an honest opinion is not really affected by this. But I hope it might do something to curb affiliate splogs.

[trishabartle]

I put up a disclaimor on my beauty blog basically saying, 'most of my reviews are from products I received for free from PR companies. That said, I still review them honestly.'

I don't say that in every post though, because that would get redundant and annoying.

[SouthernFriedJulie]

My reading of it is that a free reveiw copy must also be discosed somewhere if it is retained by the reviewer. It is a form of compensation. (I tended to do this anyway, as many reviewers do).

But, yes, any reviewer giving an honest opinion is not really affected by this. But I hope it might do something to curb affiliate splogs.

A problem with this is that they are not being completely clear (at least in my eyes). It is a good thing they're going to review any infractions on a case by case basis, because one blogger's interpretation may be different than another's. I don't see a free sample for review as payment-though I can see where it would be considered pay.

My thinking was going along the lines of something that could be used up, forgot about other big ticket things and so on.

I know the big target is the BS testimonials. I had a ton of those on a stupid post I made making fun of an itch cream. My comments were flooded with people talking about how wonderful the cream was, blah blah blah...and seriously, it was a nasty condition they were singing about.

I'm going to always state that a company sent me something or if I bought it. Like you, I feel it might just help nip the splogs.

I think the people throwing the biggest fits are just the people who shouldn't be a part of consumer buzz, anyway.

[mommyjo2]

Blog with Integrity
http://www.blogwithintegrity.com/

has a badge you can put on your blog with a clearly defined code of conduct.

[ResearchGuy]

My reading of it is that a free review copy must also be disclosed somewhere if it is retained by the reviewer. It is a form of compensation. (I tended to do this anyway, as many reviewers do). . . . .
Weird. I'd think of the book simply as the raw materials for the review. Whether the reviewer keeps the book, sells it, donates it, or throws it away should be irrelevant.

I mean, it is pretty much assumed that reviewers review books sent to them by the publishers (advance review copies, mostly, which are not for sale), and that those books are not intended to be returned.

Payment for a review or endorsement, now that would be a whole different thing. (Personally, I doubt very much that the regulators had book reviews in mind. More like endorsements of patent medicines and quack remedies.)

--Ken

[JenNipps]

Last night, we discussed this in EditorChat on Twitter via FriendFeed. The actual FF transcript can be found here (http://friendfeed.com/editorchat).

[veinglory]

IMHO that is not the case. The nationality of the activity is what is covered rather than the location of service providers like webhosts. In any case prosecution is extremely, extremely unlikely. This is all about voluntary compliance.