Keep It or Delete It?: Pushmo (3DS eShop)
Keep It or Delete It?: Quasar Quinn: Escape from Zargnon (Android)
Keep It or Delete It?: Mutant Mudds (3DS eShop)
Final Cut: Hetalia: World Series (Season 3) (DVD)
Keep It or Delete It?: Paper Monsters (iPad)Remember back in June when I reported that the FTC might regulate bloggers. Guess what got approval yesterday.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) whose job it is the “promotion of “consumer protection” and the elimination and prevention of what regulators perceive to be harmfully “anti-competitive” business practices”, has approved new Guides Monday that will require bloggers to follow the same rules as TV advertisers. The previous Guide on this topic was last updated in 1980.
So what does this entail for those of us who review products. The pertinent part is:
The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that “material connections” (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other “word-of-mouth” marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims.
So in other words, while a personal blog that occasionally writes a review of a product will be unaffected, professional sites like ours must now put a disclaimer in the post if we have received any payment for our review. That includes cash and free copies. It doesn’t say how the disclaimer must be presented, it just has to be there. This maybe a little too much wiggle room for the more deceptive sites, but its a start.
This is just applying the same rules to the internet as you get on TV. You’ll notice the fine print at the bottom of advertisements stating something along the lines of “Paid Endorser” or “Spokesman has been compensated for this advertisement.”
In my previous post I mentioned what about Google ads or Amazon links? Apparently these do not constitute a conflict of interest in themselves. It only crosses the line when a business directly contacts us to write a good review for them, or a bad review of their competitor.
I think this is a good thing. I think we all remember the fake All I Want For Xmas is a PSP blogger scandal where Sony paid people to post reviews and hype made by “ordinary people”.
::::Disclaimer:::::
I claim no conflict of interest in this post. I have received no money, gifts, BJ’s, or other niceties in exchange for this post. All reviews are made on products we bought with our own money. 
Dan Furnas on 06 Oct 2009 at 9:19 am #
I fully endorse making bloggers state when they’ve received a free product or money for a review. Viral marketing is a very powerful force in the Internet Age, and some sort of regulation needs to happen.
[Reply]
Game PR Firm Caught Submitting "Independant Reviews" | G.A.M.E.S. on 27 Aug 2010 at 8:51 am #
[...] we reported that the FTC approved rules that said professionals who write reviews of a product must disclose all conflicts of interest in the review. This was to protect consumers by separating the shills from the actual independent [...]