The new "Blogger rules" - will HDD require it?

[GizmoDVD]

If this passes, will HDD require posters to say if they are Reviewers, works for certain studios etc?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/bu...ia/06adco.html

FOR nearly three decades, the Federal Trade Commission’s rules regarding the relationships between advertisers and product reviewers and endorsers were deemed adequate. Then came the age of blogging and social media.
On Monday, the F.T.C. said it would revise rules about endorsements and testimonials in advertising that had been in place since 1980. The new regulations are aimed at the rapidly shifting new-media world and how advertisers are using bloggers and social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to pitch their wares.

The F.T.C. said that beginning on Dec. 1, bloggers who review products must disclose any connection with advertisers, including, in most cases, the receipt of free products and whether or not they were paid in any way by advertisers, as occurs frequently. The new rules also take aim at celebrities, who will now need to disclose any ties to companies, should they promote products on a talk show or on Twitter. A second major change, which was not aimed specifically at bloggers or social media, was to eliminate the ability of advertisers to gush about results that differ from what is typical — for instance, from a weight loss supplement.

For bloggers who review products, this means that the days of an unimpeded flow of giveaways may be over. More broadly, the move suggests that the government is intent on bringing to bear on the Internet the same sorts of regulations that have governed other forms of media, like television or print.

“It crushes the idea that the Internet is separate from the kinds of concerns that have been attached to previous media,” said Clay Shirky, a professor at New York University.

Richard Cleland, assistant director of the division of advertising practices at the F.T.C., said: “We were looking and seeing the significance of social media marketing in the 21st century and we thought it was time to explain the principles of transparency and truth in advertising and apply them to social media marketing. Which isn’t to say that we saw a huge problem out there that was imperative to address.”

Still, sites like Twitter and Facebook, as well as blogs, have offered companies new opportunities to pitch products with endorsements that carry a veneer of authenticity because they seem to be straight from the mouth — or keyboard — of an individual consumer. In some cases, companies have set up product review blogs that appear to be independent. One such case involved Urban Nutrition, a seller of supplements, that ran Web sites like WeKnowDiets.com and GoogleDiets.com. The National Advertising Review Council, which governs the industry’s self-regulatory programs, said the sites were “formatted as independent product-review blogs.”

Jonathan Zittrain, a professor at Harvard Law School and co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, said, “the rules are looking ahead to a quite possible future when there is a market to buy ‘authentic’ public endorsements.”

Some marketing groups fought the changes. “If a product is provided to bloggers, the F.T.C. will consider that, in most cases, to be a material connection even if the advertiser has no control over the content of the blogs,” said Linda Goldstein, a partner at Manatt Phelps & Phillips, a law firm that represents three marketing groups, the Electronic Retailing Association, the Promotion Marketing Association and the Word of Mouth Marketing Association. “In terms of the real world blogging community, that’s a seismic shift.”

Ms. Goldstein added, “We would have preferred the F.T.C. to work closer with the industry to learn how viral marketing works.”

The new guidelines were not unexpected — the commission gave notice last November that it would take up the matter. They will affect scores of bloggers who began as hobbyists only to find that companies flocked to them in search of a new way to reach consumers.

About three-and-a-half years ago Christine Young, of Lincoln, Calif., began blogging about her adventures in home schooling. It led to her current blog, FromDatesToDiapers.com, about mothers and families. The free products soon started arriving, and now hardly a day goes by without a package from Federal Express or DHL arriving at her door, she said. Mostly they are children’s products, like Nintendo Wii games, but sometimes not. She said she recently received a free pair of women’s shoes from Timberland.

Ms. Young said she had always disclosed whether or not she received a free product when writing her reviews. But companies have nothing to lose when sending off goodies: if she doesn’t like a product, she simply won’t write about it.

“I think that bloggers definitely need to be held accountable,” said Ms. Young. “I think there is a certain level of trust that bloggers have with readers, and readers deserve to know the whole truth.”

[Arkadin]

personally I would hardly think of HDD posters as "bloggers".
I know I'm not a "blogger".
to me a "blogger" would be someone that runs a somewhat reputable blog site.
It would not even apply to sites that have barely any visitors--like some site set up for fun by a 8 year old as an example.
I highly doubt the FCC would consider that type of site as falling under these planned guidelines.
now there might be a few posters on hdd that run blogs on the side, but whether or not these few individuals would need to reveal this info on another site (e.g. HDD) is something that I'm sure will be discussed when/ and if these guidelines come to pass.
just out of interest why would you even consider some random poster on HDD as a "blogger"?

[GizmoDVD]

If I understand it correctly, anyone who receives a 'free' product to review and/or discuss would fall under it. For instance, there are several members here, myself included, who are not employed by HDD but we do receive free products from studios to review and we may discuss it in various posts. That would make us fall under the new 'rule' where we would have to admit we received it for free. There are also other posts who work for the studios/pr places and talk up things yet don't reveal they are employed by that studio/pr place.

It does not apply to you as an example since you don't receive free movies from studios. It really affects 1% or less of HDDs posters.

[Arkadin]

my point would be that even someone like you might not be expected to reveal under these guidelines on ANOTHER site.
that is an issue I'm sure will be debated.
I would think the guidelines are meant to apply to posts on the person's own blog right?
like if you are saying on YOUR BLOG how certain Disney bds are the best quality, but you are being given freebies from Disney.
that's where they want people to reveal.
right?
I doubt it would apply to your posts here on HDD.

[abintra]

Anyone that already had a modicum of respect for their audience and customers should have already been encouraged to state any conflict of interests. Doesn't mean one isn't free to shill and/or provide honest opinions or feedback even then. Just that one should be upfront about any potential conflicts to provide full disclosure and allow the reader to decide whether they are being exposed to advertising/marketing or ones opinion.

I would have hoped various sites and forums would have long ago taken steps in that direction when they become aware of people using their platforms for that purpose.

[Blu-News.com]

This is so confusing? So if I say I dislike a disc on the forums I have to say where I got it from? Or if I love it? I think promoting something in a positive light simply because you got it free is tacky.

[GizmoDVD]

Originally Posted by Blu-News.com

This is so confusing? So if I say I dislike a disc on the forums I have to say where I got it from? Or if I love it? I think promoting something in a positive light simply because you got it free is tacky.

In a way, it could be like Warner sending you a copy of Trick R Treat for free. You don't have to say if you like it or not, but if you do "Such a fantastic disc! Awesome Picture..." it would make sense to say "I am a reviewer and received this for free" somewhere in your signature and/or that post so people know you are not shilling (i.e. got something for free to talk about how awesome it is without telling people you were essentially 'paid' to do so). More extreme issues are people who work directly for the studios who post here yet to do not make people aware of that. There are several individuals who do so (and others who do not - like that guy who helped author Black Christmas on Blu-ray)

[GizmoDVD]

Originally Posted by abintra

Anyone that already had a modicum of respect for their audience and customers should have already been encouraged to state any conflict of interests. Doesn't mean one isn't free to shill and/or provide honest opinions or feedback even then. Just that one should be upfront about any potential conflicts to provide full disclosure and allow the reader to decide whether they are being exposed to advertising/marketing or ones opinion.

I would have hoped various sites and forums would have long ago taken steps in that direction when they become aware of people using their platforms for that purpose.

Typically they would get a custom status message that would say if they work for a studio or "VIP" (where their status is confirmed with a mod team but can still remain nameless). I think AVS has it setup like that.

[Arkadin]

the post above talks about reviewing items and disclosing connections with ADVERTISERS.
honestly Gizmo I don't think any of this applies to dvd reviewers and studios.

[GizmoDVD]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

the post above talks about reviewing items and disclosing connections with ADVERTISERS.
honestly Gizmo I don't think any of this applies to dvd reviewers and studios.

That's just one article, others have mentioned people who receive products for free and are supposed to 'talk them up'. Since IB has many forums under their belt I'm curious to read if they will agree with this (if approved).

[Josh Z]

Almost all of the discs officially reviewed on this site were provided as free screeners from the studios. This has never been a secret. However, if this legislation scares the studios off from sending any more screeners, the entire DVD/Blu-ray reviewing community on the internet will wither up and die. Sites like ours simply can't afford to buy copies of every disc that comes out.

If what this legislation is really getting at is forcing "reviewers" to disclose when they are paid by the companies providing the products they review, that won't affect us here. We receive no payment from the studios, other than the screeners we review.

Of course, that is not the case with every "review" site or blog.

[Cinema Squid]

It was my understanding that these new FTC rules would indeed apply to sites like HDD that receive screeners gratis, but to comply it would be nothing more onerous than adding a short statement to the review body - e.g. "The disc used for this review was provided free of charge by Distributor ABC or Retailer XYZ".

One would think everyone already knows this is how most of the big Blu-ray / DVD sites get their review discs and there doesn't seem to be any overt pressure by the studios on reviewers to put a positive spin on every release (as evidenced by the goodly number of negative reviews out there), but I suppose there must be people that aren't aware of this process.

I haven't quite decided how I feel about the whole thing yet - the principle of creating more transparency in the relationship between reviewers and vendors is nice, but adding the burden of regulation and fines seems unnecessary.

EDIT: And also I thought this only applied to "front-page" level content like blog posts or official site reviews. At least I can't imagine how this would be enforced for every little blog comment, forum post, Facebook status update, tweet, etc.

[GizmoDVD]

Originally Posted by Josh Z

Of course, that is not the case with every "review" site or blog.

Oh whatever could you mean?

[Godstar]

Seems like this is more targeted at anonymous and disengenous shilling that many sites, companies, movie stars, you name it all do but are getting paid for.

[Godstar]

Originally Posted by Josh Z

Almost all of the discs officially reviewed on this site were provided as free screeners from the studios. This has never been a secret. However, if this legislation scares the studios off from sending any more screeners, the entire DVD/Blu-ray reviewing community on the internet will wither up and die. Sites like ours simply can't afford to buy copies of every disc that comes out.

If what this legislation is really getting at is forcing "reviewers" to disclose when they are paid by the companies providing the products they review, that won't affect us here. We receive no payment from the studios, other than the screeners we review.

Of course, that is not the case with every "review" site or blog.

Josh, always new you weren't on the take.