iEntry 10th Anniversary RSS Newsletter Advertising
Join the WebProWorld Forum!
Text: Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size | Print Print Article | Share: Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Post to Twitter Post to Facebook
33 commentsMonday, November 9, 2009

Key Perspectives on the FTC Blogger Guidelines

From Bloggers, PayPerPost, a Lawyer, and the IAB

An interesting development has occurred in the story of the controversial FTC guidelines for sponsored blogging/social media. The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) has called upon the FTC to rescind the blogger rules, and has questioned the constitutionality of them. As you may know, there have been a lot people calling them an infringement on free speech.

What are your thoughts on the FTC guidelines?
 Discuss here.

The IAB says the rules unfairly and unconstitutionally impose penalties on online media for practices in which offline media have engaged for decades. In an open letter to FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz, Randall Rothenberg, the President and CEO of the IAB, called the FTC’s distinction between offline media and online media, "constitutionally dubious."

Randall Rothenberg"What concerns us the most in these revisions is that the Internet, the cheapest, most widely accessible communications medium ever invented, would have less freedom than other media," he said. "These revisions are punitive to the online world and unfairly distinquish between the same speech, based on the medium in which it is delivered. The practices have long been afforded strong First Amendment protections in traditional media outlets, but the Commission is saying that the same speech deserves fewer Constitutional protections online. I urge the Commission to retract the current set of Guides and to commence a fair and open process in order to develop a roadmap by which responsible online actors can engage with consumers and continue to provide the invaluable content and services that have so transformed people’s lives."

Rothenberg's letter can be read here in its entirety. The FTC's guidelines are set to go into effect at the beginning of December.

WebProNews attended a keynote at the BlogWorld Expo this week, which dealt with the FTC's forthcoming regulations. Among the speakers were Ted Murphy, CEO of the controversial IZEA, the company known for PayPerPost and sponsored tweeting, Wendy Piersall of Sparkplugging.com, Jennifer Leggio, a blogger for ZDNet and Lisa Rotkin, an attorney from LA. Interestingly, about 60% of people in the room were for sponsored tweets, with very few indicating that they were against it.

Rotkin says the guidelines clarify the definition of endorsement, and that the FTC believes it has to be authenticated. She says that the blogger is as much liable as the advertiser, although recent comments from the FTC indicate that they are more concerned with the advertisers. She notes that bloggers would have to disclose relationships, but points out that there's a gray area in how to disclose.

There are also gray areas in what is actually considered to be a sponsored post. In the session, it was said that there are 8 forms:

1. Access
2. Incentive
3. Thank you
4. Product demo
5. Advertorial
6. Paid Reviews
7. Junket
8. Payola

Rotkin says that sponsored posts aren't right for everyone, but in some cases they are appropriate. However, she believes that bloggers aren't looking at the long term.

Piersall says that people are able to disclose very well, and there are consequences if they do it wrong. She notes that she has no control over people's perceptions, whether she is being sponsored or not.

Murphy, who was wearing a shirt that said "I heart the FTC" said his company has been under a lot of attack because they monetize people.

Leggio says being a popular social media/blogger person is different than being a celebrity. She says sponsored blogging doesn't help relationships. "Do you want a spokesmodel or a thought leader?" she asked.

The character limit of Twitter is a subject that is often brought up in the FTC regulations discussion. How do you disclose on Twitter? Jeremiah Owyang, who moderated the session, doesn't think a hashtag like #ad is enough. Murphy thinks having "tools for disclosure" is the only way. It's unclear what these tools are exactly.

WebProNews reporter Abby Johnson contributed to this report from BlogWorld.

Do you think paid tweeting is a good idea? Share your thoughts.

 

About the author:
Chris Crum has been a part of the WebProNews team and the iEntry Network of B2B Publications since 2003. Twitter: @CCrum237

High end consumers hate spam

Seriously, if your looking to puchase some high end product, are you going to do your research on twitter?
If you've got the money to buy anything you'd like are you going to sign up for a spammer on twitter:
Oh let me see what the Lamborghini dealer has to say in messages that are 140 characters or less, delivered to my cell phone on whatever schedule he wants? Because I want to receive "coupons" special offers and here him tout how Lamborghinis are the best over and over again.
1- there aren't coupons for high end products.
2-high end purchasers don't care about specials
3-High end purchasers already know the benefits of a Lambo and
4-We except you to think Lambo's are best because you sell Lambos.
Why would they want to hear anything you have to say on twitter.
VS:
A high quality site with lots of pictures and high quality info so that they can learn:
1-What makes Lambos the best
2-Damn they look good
3-They can get info they want without some spammer or aggressive sales dude up their butt.

(no we are not a Lamborghini dealer, but that the same kind of business focus and the same crowd)

We might pay bloggers to write for us if they are passing link juice to our sites and are saying positive things and were knowledgeable about our specific and rare product of which there aren't very many ppl , but with the risk of recent FCC actions (which we support), we'd rather just have a text link that passes lots o link juice and say what we have to say about our product.

That's funny . . .

The practices have long been afforded strong First Amendment protections in traditional media outlets
That's funny! He thinks busineses have the right to lie and deceive the public. I can't think of a single courrt descion or law that backs that up. I'm sure we all think of several that point to the courts, laws and constitution saying exactly the opposite:
1-false advertising
2-bait and switch
etc, etc.

It saddens me to see my fellow countrymen trying fighting for the right to lie and decieve the public.

These laws should go even further and be applies to newspapers, tv news shows, talk radio shows and the like. Advertisements should be labeled as such!

Businesses should remember the constitution was created to protect the citizens from us! And with good reason, remember slavery? Remember cocaine in coca-cola?
Still think businesses should be allowed to do whatever they want? You like slavery? Maybe, it is great for business after all.

Do you really think business should have the right to despicable and immoral things like pretend if they make thousands per week by buying some rip off e-book for a $100 to teach how to make money by posting links on google? When the reality is he got paid to say that and you can't post links on google and if buy advertising on google it costs $ (they don't pay you!) and that most adsense site don't make diddly.

If we do allow businesses to continue doing this, what do you think the next round will be, Comcast can charge you whatever they like to allow consumers to see your website, or just deny you if they'd prefer (you know they're trying to do this right now, right?), maybe they wat to sell a competing product, maybe a competitor paid to have tour sites shut down. Maybe they just don't like your politics, maybe they think your gay or don't like what church you go to.
The point is: businesses are consumers too tus business should support the denial of the right to lie and deceive to consumers.

If we continue to allow this disturbing and patently immoral activity to continue, what do you think is going to happen to the country? Revolution, financial collapse? I don't think anyone can say that that would do the country good in any way, not even Dick Cheney.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong please add your comments and let me know how an increase in unchecked dishonesty would help the country.

Publish A Comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 11 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
SEARCH
Popular WPN Business Resources












Subscribe to WebProNews


Send me relevant info