FTC to Require Bloggers to Disclose Freebies and Payments
As reported on many websites (here’s a link to an article on Macworld), new FTC regulations will require bloggers – at least those in the US – to disclose any freebies or payments they have received from vendors in exchange for reviews they post on their blogs. This is to attempt to help consumers know which reviews are sincere and which are the result of coercion.
This is an interesting issue, and one that, if addressed, should be dealt with for all media. For example, I write occasional reviews for Macworld, and also review classical CDs and DVDs for MusicWeb and audiobooks for Audiofile. Never have I paid for any of the items I have reviewed, whether they be in digital form (software or audiobooks) or physical form (CDs or DVDs). This is simply a question that doesn’t arise in the media. Companies, publishers and record companies are constantly looking for reviews for their products, and, naturally, they send out review copies. None of these outlets would ever consider paying for items to review. This has always been the case, for any type of item that is reviewed by serious outlets: books, records, movies, hardware, software, etc. So should these media also specify whether they have received items for review without paying them? Should they also be required to disclose whether the companies being reviewed have purchased ad space in the past? (Which is often the case, at least for print media.)
Here at Kirkville, you’ve noticed that I write a number of reviews of books, CDs and DVDs. (I have also written a few book reviews on my new site, Reading Henry James.) In some cases I’ve gotten free items. Looking back at my Books category, I see that 13 of the 56 posts (not all of which are actually reviews) feature books that were sent to me by publishers. The Music category contains 4 posts which discuss freebies, and I’m sure I’d find a few more in the other categories. I have no problem with this; in some cases, the items I have reviewed were also reviewed for other media, so I’m more or less “reprinting” a review that was published on, say, MusicWeb. But in others, I’ve either asked for or spontaneously received review copies. I’m choosy, and won’t give a good review to something I don’t like, and I won’t bother reviewing something that really sucks. (And I’d like to point out that I’ve never been “paid” to write a review; I’ve only received free items.)
But is this a big deal? Pretty much everyone knows that, for example, review copies of books are sent out to any media outlet that asks for them. That doesn’t mean that a reviewer is going to gush about the book; at least in most cases. You can generally spot bogus reviews pretty quickly, because they are adjective-heavy, and don’t say much about the item being reviewed (other than that it is good).
It’s a thorny question, but I think the FTC’s rules will be ignored almost entirely. (Well, maybe not entirely; I think bloggers will write about it, as I have here, but won’t be concerned about respecting it.) I’m not going to pay much attention to it, for two reasons: first, I’m not in the US, so it doesn’t concern me. But also because if you read my site regularly, you’ll know that my reviews are honest.
No matter what, as informed consumers, you need to judge the value of reviews for what they actually say. I think most intelligent people can do this, and I think this is a pretty useless rule. We’ll see how much it’s respected.
By the way, if any publisher or record companies who have seen what interests me want to send me review copies, feel free to contact me.
Posted: 10/6/2009 by kirk | Filed under: Miscellanea | 5 Comments »
, 
, or 
.
“Pretty much everyone knows that, for example, review copies of books are sent out to any media outlet that asks for them.” I wouldn’t assume this. It may be well known among bloggers, but it is not necessarily well known among readers of blogs. I think most people never even consider such things, and many would be surprised to learn that review products sent to the reviewers free of charge (especially on a blog like this, where it is not always clear if you are reviewing a book for a publisher or if you are just doing it as part of the hobby of your blog).
You touch on a good issue here. I think quite a few (if not most) FCC rules are useless like you say. They seem to assume that the public consists of mind-numbed drones that will believe anything that is told to them and therefore need to be saved from so-called “unfair” practices. And in the end, all the rules end up doing is infringing on the free speech rights of the publishers of the media, and they create a special class of media that are exempt from the rules for whatever reason (usually things like you that are on the internet).
Do you really not know that book reviews in the media come from review copies of books? Or music reviews are made after review copies are sent out? Or are you just surprised that “blogs” can get review copies, like newspapers and magazines?
Well, I must admit that I was surprised to learn that you as a blogger received free items, though it isn’t surprising that bloggers do receive them in these times, now that I think about it. By the way, as far as the FCC rules go, I don’t really care. It certainly doesn’t change my perception of your reviews knowing this, especially considering I already knew how to take a critical view of things anyway (if you can’t do this, no kind of disclosure is going to change that).
I did know about this, but as far as the general population goes, I suppose that the more reviews a person reads on any medium, the more likely he is to know this. If someone only rarely reads reviews of things, then they may not be aware (and as I mentioned, probably never even considered) that these things are provided for free. Does it change how the review should be perceived? I don’t think so, at least not for a book. If it is something more expensive, like a car or something, it might be different.
Yes, I’d be more wary for things that are more expensive.
Note that, no matter how much I write about Apple products – Macs and iPods – I’ve never gotten anything free from them. This is true for Apple in general; even the big sites only get loaners (though they do get software free for review).
Kirk, probably as the result of having reviewed product for those big publications, I do get occasional Apple hardware, and most of the software products that I request.
Apple hardware normally is provided on a loan basis for two to four weeks. They monitor this strictly, and if the reviewer doesn’t return the product, chances of getting more stuff are little to none.
Since the FTC edict came about, I’ve posted an item in our site’s About box about this, so people understand how things work.
Peace,
Gene