Tuesday, 6. October 2009 20:56
As many of you have no doubt already read, the FTC recently revised their rules to require that bloggers disclose “material connections” to advertisers, and that failure to do so could result in fines up to $11,000.
Specifically, the FTC released the following:
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.
A couple of things struck me about this. The first thought I had was to wonder if there are any of bloggers who aren’t already disclosing these types of connections. Granted, I tend to spend a lot of time hanging out in the DIY/indie/craft segment of the blogosphere, which is much more community oriented, so of course people are inclined to show love to others. For example, I can’t imagine a knitblogger reviewing yarn without either a) stating that they had no affiliation or b) noting that the spinner or dyer (dye artist?) or company had sent them a skein to try. Then again, most freebies in that part of the world tend to be lower cost (a skein of yarn, some fleece, a few bars of handmade soap) and the community is also small enough that a blogger who didn’t follow the norm and show love to her fellow crafters would be ostracized pretty quickly. Or at least she wouldn’t get any more free stuff.
The second thought that struck me is, I think, a little more interesting. What’s most interesting to me is that these rules make no distinction between professional bloggers (be they those employeed by a media organization like The New York Times, or simply bloggers who manage to make a living from their site, like Dooce) and amateurs who receive no money (like yours truly).
As social media spread and access to technology becomes increasingly available, the line between journalist and amateur becomes increasingly thin. Anyone can throw up a blog, and with many companies lacking a clear understanding of what social media is, how it works, the power it can and can’t wield, and how to manage it, it’s increasingly likely that people are able to throw the title of blogger around and finagle their way into a conversation with a corporate representative. Think about it: you’re at Big Company X when you get a phone call requesting a comment from a blogger–now here’s the delimna. Do you blow them off, only to find out that they’re a well-respected writer with followers in the thousands? Or do you answer them, only to find you’ve inadvertantely granted legitamacy to a conspiracy blog that previously had only a handful of readers?
As the line between professional and amateur blurs, it calls into question the role of journalists. Traditionally, gate-keeping was one of the major roles journalists played. The ability to sift through piles of information, gleaning nuggests of truth and fact while discarding the spin, the irrelevant, the fluff. Are they perfect at it? No–but they are accountable.
That, in the age of internet anonymity, is one thing that bloggers lack. A journalist who publishes incorrect information, be it by design or ignorance, is eventually going to be held accountable for their actions. By their employer, by the public, and if nothing else, they are staking their professional reputation and their name on what they do.
Bloggers? Who is holding the blogosphere accountable? Half-truths, lies, and outright hate circulate with increasing frequency. There is no employer to hold bloggers accountable, and while blog providers may kick the worst offenders off for Terms of Use violations, it’s only a matter of time before they pop up elsewhere. If someone writes anonymously or uses a pseudonym, they’re not even staking their own reputation. (True, nothing is truly anonymous, but the illusion of it is enough for many people to say things they wouldn’t otherwise.
The question then becomes, what impact does this have on public discourse and government? Without the legitimacy granted by institutions, how do people determine the sources to trust? And how can bloggers be held accountable for information–and if they can’t be, then how can we have reasonable debate on the issues facing our country, when even the most basic facts vary wildly by source? And what does it mean for our future?
