On Monday of this week the Federal Trade Commission indicated that it will soon (12/1/09) require bloggers to disclose if the products they’re reviewing have been supplied to them for free:
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.
This new regulation has clearly been prompted by the use by advertisers of social media, including blogging, as a means of supplementing more traditional forms of advertising.
I think this is an excellent idea. When I write about specific products or companies, my policy has been to mention in a footnote-type statement if I have an affiliate connection with the company or if the post contains affiliate links; this will merely take it a step further.
Regular Practical Hacks readers know that at times I review products I’ve received samples of, and in other cases I’ve purchased those products. (I would guess that the mix is around 50/50.) But newcomers to the site may not know this, and even regular readers likely don’t always know when I’m reviewing a product for which I’ve received a PR sample. This change will make all of this explicitly clear, and I’ve got no problem with that. I’d like to think that my readers expect my reviews to be honest and direct, revealing product deficiencies as well as strong points; that’s certainly my intent. PR samples simply enable me to review more products that I think will be of interest to my readers than I otherwise could afford.
Beginning very soon - well in advance of December 1st – I’ll revise the “Fine Print” message that appears after posts that mention specific products or companies to reflect this new requirement. Oh – and one final point – I will NOT accept payment for reviewing products on Practical Hacks, nor will I ever publish sponsored posts.
In the meantime, let me know what you think about this change from the FTC by commenting. You can read the entire NY Times article by clicking here:
Advertising – F.T.C. to Rule Blogs Must Disclose Gifts or Pay for Reviews – NYTimes.com
- You may also enjoy these related posts:
- Trust
- Upcoming gear reviews…
- Reader Mailbag #1
- Several Practical Hacks posts you may have missed…
- The Practical Hacks Forum launches!
October 7th, 2009 at 2:53 PM
I think your original MLC review clearly shows you pull no punches. A bag you clearly liked, but you were mad enough about the inaccuracy of its name (“Maximum Legal Carryon”) that you skewered Patagonia on that alone.
And after getting review samples of glorious Red Oxx products you STILL say you like the clearly inferior (smile) MPB tactical briefcase better than the RedOxx Metro – mainly, so far as I can tell, because the MPB is fatter than the RedOxx Metro (RedOxx DOES make the more comparable CPA!).
No, no are not guilty of any conflicts of interest – just guilty of a disconcerting and refreshing honesty.
[Reply]
October 7th, 2009 at 7:44 PM
+1 here in Michael’s comments.
You have nothing to reproach yourself.
In terms of legal interests and journalistic integrity it will be good to fully disclose this. A simple paragraph or text box at the beginning or end of the review is enough. No fuss needed.
I also like the fact that you compare bags from competing manufacturers and even show them next to one another in a single photo. That is very helpful, as are the links to other reviews within the text. It’s just the way it should be.
One thing that you could do, and that might end up generating more traffic, is to post links to other reviews of the same bags. It will show a more complete research approach and nobody else does this. Probably because it means extra work. Perhaps because they don’t want to direct traffic away from their own site. I’d think that the pure fact of having such a list will increase the hits you get.
You could entitle that list “Review List Tom Bihn” for example. This will give a good keyword quotient for somebody’s google search and it will appear as one of the top results.
For example, if one googles “Travelpro Platinum 5″ my review on FT/OBOW comes up on the first page right under the commercial results. This is without even using the search term “review”.
[Reply]
Kevin Reply:
October 7th, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Till:
I think that’s a great idea. I often do look at other reviews to see others’ takes on the same product, and frankly have no big issues with directing readers away from the site… if it’s of value to them, they’ll presumably come back!!
[Reply]
October 7th, 2009 at 8:40 PM
Exactly my thinking. I am glad you agree. The hardest part of researching a product is not to read the reviews, it’s to find them. So, good keywords for an easy google search and good lists are extremely helpful especially for niche products. And there is always a difference between a “pro” review and a user review on Amazon.
Moreover, if you have a reciprocity with that site/blog you can link mutually. The reason why I frequent this site, FT and OBOW is that they are the best sites in this area. I also look at Gadling but find the reviews a bit too superficial.
[Reply]
October 7th, 2009 at 8:48 PM
Addendum:
Some mfr sites (if they are smart) also have a section called Press or Reviews where semi-pro and pro reviews are listed and/or given as pdf or link. I imagine that if you compiled such a list for a manufacturer and wrote a review of their product, that alone would be an incentive for them to provide you with a free review sample that you can actually keep.
If you wanted to be 100% ethically correct about it, you could sell or auction off the famous PH-reviewed bag and give the money to charity but I don’t think that’s necessary. After all, you did provide work, too, and nobody expects you to run a no-profit blog. It’s hard enough to justify the cost of running such a well thought-out blog anyway, let alone make money with it.
[Reply]