return to story

Blogola: The FTC Takes On Paid Posts

All Reader Comments

page 4 of 6

Jenn M. May 20, 2009 9:31 PM GMT Wondering how long it'll go before we see a mirror of the directory industry issue when they were Google-slapped - differentiating paid placement / advertising from paid consideration. For example, a popular book blog might offer book reviews, generally for free. Let's say they offer a paid option that puts an author's book at the front of the line for a review. They're not advertising. They're not paying for the review. They're paying for the service of VIP positioning in the blogger's time - that's it. And Clint - Not sure if you're referring to the article or another comment, but the article at least is correct. They do mention the specific circumstance where Google penalizes paid posts (the lack of a nofollow attribute, so links influence rankings), and Google has indeed openly admitted it on several occasions. "We do take the subject of paid posts seriously and take action on them. In fact, we recently finished going through hundreds of â??empty reviewâ?? reports -- thank you for that feedback! "http://www.dullest.com/blog/sponsored-conversations/
Link to this comment

Clint Dixon May 20, 2009 8:49 PM GMT Google does not downgrade paid blog posts!!!!!! Where did you come up with that rubbish??? You cannot prove that fact at all. I guarantee that and will put $10,000.00 up. Google would never admit to such plus its only done to those trying to manipulate organic search listings.. You should be stripped of your typewriter / word processor for writing something you have no clue about.
Link to this comment

Samantha Steinwinder May 20, 2009 8:41 PM GMT I've managed the product reviews programs for many companies and dispute many assumptions here. First, I havenâ??t experienced dramatic differences between mainstream media and bloggers in how they handle product evals - as long as they're credible. Even MSM pubs with product review policies don't always follow them. I've sent many a product to well-known publications, with signed "loan" agreements, that took a one-way ride. Second, writers donâ??t always keep the goods themselves. Many return them, donate to charity (which I encourage), or provide in reader giveaways. Third, sending back and managing returns is time intensive and costly on both ends. Hundreds of products sitting in your office (reporters: you know who you are, Iâ??ve seen your offices) is a constant reminder that we all need more hands. Finally, one of the advantages of the blogosphere is the comments field. If a glowing review is unfounded, readers will call the blogger to task. This is why we love blogs: you're also hearing the voices of all those who paid for the product. And bloggers know that.
Link to this comment

Karen Alexander May 20, 2009 6:14 PM GMT For years a certain segment of the travel writing industry had accepted free rooms, food, etc. and then written articles that DO NOT disclose these perks. Why should bloggers be treated differently? Seems to me that it becomes a freedom of speech issue.
Link to this comment

Gunther Larssen May 20, 2009 2:51 AM GMT If this is news to anyone, I'd be shocked. Manufacturers have been sending products to reviewers for years. A review/opinion is often the result of using the product and at the end, readers expect some sort of thumbs up or thumbs down. Again, completely expected.If any consumer chooses to abdicate their product shopping to anyone with a blog, then that action is taken at their own peril.If a product is so bad that it requires cash/gifts/underhanded actions just to get attention, then it will die anyway in the marketplace when real consumers condemn it.Once bloggers had 'no skin in the game' as far as journalistic integrity, the entire blog effort was tainted. Any 8 year old can blog - therefore credibility is not mandatory. Experience is not required. Ethics are not mandatory.Print is still the leader in journalistic credibility for this very reason. "Internet 2.0" is just the some ol' online stuff with a different label. No extra self policing, no credibility checks, no trust. Sorry state of affairs...GL
Link to this comment

Julie Marsh May 19, 2009 9:55 PM GMT "they're writing about a sponsor's product and voicing opinions that aren't their own"That's a pretty harsh assumption, not to mention inaccurate and unfair. Respectable bloggers who have a loyal and engaged audience wouldn't compromise their content in that way. Painting all bloggers who have posted editorial reviews of products as having voiced "opinions that aren't their own" demonstrates a lack of understanding of the space. - Julie Marsh, themomslant.com
Link to this comment

BusinessWeek Staff Writer Doug MacMillan May 19, 2009 9:10 PM GMT Hi, I'm the author of this piece. I'd like to point out to readers that we've made a correction per feedback from Stephanie Precourt, one of the bloggers discussed in this story. Previously, we incorrectly published that in a recent blog post, she disclosed the fact that she received a baby carrier product free from the company after making certain positive comments about it. In fact, she was upfront with her readers that she received the carrier at no charge. In any case, the proposed FTC guidelines for blog endorsements do not specify where in an entry these disclosures need to be made, and from what I've seen of Stephanie's blog, Adventures in Babywearing, she meets the criteria that's been outlined by the government agency. By using her as an example, I was trying to illustrate that relationships with bloggers are becoming an increasingly valuable tool for some advertisers.
Link to this comment

Brad Hart May 19, 2009 7:58 PM GMT The FTC doesn't give a damn about consumers, they are simply trying to justify their continued existence. There are plenty of laws to protect consumers if they feel they were done wrong by. Furthermore the only people the FTC will hurt will be small bloggers barely covering their costs. We do not need a federal bureaucracy telling us what we must disclose, if we are going to let the FTC enforce their will we might as well drop our pants, grab our ankles and invite the FCC in to do what they do so well.
Link to this comment

Stephanie May 19, 2009 7:00 PM GMT If your readers were to read my actual post about the Ergo, they would see that I FIRST said that it was sent to me, and THEN I went on to talk about what I thought about it. NOT the other way around according to your second paragraph. --Stephanie Precourt (adventuresinbabywearing.com)
Link to this comment

Ed Dunn May 19, 2009 6:36 PM GMT What if the blogger belong to a venture capital firm or an attorney and use their blog to hype companies they have invested in? (Crickets...)
Link to this comment

Post your own comment about this story…