What The Geek

Have you ever gone to your favorite blog only to find that the author had written a glowing endorsement for a substandard product? There’s a good chance the author was paid for that article. It’s called word-of-mouth marketing, and thanks to the “wild west” nature of the internet, a lot of companies have been getting away with it for some time now. Behind closed doors, companies will often approach popular bloggers and offer cash or products in exchange for the blogger making some mention of the product (positive or negative) on their site. Unfortunately, many bloggers don’t have the decency to make any mention of the fact that they were paid for the post. The FTC has finally decided to step in on this issue. They plan to have paid blog posts governed by the truth in advertising guidelines they have set forth which would require the blogger to make it clear that they have been paid for their post. While I agree witht he FTC in principle, I want to see the fine print.

Let me be crystal clear here, I completely support the idea of having paid posts identified as such. What I’m concerned about here is the FTC’s definition of a “paid blog post”. Let me give you an example here. Let’s say I write a glowing review of inFamous for the PS3  (great game by the way), and every instance of the word “inFamous” in that article is an Amazon associates link. Now, neither Sony, nor developer Sucker Punch has offered me any money or freebies in exchange for this imaginary post, but I still stand to profit from it, so does that mean I’m in violation of the truth in advertising guidelines? Am I now subject to the wrath of the FTC?

From the FTC’s current guides concerning the use of endorsements and testimonials in advertising:

When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product which might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience) such connection must be fully disclosed. An example of a connection that is ordinarily expected by viewers and need not be disclosed is the payment or promise of payment to an endorser who is an expert or well known personality, as long as the advertiser does not represent that the endorsement was given without compensation. However, when the endorser is neither represented in the advertisement as an expert nor is known to a significant portion of the viewing public, then the advertiser should clearly and conspicuously disclose either the payment or promise of compensation prior to and in exchange for the endorsement or the fact that the endorser knew or had reasons to know or to believe that if the endorsement favors the advertised product some benefit, such as an appearance on TV, would be extended to the endorser.

In my imaginary scenario, the affiliate link could very well affect the weight of my endorsement – after all, if a lot of people click on my Amazon associates link and do some shopping, I stand to make money. The  place where this all gets muddy is the sentance “the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience”. Personally, I expect that any link to a place to buy a product is an affiliate link of some sort. My mom on the other hand, doesn’t even know what an affiliate link is. So where does that leave us? Which audience is this based on? What exactly constitutes the phrase “reasonably expected”? There’s enough gray area here that I’m not comfortable with these rules governing blogging in their current state. It’s also worth noting that, if affiliate programs were governed by these rules, most affiliate programs would have to change their TOS, as currently, most companies don’t really want you pointing out your ads to your visitors.

Let me run another scenario by you. A while back, several months before the launch of Metal Gear Solid 4 for the PS3, Konami (the publisher for those not in the know) invited a select group of journalists to spend the weekend at a lavish mountain top hotel in Japan previewing the game, and spending some quality time with Hideo Kojima, the man behind the Metal Gear franchise. Those jouranlists came back, and wrote (mostly favorable) previews of the game. Some of them made mention of their time in Japan, some stuck strictly to their experience with the game. While the time in Japan wasn’t specifically offered up in exchange for favorable previews, I’m certain it was understood by all parties involved that preview articles would be written. Konami never made a press release or any other public mention of this media event, and I never would have known it happened if some of the journalists present weren’t publicly open about the experience. While I’ll admit it’s a stretch, under the wrong circumstances, an event like this could be problamatic under the current guidelines governing truth in advertising.

I’ve mentioned the PS3 twice in this article….. prove that I’m not a Sony shill. These guidelines will be almost completely impossible to enforce, as the internet provides a very high level of anonymity. To enforce these rules, the FTC would be almost completely reliant on whistle blowers, and that could very well lead to a lot of false accusations by any given blog’s competition.

Like I said at the beginning of this article, I whole heartedly support the FTC in their quest to thwart word-of-mouth marketing, but the potential for collateral damage is just to great to ignore. Some very serious and specific revisions need to be made to their guidelines before I can fully support their sudden interest in the blogosphere.