Bloggers to declare reviews!!

[TheRumelier]

Just saw this story online, you will have to be careful now guys!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33177160/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets

[Arctic Wolf]

Well that is most interesting. Up to now issues like that had no affect on me, but I have started to receive free bottles and samples, so I guess I had better include a little acknowledgment within each of my reviews going forward.

Thanks for bringing this forward my friend. glass.gif

[Rum Runner]

This should only affect bloggers located in the USA. The FTC has no jurisdiction elsewhere.

[Count Silvio]

lol?

[Tiare]

It only affects bloggers in the US.

So far i have sometimes written a disclosure and sometimes not.

party2.gif

[Arctic Wolf]

I am not so sure this affects only bloggers in the USA. Consumer protection policies and rules have a way of being adopted by other countries.

And what if your Blog is republished in the USA. Then I would assume the publisher would have to follow the new guidelines. I would even think that if you add links to a message board in the US to a review you do elsewhere, then there is a case for the guidelines to apply.

Besides I actually believe that the FTC is on the right track. Honest disclosure is probably in everyone's best interest.

[Count Silvio]

To placate such fears, Cleland said the FTC will more likely go after an advertiser instead of a blogger for violations.

I would just like to ask how they intend to "catch" a violating blogger and furthermore provide substantial proof the blogger is indeed violating a law.




Yep.




Exactly.

[Rum Runner]

The bottom line in this report from Information Week (http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/web2.0/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=220301064) follows.

"Whether the FTC will be able to effectively police millions of online posts and comments remains to be seen. The FTC's published discussion of its rules indicates that the agency will rely mainly on self-regulation, with enforcement action only in the most egregious cases, much as it does in dealing with online fraud."

Information Week has not reimbursed me in any way for posting their link.:)

[Count Silvio]

Even if they managed to monitor millions of posts they wouldn't have any way to prove any of them illegal nor would they have a legal way to investigate the legality of said postings. Only way for someone to get caught is to confess doing an illegal act in this matter I think.

[TheRumelier]

Information Week has not reimbursed me in any way for posting their link.:)

Jim, did you have permission to use their link??:o
The land of the free is becoming the land of the big brother and way too many regulations.
Seriously, I think you guys will have to send all your free samples to me now and I will review all the rums for you so that you do not have to pay the $11,000 fine.party1.gif

[Count Silvio]

Jim, did you have permission to use their link??:o
The land of the free is becoming the land of the big brother and way too many regulations.
Seriously, I think you guys will have to send all your free samples to me now and I will review all the rums for you so that you do not have to pay the $11,000 fine.party1.gif

I can help you at this Rumelier.

[Edward Hamilton]

After reading about this on the MSNBC link above I wasn't surprised to see the following ad below the text.

New York - Mom Lost 47lbs Following 1 Rule
I Cut Down 47 lbs of Stomach Fat In A Month By Obeying This 1 Old Rule
RachelRayBlogs.com (http://www.rachelrayblogs.com)


While it appears that the intent is to limit false advertising concealed as blogging or journalism, MSNBC is quite happy to take advertising $$ from what has been spoofed to appear as a high profile blogger, 'Rachael Ray,' for what are clearly not typical results.

At the bottom of the 'blog-ad' is a disclaimer in slightly contrasting font-color.

Information on this is provided for informational purposes only and is taken directly from the marketing and product information furnished by the manufacturer. Testimonials of individuals shown may be of fictitious persons or paid models and are not necessarily users of these products.

So much for journalistic integrity and the FTC's attempt to control it.

[Rum Runner]

After reading about this on the MSNBC link above I wasn't surprised to see the following ad below the text.

New York - Mom Lost 47lbs Following 1 Rule
I Cut Down 47 lbs of Stomach Fat In A Month By Obeying This 1 Old Rule
RachelRayBlogs.com (http://www.rachelrayblogs.com)


When I read that link above I noticed that "Alyssa" stated she is from Caguas, OO. Caguas is the town in Puerto Rico where my ISP is located. I guess their software doesn't recognize the US Postal abbreviation of PR. So they just filled in "OO".

National Public Radio recently aired a piece in their "On The Media" program about the recent FTC regulations (http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/10/09/07).

[Dood]

For what it's worth, the FTC is unlikely to do much of anything to any bloggers.

That shouldn't be the concern. The concern, as a blogger, is that part of the lifeblood of my site is product samples.

While the FTC is not likely to do anything, once these regulations go into effect, any company doing business in the US now has to ask themselves if sending me a sample of their rum, book, or bartending tool is worth the $16,000US risk.

I'm not worried about being fined, I'm worried about losing access to product.

I had already been working on a disclaimer (http://rumdood.com/policies-disclaimers/) about the fact that some of the reviews and product mentions on my site are of samples provided to me anyway, so I just made it a little more explicit and directed readers to always assume that any product mentioned on the site was provided to me at no cost for the purposes of review.

It is the policy of Matt Robold and RumDood.com to solicit and/or accept samples provided by 3rd parties for the purposes of review and education on this website (see below). While not all products discussed on this site have been provided by 3rd parties, readers of RumDood.com should assume – unless it is declared otherwise – that any product that is reviewed on this site has been provided by a 3rd party. These 3rd parties may or may not be agents of the producers of said products, and are required by Federal Trade Commission guidelines to declare and disclose that they have provided this site with samples.

Provision of samples does not constitute a purchased endorsement of any product by this site. All reviews – positive or negative – are the opinion of the author of the review. Positive reviews or mentions are not provided on any quid pro quo basis, and any attempt to engage in such an arrangement will result in the product being banned from this website.

Incidentally, since I've already been asked by a few bloggers, if you have a blog and want to borrow any of the language here, feel free to do so, but understand that I haven't had this officially vetted by anyone.

[Tiare]

Yes, the disclaimer is good and better safe than sorry.