Don't blog on me
Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission revised its decades-old "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials" to include bloggers, Galley Cat reports. Essentially, the FTC is urging any and all bloggers who review any type of product, from a Sham-Wow to a book, to disclose the relationship of the reviewer to the company who makes the product. If you write a favorable book review, for instance, the FTC expects your readers to know that you were compensated for the favorable review by accepting the product for free. The FTC views any free items given to a reviewer as "compensation", even for advanced review copies(ARCs) of books.
So let's say a publisher sends you an ARC to review, and that publisher already has ad space on your page, then you like the book and review it positively, the FTC could fine you $11,000 for not disclosing your 'compensation'. If you don't like the book, the FTC won't mind. In the case of an Amazon ad on your page, and the book that you're reviewing is available for purchase at Amazon (what isn't?), though it wasn't sent to you from Amazon, and you positively review the book, then as I understand it, the FTC could keep an eye on you. WTF, FTC.
The real hullabaloo, in addition to the $11,000 fine, is that the FTC differentiates between print and blogs and grants print media the right to not disclose because of the presumption of objectivity(false). So a book review in Publisher's Weekly, say, can have an ad on the same page from the publisher of the reviewed book and that is OK. Since blogs are inferior (as indicated by the current state of print) and without an approved code of ethics, all bloggers are grafters and payola takers. The FTC has no idea how hard it is to review a bad book in a positive light, and they seem to discount the swift discreditation that happens from peers and readers when you write crap, not crappily cuz that's gonna hapn, but pure crap.
Crap, like what the Bureau of Consumer Protection representative Richard Cleland seems to know about blogs and book reviews. He suggests "returning" ARCs so there is no confusion over compensation. This "civil but heated" interview with him by literary blogger Edward Champion might not clear things up but it will show what's at stake. Cleland has arguments for imposing fines on bloggers who are pretending to be objective reviewers when in fact they are paid by the sponsor company. "“If there’s an expectation that you’re going to write a positive review,” said Cleland, “then there should be a disclosure.”(excerpted from the Champion interview.)
There should be some transparency, yes, but the government doesn't need to baby its people. If you make a purchase based off of one blogger's review, then you deserve what you get. Hustle is the American way.
It sounds as if the FTC is targeting advertisers moreso than bloggers and that the new guidelines are a work in progress. For book reviews, the law is troubling because it may further hamper a dying segment of entertainment coverage. The entire book reviewing process, with its advance buzz based on reviews, accounts nearly entirely for a book's success. As deformed as the publishing business model is, the ARC process (and now tied-in with video!) seems to be the only way to introduce books to readers. How would small indie presses compete with big guys for front window space in the big bookstores?
For more details, check out the interview and especially the comments, which raise a lot of great hypotheticals. The literary blogosphere is atwitter, and that's no tweet.
Comments
Transparency, yes, of course. But does the restaurant and nightlife editor of every newspaper in town disclose every time they score a drink on the house? And more importantly, would their reviews and write-ups be as valued if they did?
There's a fine line between being transparent and being ridiculous. And the FTC hasn't found it.
Well put. Did you see the part in the interview about movie/theater reviewers getting access to screenings, premieres and opening nights? It's the same idea and the FTC says it doesn't count because it's not a tangible product. There's been more than one time where I would've taken a meal or a drink or two over a book.
Well argued, my friends! It warms the cockles of my heart to see your thoughtful, well-written sentences. But goodness gracious mercy me! Nobody reads anymore anyway, except John Grisham crap! As we continue our evolution into Boobus Americanus (along with our slippy-slide into cultural and aesthetic bankruptcy) all the good stuff has gone underground. Good information, though, for those of us trying to make a living using the written word. I say stick it to the Man (and his lawyers) in their most sensitive spots!
This is pure Democrat drivel. Doesn't the government have enough to do? Seriously, who cares if someone likes a book? You are not going to like it until you read it anyway. This is just stupid. However, good article. Thanks!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!