New FTC Blogging Rules Discriminatory?
[Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. The following is just one un-educated opinion.]

The FTC is doing the right thing, mostly.
Everyone who blogs has heard about the new FTC rules regarding endorsements and testimonials by now. I have been reading and digesting this for a couple of weeks. Overall, I would say that the new rules will have a positive impact on the blogosphere, perhaps weeding out some of the more deceptive sploggers. That said, I also think there are some unfair requirements.
First the positive: Fake testimonials are repulsive. It's about time somebody cracked down on that. Fake reviews are similarly gross, especially when they review five products and are affiliates of all of them. The best review will invariably go to the product that pays the highest commission. Some of the most unscrupulous "bloggers" put up sites of no intrinsic value at all, designed only to sell stuff. (Actually, I have a blog like that myself (buyustuff.com), except I'm selling cool stuff and I'm trying to at least be entertaining about it.)
Another thing I really like about the new rules are the "disclaimers of typicality." This will weed out the get-rich-quick scammers with their, "Hey Bob, I made $35,000 last week thanks to your system!" testimonials. They will now be required to let potential suckers know that these results are not typical. That's a very good thing.
Outright deception is not how I roll, and it's not how any ethical blogger rolls. I choose products that I think are good. I don't over-hype them, but I do drop affiliate links. Under the new rules, I have to disclose my financial relationship with the seller because I'm endorsing the product.
That's not fair. This is why:
First of all, here is the definition of an endorsement:
[A]n endorsement means any advertising message (including verbal statements, demonstrations, or depictions of the name, signature, likeness or other identifying personal characteristics of an individual or the name or seal of an organization) that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experiences of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser, even if the views expressed by that party are identical to those of the sponsoring advertiser.
Sports stars get huge endorsement deals for products all the time. Do they have to disclose before every game? Doesn't a sports star wearing a certain brand of sneakers represent a "demonstration" of the product? Imagine the long announcement before games...
Derek Jeter gets paid by Nike to wear those shoes. He gets paid by Mossimo to wear those shades. Alex Rodriguez gets paid by...
Television shows and movies get paid for product placement all the time. Are they required to put a little arrow in the shot saying, "This is a paid product placement?"
In effect, that is exactly what bloggers are being asked to do. It's a double standard.
The FTC does acknowledge this discrepancy but waves it off by saying that most consumers know that celebrities get paid to endorse things, therefore it is not deceptive. Do not most blog readers know that bloggers get paid to sling product?
And this stuff about disclosing freebies for review is just hogwash. Bloggers now have to tell their readers when they get freebies for review, but the FTC explicitly leaves traditional media off the hook for that requirement (with no attempt at reasonable explanation, I might add). This is totally unfair.
If a magazine reviews a product that the manufacturer sent them for free -- which happens all the time -- they are under no obligation to disclose that they received a freebie. Bloggers do have to disclose that, even if they write an honest review and do not stand to gain financially in any direct way from the review. How fair is that? Not at all fair, that's how fair it is.
Overall, I'm pleased with the new regulations because a balance needs to be found on the Internet that allows people to make an honest buck but weeds out the many unscrupulous operators that have flourished in the past several years. But those same rules should apply congruently in real space and cyberspace.
The good news is that I can still tell you about awesome products like WebCEO and Comodo. I just have to let you know that it helps me out a little financially if you take my advice and give those products a shot.


One more thought...
... the ban on fake testimonials could be great for U.S. marketers because consumers will now be able to trust testimonials.
The Internet is international, though, and I wonder how many scammers in India and Romania will bother to adhere to the rules. Is the FTC going to expend resources to bring Romanian sploggers to justice?
It's good and it's bad. It's politics.
I agree that the new laws governing certain aspects of internet activity such as testimonials and reviews has some benefits. Benefits being that all law abiding American citizens must adhere to these new laws/rules thus providing a safer and more ethical internet browsing experience. On the other hand, you make a good point. This is the FTC not the WTC (World Trade Commission) and all the sploggers and unscrupulous cyber pickpockets are still free to roam with very little to worry about. I think it is a good start but any revamping of these new laws could lead to even more difficulties for the ethical law abiding marketers of the internet. Just my thoughts.
Post new comment