FTC’s forthcoming blogger crackdown: The ethics of product reviews in blogs
By Robert Nagle
Gwen Dawson refers me to a Deborah Yao story about how the FTC plans to issue guidelines about blogs that review consumer products and services: 
Many bloggers have accepted perks such as free laptops, trips to Europe, $500 gift cards or even thousands of dollars for a 200-word post. Bloggers vary in how they disclose such freebies, if they do so at all.
The practice has grown to the degree that the Federal Trade Commission is paying attention. New guidelines, expected to be approved late this summer with possible modifications, would clarify that the agency can go after bloggers — as well as the companies that compensate them — for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest.
It would be the first time the FTC tries to patrol systematically what bloggers say and do online. The common practice of posting a graphical ad or a link to an online retailer — and getting commissions for any sales from it — would be enough to trigger oversight.
The article sounds unduly alarmist (and in fact my personal experience is that individual bloggers are ethical people). The fact that it is so easy to game google makes it easy for SEO-savvy sites to fool people seeking information. The problem comes with sites that have commercial interests but which an unsuspecting user thinks is a legitimate news source. Many legitimate blogs wish to share information (technical specs, photos, press releases etc), even though they are being used by the company that produced it (and yes, these bloggers are aware they are being used). I am always amused to see the onslaught of lavish and uncritical coverage of the latest Apple device during the first few days after release; obviously at that point very few bloggers have actually held the device to have an intelligent opinion, but it’s relatively easy for a lazy blogger to repost stuff from other sources. (I consider Gawker Media the worst offenders of this practice and thankfully meta sites like Techmeme make it easier to identify which blog posts are meaningful and which are just fluff).
Another issue is the ethics of book reviewing. (See my Literary Disclaimers 101). With ebooks, book reviewers can receive review copies at no cost without feeling subtle pressures to write a positive review. We are not there yet; reviewers still prefer print books, but once online critics become more comfortable with digital copies, publishers won’t have to pay to print and mail uncorrected proofs; reviewers won’t have unread books stacking up in the living room, and smaller publishers won’t be handicapped by their inability to send out review copies.
Hypothetical Ethical question: You are a book reviewer for a well-known blog. Amazon offers to send you a free Kindle loaded with 300 bestsellers (by certain publishers who paid Amazon for the privilege). According to Amazon’s offer, you could keep Kindle on the condition that you publish a minimum of 1 review a month (positive or negative) on their blog for the next 12 months. Should you accept this offer?
June 27th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
The hypothetical is ethical if and only if the reviewer discloses they received the books and the Kindle at no cost. Disclosure makes these relationships ethical.
The requirement that one do reviews to keep the device is not necessary, as Amazon should be picking active reviewers for this kind of program. I’d drop the requirement that the reviewer write at all to remove the condition that makes this appear to be a quid pro quo.
Book reviewers have received books at no cost for years—in some cases, selling those books after finishing the review is a reviewer’s only writing income. It’s not going to change. The difference today is that “word-of-mouth” is so pervasive that customers should have all the information about why a reviewer choose to write what they do, even that they chose to write a review at all, including the fact the reviewer didn’t incur the same cost a reader would when buying the reviewed book or device.
Elsevier’s recent admission it had offered $25 Amazon gift cards for positive reviews of its academic books was clearly over the line, but the company also insists that it is appropriate to compensate a reviewer for any review they write. I don’t think that’s ethical, as it links pay to performance.
As an example, I’ve recently launched a blogger advisory council for Lenovo, which wants to learn more about bloggers, who represent an interesting new kind of computer user that is becoming increasingly common the world over. The company needs to be in dialog with these users and offers free systems for a year without requiring any blogging, though the bloggers are free to blog positively or negatively if the choose to do so. Members, such as Susan Polgar, who discloses her relationship with Lenovo here, could go all year without blogging and remain in the program if they have only shared their feedback privately about the product with Lenovo.
Lenovo’s blogger advisory council agreement requires disclosure, so that customers can factor in the potential influence of “free stuff” on the opinions expressed.
With full information, readers can make their own judgments about the reviews they read. No matter how ethical any blogger is, it is best to be completely transparent about any potential conflict of interest.
June 28th, 2009 at 10:17 am
RJN–
Good point about ebooks. Ebooks have lots of benefits, but I’ve never considered the additional benefit of keeping recipients of review copies honest.