Re: [videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
But blogs are self policing. They are not a push technology. They don't have giant multinational structures and teams of lawyers avoiding the law. I think the key here is that Blogs are self policing. That's why they're cool and that's why they're popular. People have the power to challenge a blog - on the air - so to speak. It would be like me watching Lou Dobbs then jumping his shit on the commerical break talking about how he's kowtowing to his parent company's customers. That cannot happen. It happens all the time on blogs. They might as well regulate the watercooler. Blogger's who shill get shellacked and lose the trust of the readers. Corporate Media is a shill period and, unfortunately, loses no trust because of it. Peace, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Oct 8, 2009, at 8:05 PM, Adrian Miles wrote: two wrongs don't make a right and if you want this to happen to perhaps the best way is bottom up, so if bloggers acted ethically then I think you are in a much stronger position to ask and expect it of others. But if someone won't do it until the other does then you've got exactly the issues we face with nuclear weapons, global warming etc where one side will not actually do the ethical thing simply because someone else won't either. On 09/10/2009, at 3:28 AM, Ron Watson wrote: I'd like to see disclosure on the Today Show when one of NBC's musicians performs, or when a movie comes out that they review that was produced by a GE subsidiary. I'd like to see disclosure on large clients of GE, or reporting on investments of GE Finance on CNBC. I'd like to see disclosure on Pentagon PR hacks doing their daily rounds on the Sunday shows. Disclosure of ADM as an advertiser on stories about GM foods from every network. cheers Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au Program Director, Bachelor of Communication Honours vogmae.net.au [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Nope. I used to work for a newspaper. Books were sent unsolicited by the publishers. Usually said PR folks and publishers that did not actually read the newspaper to know that a standard cookbook isn't going to be reviewed by an alternative newspaper. The books were free to review or not. Most time they wound up on a shelf after the book reviewers glanced through them and the staff was free to glean what they wanted. The books that folks wanted to review were either bought or acquired by other means. I would think at a major newspaper they get books by the truckload. Same concept with with music, movies and television screeners. Do they disclose that they get freebies? No. They didn't request the freebies and they are under no obligation to do so or use the materials. If a blogger requests freebies and writes favorably about the product that is an ethical question. If a blogger contracts with a PR firm to consistently write about goods and services for cash that is an ethical question. The same question when a bunch of television reporters get to go on paid for media junkets to review the new television season. Not sure they can afford to do that any more. Or travel reporters go on trips to Disneyland/Disneyworld. Why isn't that payola? Gena http://createvideonotebook.blogspot.com http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joly MacFie j...@... wrote: Here in NYC I occasionally read book reviews in reputable newspapers like the NY Times, New York Post etc. I'm yet to ever take notice of a statement - this book was supplied at no charge by the publisher - or something of that ilk, but I somehow have difficulty imagining those journals, or their writers, coughing up the cash for the review copies. Am I missing something? joly On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Tom Gosse bigdogvi...@... wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@...wrote: I don't think bloggers, on the one hand, can call for the same rights and privileges as the press, but then not want to actually be held to reasonable ethical standards. Well said! -- Tom Gosse (Irish Hermit) bigdogvi...@... www.irishhermit.com -- --- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
Re: [videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Sull - it applies to any blogger tho the law of popularity may determine who gets tracked. The larger your audience, the more likely. Adrian - beautifully stated and I thank you for that contribution. Gena - Interesting as I would not consider a review copy of a book to be all that persuasive as compared to receiving expensive tech gadgets to review. A book is cheap and getting the hard copy did generate that all important attention. Somehow because book reviewers get so many thatgo unreviewed, and their J-O-B is too review books, the energy on that is different for me. Aloha, Rox On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:02 AM, compumavengal compumaven...@earthlink.netwrote: Nope. I used to work for a newspaper. Books were sent unsolicited by the publishers. Usually said PR folks and publishers that did not actually read the newspaper to know that a standard cookbook isn't going to be reviewed by an alternative newspaper. The books were free to review or not. Most time they wound up on a shelf after the book reviewers glanced through them and the staff was free to glean what they wanted. The books that folks wanted to review were either bought or acquired by other means. I would think at a major newspaper they get books by the truckload. Same concept with with music, movies and television screeners. Do they disclose that they get freebies? No. They didn't request the freebies and they are under no obligation to do so or use the materials. If a blogger requests freebies and writes favorably about the product that is an ethical question. If a blogger contracts with a PR firm to consistently write about goods and services for cash that is an ethical question. The same question when a bunch of television reporters get to go on paid for media junkets to review the new television season. Not sure they can afford to do that any more. Or travel reporters go on trips to Disneyland/Disneyworld. Why isn't that payola? Gena http://createvideonotebook.blogspot.com http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Joly MacFie j...@... wrote: Here in NYC I occasionally read book reviews in reputable newspapers like the NY Times, New York Post etc. I'm yet to ever take notice of a statement - this book was supplied at no charge by the publisher - or something of that ilk, but I somehow have difficulty imagining those journals, or their writers, coughing up the cash for the review copies. Am I missing something? joly On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Tom Gosse bigdogvi...@... wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@...wrote: I don't think bloggers, on the one hand, can call for the same rights and privileges as the press, but then not want to actually be held to reasonable ethical standards. Well said! -- Tom Gosse (Irish Hermit) bigdogvi...@... www.irishhermit.com -- -- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com -- -- Roxanne Darling o ke kai means of the sea in hawaiian Join us at the reef! Mermaid videos, geeks talking, and lots more http://reef.beachwalks.tv 808-384-5554 Video -- http://www.beachwalks.tv Company -- http://www.barefeetstudios.com Twitter-- http://www.twitter.com/roxannedarling [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Well then. I'd like to see disclosure on the Today Show when one of NBC's musicians performs, or when a movie comes out that they review that was produced by a GE subsidiary. I'd like to see disclosure on large clients of GE, or reporting on investments of GE Finance on CNBC. I'd like to see disclosure on Pentagon PR hacks doing their daily rounds on the Sunday shows. Disclosure of ADM as an advertiser on stories about GM foods from every network. Ad nauseam. This whole thing is a joke, IMHO. The Nestle thing in someone or another's blog post is exactly how Bloggers and their undisclosed corporate sponsors should be handled - ridicule and peer/public review. Peace, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Oct 7, 2009, at 7:11 PM, compumavengal wrote: There are some bloggers on the other side of the fence, a few (small, minority) Parental bloggers have been shaking down PR folks for goodies, perks and pay for play. There have been raging debates about providing disclosure; i.e. tell your visitors you are receiving compensation. Inform visitors that the review, product or trip was given to you with expectations. Some have questioned why they need to do this. They feel it doesn't matter that they get stuff free or have streams of $10 to $50 coming their way. Ethics is not their concern, getting money and free stuff across the door and keeping their visitors. The money has priority with them. Some of the Parental bloggers are chalking the whole thing up to jealousy and interfering with their business interests. Special shout out to base level Internet marketers using blogs to sell their crap. Yeah, I want the FTC to visit some of those bastards. Not the ethical ones, just the scumbags. Many bloggers, myself included, want to know if you are on the take. Tell me upfront and I can make the decision to stick around, trust or take with a grain of salt. Don't do that and I find out you have been sucking at the PR/ Advertising tap and I will be disappointed. The same way I was when the Washington Post tried to sell their journalists for cash for that elite party of DC's finest, magazine advertorials labeled in 1pt type and a whole host of video pr news releases that are masked as news on local television stations. If you have a commercial blog you have responsibilities. This is one of them. Gena --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy markus.sa...@... wrote: On Oct 6, 2009, at 3:38 AM, elbowsofdeath wrote: I have not yet had time to read the full arguments of those who are against this, though I start from the position of viewing their stance with quite some skepticism. I think the handwriting on the wall is pretty clear: Make blogging something for only insured and licensed professionals under the guise of protecting people. markus [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Ron, that does happen, the public ridicule thing to bloggers going one toke over the line. One of the Parental bloggers got ripped a new one when it was discovered that she was on the take and did not disclose her paid affiliations. People do talk. http://www.responsibilityproject.com/blogher/ http://www.responsibilityproject.com/blogher_mmr/ I'm not disagreeing with you; there is a great deal of hypocrisy about going after bloggers before you go after news and entertainment programs. Product placement has gone berserk. Sponsorship of news segments as well. There are practices and regulations on the books about what you described. If they are not enforced for major media corporation then what is everybody getting so worked up about? There will be token bloggers snagged and then it will hit the vapors. This is an extension of what has been applied to traditional media. Ideally they will target corporate blogs masquerading as personal blogs and vlogs. Or not. I'm not defending the new regulations but I do know why it came into being. Because blogging is now recognized as an important communications medium. I guess I'm seeing beyond the regulations and looking at the larger message. Blogging is important. Blogging has not gone away; it is not a fad. The Feds have to be thinking What do we do about that? Should we do anything? If we make X require this why not bloggers/vloggers? The playing field is changing. So are the rules of engagement. P.S. Don't get me started on GE and its ties to health care/insurance. ;-) Gena http://createvideonotebook.blogspot.com/ http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com/ --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson k9d...@... wrote: Well then. I'd like to see disclosure on the Today Show when one of NBC's musicians performs, or when a movie comes out that they review that was produced by a GE subsidiary. I'd like to see disclosure on large clients of GE, or reporting on investments of GE Finance on CNBC. I'd like to see disclosure on Pentagon PR hacks doing their daily rounds on the Sunday shows. Disclosure of ADM as an advertiser on stories about GM foods from every network. Ad nauseam. This whole thing is a joke, IMHO. The Nestle thing in someone or another's blog post is exactly how Bloggers and their undisclosed corporate sponsors should be handled - ridicule and peer/public review. Peace, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Oct 7, 2009, at 7:11 PM, compumavengal wrote: There are some bloggers on the other side of the fence, a few (small, minority) Parental bloggers have been shaking down PR folks for goodies, perks and pay for play. There have been raging debates about providing disclosure; i.e. tell your visitors you are receiving compensation. Inform visitors that the review, product or trip was given to you with expectations. Some have questioned why they need to do this. They feel it doesn't matter that they get stuff free or have streams of $10 to $50 coming their way. Ethics is not their concern, getting money and free stuff across the door and keeping their visitors. The money has priority with them. Some of the Parental bloggers are chalking the whole thing up to jealousy and interfering with their business interests. Special shout out to base level Internet marketers using blogs to sell their crap. Yeah, I want the FTC to visit some of those bastards. Not the ethical ones, just the scumbags. Many bloggers, myself included, want to know if you are on the take. Tell me upfront and I can make the decision to stick around, trust or take with a grain of salt. Don't do that and I find out you have been sucking at the PR/ Advertising tap and I will be disappointed. The same way I was when the Washington Post tried to sell their journalists for cash for that elite party of DC's finest, magazine advertorials labeled in 1pt type and a whole host of video pr news releases that are masked as news on local television stations. If you have a commercial blog you have responsibilities. This is one of them. Gena --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy markus.sandy@ wrote: On Oct 6, 2009, at 3:38 AM, elbowsofdeath wrote: I have not yet had time to read the full arguments of those who are against this, though I start from the position of viewing their stance with quite some skepticism. I think the handwriting on the wall is pretty clear: Make blogging something for only insured and licensed professionals under the guise of protecting people. markus [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
two wrongs don't make a right and if you want this to happen to perhaps the best way is bottom up, so if bloggers acted ethically then I think you are in a much stronger position to ask and expect it of others. But if someone won't do it until the other does then you've got exactly the issues we face with nuclear weapons, global warming etc where one side will not actually do the ethical thing simply because someone else won't either. On 09/10/2009, at 3:28 AM, Ron Watson wrote: I'd like to see disclosure on the Today Show when one of NBC's musicians performs, or when a movie comes out that they review that was produced by a GE subsidiary. I'd like to see disclosure on large clients of GE, or reporting on investments of GE Finance on CNBC. I'd like to see disclosure on Pentagon PR hacks doing their daily rounds on the Sunday shows. Disclosure of ADM as an advertiser on stories about GM foods from every network. cheers Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au Program Director, Bachelor of Communication Honours vogmae.net.au
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Apply these rules to Politicians and you can count me in. I agree with Rupert. (shock, gasp) It seems they would like to impose regulations on free people that they begrudgingly impose on corporate society from time to time. The only truth in advertising is in the fine print where they tell why everything they've said in large print is bullshit. Solidarity, ~FluxRostrum current project http://MobileBroadcastNews.org ~ homebase http://Fluxview.com ~~~ NOTICE: NOTHING HAS CHANGED. Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection. ~~~ -- Powered By Outblaze
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
There are some bloggers on the other side of the fence, a few (small, minority) Parental bloggers have been shaking down PR folks for goodies, perks and pay for play. There have been raging debates about providing disclosure; i.e. tell your visitors you are receiving compensation. Inform visitors that the review, product or trip was given to you with expectations. Some have questioned why they need to do this. They feel it doesn't matter that they get stuff free or have streams of $10 to $50 coming their way. Ethics is not their concern, getting money and free stuff across the door and keeping their visitors. The money has priority with them. Some of the Parental bloggers are chalking the whole thing up to jealousy and interfering with their business interests. Special shout out to base level Internet marketers using blogs to sell their crap. Yeah, I want the FTC to visit some of those bastards. Not the ethical ones, just the scumbags. Many bloggers, myself included, want to know if you are on the take. Tell me upfront and I can make the decision to stick around, trust or take with a grain of salt. Don't do that and I find out you have been sucking at the PR/Advertising tap and I will be disappointed. The same way I was when the Washington Post tried to sell their journalists for cash for that elite party of DC's finest, magazine advertorials labeled in 1pt type and a whole host of video pr news releases that are masked as news on local television stations. If you have a commercial blog you have responsibilities. This is one of them. Gena --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy markus.sa...@... wrote: On Oct 6, 2009, at 3:38 AM, elbowsofdeath wrote: I have not yet had time to read the full arguments of those who are against this, though I start from the position of viewing their stance with quite some skepticism. I think the handwriting on the wall is pretty clear: Make blogging something for only insured and licensed professionals under the guise of protecting people. markus [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Well you are certainly correct that I am not from the US so my knowledge is somewhat limited, however I have witnessed enough ranting and drooling on the net about related issues in the past to have some vague idea about the kind of arguments that are made to support the special brand of capitalist freedom that many on that side of the pond seem to get excited about. Indignation about the idea that the government would regulate the web in any way does not get much sympathy from me when it is applied very broadly. Existing laws prevent people from doing all sorts of things on the web without the sky falling in. You cant stir up violence or call for murder or bloody revolution or sell quack devices or illegal drugs or indulge in complete fraud or child porn without falling foul of the law. The web has never been an unregulated new wild west, despite the hyperbole of some. I also dont buy into the idea that this will bury people in paperwork or legal fee's or whatever, these are guidelines which simply require people who indulge in commercial activity to consider disclosure and ethical issues properly instead of only being guided by their own moral compass. Good. The global nature of the web certainly complicates issues such as these but I doubt it will cause too many issues in this case. Certainly I feel that noble ideas about self-regulation, codes of conducts, the blogosphere policing itself because those who do not disclose will ultimately fall foul of public backlash and will soil their own brand are all well and good, but just as with wider notions of industry self-regulation, I raise my eyebrows and feel it is not enough. Anyways Im sure the last thing this group needs is for me to take us back to the bad old days where my loud opinionating and sometimes harsh tone lead to headaches and a giant waste of peoples time, so I shall zip my cakehole now. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.ded...@... wrote: I am pleased that the FTC has revised its guidelines so that they cover bloggers who do not disclose fee's or freebies they receive from companies: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8291825.stm I have not yet had time to read the full arguments of those who are against this, though I start from the position of viewing their stance with quite some skepticism. Thou shalt not shill without disclosure sounds fair enough to me. You dont know the US very well. Criticism stands on complete anger that the government would regulate the web at all. --Who's going to keep track? Who pays for this supervision? More bureaucracy. --Bloggers especially feel it's an attempt to limit their ability to take on big power by entrapping them in legal limbo by silly lawsuits. --it starts by regulating disclosure. what will be next? It'll get to the point where an individual person needs so much paperwork and legal help to blog that only big companies can afford it...thus taking away why the web has been cool. --The web is global territory. So if you (in England) dont disclose something on your blog, will the FBI come after you? Will they then get Scotland Yard to arrest you? This a brief rundown of worries. Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Sorry I am breaking my own claim that I would shutup already. I apologise as Ive blundered into a minefield without considering all of the issues properly before speaking. Apparently this stuff applies to twitter and other things too, so I really dont see the insured and licensed professionals things as a likely outcome of this sort of regulation. I dont buy slippery slope arguments easily, and certainly not in this case, though I would concede that it raises more issues than my initially dismissive musings suggest. Im sure some of the difficulties with balancing freedoms and rights is that one persons freedom may impinge on anothers rights. The term 'consumer protection' is used to argue for regulation, as a consumer dont I have the right to know if someone is blogging positively about a product because they are being paid or given freebies? Considering all is not squaeaky clean in the traditional media in this regard, and that one of the great hopes for blogging is that it would somewhat overcome the duplicity between the media and the entities they write about, why must we focus only on the negative freedom-destroying aspects of legislation when considering these things? Im not complaining about people discussing the freedom stuff and their concerns for the future, its simply that as there seems to be no shortage of people prepared to make such cases, I prefer to focus on any valid reasons that may exist for regulation. So trying to keep it to the narrow specifics of these particular FTC guidelines, is it really wrong that I should face a fine if I endorse products without disclosing that I am benefitting in some way? It doesnt seem like a large and murky minefield that would disuade many from blogging at all? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy markus.sa...@... wrote: On Oct 6, 2009, at 3:38 AM, elbowsofdeath wrote: I have not yet had time to read the full arguments of those who are against this, though I start from the position of viewing their stance with quite some skepticism. I think the handwriting on the wall is pretty clear: Make blogging something for only insured and licensed professionals under the guise of protecting people. markus [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Im not even sure the US would request it, let alone the UK grant it. We are after all talking about the sort of legislation where fines are used to disuade companies and corporations from indulging in certain practices when it comes to advertising and marketing, not exactly hanging offenses. Anyway whilst the extradition act is flawed in some ways, the courts do have some say in the matter, as seen when a Pentagon hacker with aspergers challenged this extradition. The challenge failed, but UK courts were at least involved. Im just reading the full FTC guidelines now, it seems pretty good, and Ive also seen plenty of positive comments about it (as well as many negative ones) on Twitter, some from US citizens, so lets not pretend that there is a clear split to the sides of this debate based on cultural differences. (Note that I am not accusing Adrian of this for obvious reasons, just happen to be tacking this detail onto the end of this reply). Cheers Steve Elbows PS. Hoorah the guidelines also remove the stupid 'these results are not typical' safe harbour clause for TV print adverts, no more extreme weightloss examples seeming like the norm if you dont read the smallprint. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@... wrote: ah yes, but presumably Blair at least left a court to determine this? in which case it is still reasonable to think that an English court is not going to extradite an English citizen for cash for comment in their blog :-) or can we expect extraordinary rendition for cash for comment bloggers? On 07/10/2009, at 2:19 AM, Rupert Howe wrote: Slightly beside the point, but sadly since 2003 the UK has had a one- sided Extradition Act in which the USA can demand the extradition of anybody without presenting prima facie evidence. Although the UK, of course, doesn't have the right to demand extradition of US citizens under the same terms. It was fast tracked through parliament in the name of fighting terrorism - though it has of course been used more often to extradite non-terrorist suspects. Another lovely part of Blair's proud legacy as W's bitch. cheers Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@... Program Director, Bachelor of Communication Honours vogmae.net.au
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Tom Gosse bigdogvi...@... wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@...wrote: I don't think bloggers, on the one hand, can call for the same rights and privileges as the press, but then not want to actually be held to reasonable ethical standards. Well said! -- Tom Gosse (Irish Hermit) Indeed, very well put. I miss the ethical debates here, which admittedly didnt get too deep as it pertains to videoblogging rather than text blogging, as I dont think there were too many examples of widespread non-disclosure at the time. I seem to recall we had a conversation about product placement in vlogs once or twice, has much changed in the intervening years, eg some dramatic examples of such things? Ho ho ho the new rules apply to celebrities too. Cheers Steve Elbows
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
From what I have read of the FTCs guidelines and stance so far, it mostly boils down to whether people are being mislead, and the regard that consumers have for different messengers is taken into account . eg if people dont trust journalists very much in the first place, or expect them to be distorting things for commercial reasons, then this is taken into account when considering how likely people are to be mislead, ie the capacity to mislead is reduced if the messenger is not trusted in the first place. When individuals blog on the net, there are not likely to be so many preconceived ideas, people may be more inclined to take them at face value, hence the need to disclosure of commercial relationships and suchlike. permit to speak' is rhetoric that just makes me laugh, thats not what this is about at all. Nobody has to get a license to speak, its just that they dont have freedom to say whatever they like without potential consequences, which is fine by me. We are never free from the consequences of words, whether its me being unpopular for things I say, or someone risking a fine for trying to promote things in ways that are potentially misleading. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert Howe rup...@... wrote: Ethical standards is funny in relation to newspaper journalism. I don't know many newspapers in the UK that have much in the way of real ethics, certainly not much in the way of morals. Sure, they have some house standards, and they are self-regulating in cases of extreme breach. But mostly it's just muckraking, partisan politics and sensationalism in the name of trying to stay afloat and not lose advertisers. Look through your newspapers today and tell me that they're being transparent about their advertising. A journalist in this group told me only last month about how his editor killed a story he was writing about a huge corporate crime solely because the criminals were big advertisers. I think maybe the US has a stronger myth of the noble journalist and truth seeking press. However true that is, I don't know - certainly I don't see much in the way of truth seeking editors and proprietors. So I don't see why people writing or publishing online have to be regulated at all, beyond existing laws. There will always be conmen and suckers, politicians and voters, papers and readers. Regulations like this don't change any of that, they're just something for politicians and civil servants to do. And how will this be enforced - whose permits would be monitored and taken away, and how? Surely it's a joke - but a lucrative joke, if your Permit To Speak costs you money to buy. And, in the end, Permits to Speak will be abused by people who don't agree with what you say. On 6-Oct-09, at 4:48 PM, Tom Gosse wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Adrian Miles adrian.mi...@... wrote: I don't think bloggers, on the one hand, can call for the same rights and privileges as the press, but then not want to actually be held to reasonable ethical standards. Well said! -- Tom Gosse (Irish Hermit) bigdogvi...@... www.irishhermit.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
What's the difference anyway? We are NOT talking about limiting free speech or regulating independent opinions. This rule is about regulating COMMERCIAL speech or speech that has been influenced by commerce. Yep, good points. I originally laid out the fears/anger in the US over the FTC announcement. As we all know, people in US dont always base their arguments on facts. There is simply a knee-jerk reaction against the government getting involved in anything. Hell, poor rural americans would rather get eaten alive by cancer caused by processed food and pesticides than have the government offer healthcare. As Roxanne says, this rule is aimed at Commercial interactions online. If it stays like this, it'l be fine...just like the blogosphere is fine with laws against spam and child porn. It's good to show some muscle when the govt does anything. Makes them think twice. Now go buy some guns: http://www.auctionarms.com/ Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Jay - Yes, people may choose jobs with cancer over healthcare; without transparency tho we don't know what we are choosing. BTW, a fam trip means the trip was financed by the tourism company and the arrangements were made and the connections created also by the company. Not only is it cash on the table, but also access to people and places, which is some cases (just like politics) is more valuable than money. R On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote: What's the difference anyway? We are NOT talking about limiting free speech or regulating independent opinions. This rule is about regulating COMMERCIAL speech or speech that has been influenced by commerce. Yep, good points. I originally laid out the fears/anger in the US over the FTC announcement. As we all know, people in US dont always base their arguments on facts. There is simply a knee-jerk reaction against the government getting involved in anything. Hell, poor rural americans would rather get eaten alive by cancer caused by processed food and pesticides than have the government offer healthcare. As Roxanne says, this rule is aimed at Commercial interactions online. If it stays like this, it'l be fine...just like the blogosphere is fine with laws against spam and child porn. It's good to show some muscle when the govt does anything. Makes them think twice. Now go buy some guns: http://www.auctionarms.com/ Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 -- Roxanne Darling o ke kai means of the sea in hawaiian Join us at the reef! Mermaid videos, geeks talking, and lots more http://reef.beachwalks.tv 808-384-5554 Video -- http://www.beachwalks.tv Company -- http://www.barefeetstudios.com Twitter-- http://www.twitter.com/roxannedarling [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Very much agree with Roxanne and what Jay just said. But for many of us blogger-types, it gets sorta murky. For large blogs with multiple staff, or for blogs like in Roxanne's example, where the blogger happens to be a travel blogger on a trip ... that seems fairly clear-cut to me. It's a business, you should disclose stuff. But not all blogs are that type of blog. My main blog, for example - I started out blogging about stuff I found interesting that was connected with my job, more to remember the cool stuff I found than anything. It's morphed into sort of a part-time job. I get speaking engagements because I blog. Publishers sometimes send me techie books to look at. Etc. I get it - it's a small business, and I make sure to say hey, they sent me a book or whatever. But it's been a lng trip between now and when I started. I know a lot of bloggers that mix business and pleasure, professional interests and family, and well - they're still in that murky middle area where policies like the FTC is going after ... wouldn't even dawn on them. That, plus the fact that there are like a gazillion blogs out there, makes this a hard thing to enforce, I think :-) David Lee King davidleeking.com - blog davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog twitter | skype: davidleeking On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Jay dedman jay.ded...@gmail.com wrote: What's the difference anyway? We are NOT talking about limiting free speech or regulating independent opinions. This rule is about regulating COMMERCIAL speech or speech that has been influenced by commerce. Yep, good points. I originally laid out the fears/anger in the US over the FTC announcement. As we all know, people in US dont always base their arguments on facts. There is simply a knee-jerk reaction against the government getting involved in anything. Hell, poor rural americans would rather get eaten alive by cancer caused by processed food and pesticides than have the government offer healthcare. As Roxanne says, this rule is aimed at Commercial interactions online. If it stays like this, it'l be fine...just like the blogosphere is fine with laws against spam and child porn. It's good to show some muscle when the govt does anything. Makes them think twice. Now go buy some guns: http://www.auctionarms.com/ Jay -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790 Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Spot on, especially the point in your blog about us being even more vulnerable to such things, not less. I think the same is also true of politics, the seductive trappings of power may overwhelm and corrupt those who have risen from the lower planes of disenfranchisement even more than those who are brought up, educated and indoctrinated to be managers/rulers. It can be easy to sneer at journalistic codes of conduct given the reality of that industry, but at least there is some idea of standards and a clear barometer by which failings can be measured, and those who have been educated to enter that field at least know some detail about the ethical minefield and so dont make the kind of jaw-dropping statements that some in the blogosphere have made when defending themselves against accusations of selling out. I dont want to mention names as that will only open open old wounds, but I can think of a couple of instances where such things emerged on this list years ago, although I think there was also an example of political non-disclosure which never got aired here in detail, boom boom Senator Edwards. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Roxanne Darling oke...@... wrote: Well I hate to disagree with some of you however I just blogged about this (again) this morning:It's Official: Bloggers Are Recognized by the FTChttp://www.barefeetstudios.com/2009/10/06/its-official-bloggers-are-recognized-by-the-ftc/ http://www.barefeetstudios.com/2009/10/06/its-official-bloggers-are-recognized-by-the-ftc/I see it from another side. If bloggers want respect, we have to stop acting like we are above ethics and can somehow police ourselves when no other group of humanity has demonstrated that ability. Do you not all see the payola that is everywhere in the blogosphere? Does that not bother you as the pure of heart I know so many of you to be? True Case in point: Well-know travel blogger writes on her blog that she was fired from her job. She bemoans the situation, says she didn't like it anyway, and os going to take a trip to Hawaii to clear her head. Her loyal and empathic readers give her the blog equivalent of you go girl! we support you taking you care of yourself. She then proceeds to blog lyrically about the cool places where she stays on multiple islands and the amazing (business) people she meets on her trip. No where does she disclose that her trip was a fam trip. A practice long ago abandoned by reputable travel writers. No where does she use the nofollow tag on all her links to so-called friends she met and products/services she used/bought on her trip. I think that is misleading and abuse of privilege. I also think it is unnecessary. Loyal readers will be happy she got the earned trip and will ignore themselves the built-in advantage one gives to gifts in cash or in kind. We don't like this practice when lobbyists take our congress people on vacations and we don't like it when said congress people claim not to be influenced. What's the difference anyway? We are NOT talking about limiting free speech or regulating independent opinions. This rule is about regulating COMMERCIAL speech or speech that has been influenced by commerce. Done. Aloha, Roxanne On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 6:56 AM, elbowsofdeath st...@... wrote: From what I have read of the FTCs guidelines and stance so far, it mostly boils down to whether people are being mislead, and the regard that consumers have for different messengers is taken into account . eg if people dont trust journalists very much in the first place, or expect them to be distorting things for commercial reasons, then this is taken into account when considering how likely people are to be mislead, ie the capacity to mislead is reduced if the messenger is not trusted in the first place. When individuals blog on the net, there are not likely to be so many preconceived ideas, people may be more inclined to take them at face value, hence the need to disclosure of commercial relationships and suchlike. permit to speak' is rhetoric that just makes me laugh, thats not what this is about at all. Nobody has to get a license to speak, its just that they dont have freedom to say whatever they like without potential consequences, which is fine by me. We are never free from the consequences of words, whether its me being unpopular for things I say, or someone risking a fine for trying to promote things in ways that are potentially misleading. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Rupert Howe rupert@ wrote: Ethical standards is funny in relation to newspaper journalism. I don't know many newspapers in the UK that have much in the way of real ethics, certainly not much in the way of morals. Sure, they have some house standards, and they are self-regulating in cases of extreme
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Its their own fault if it doesnt even dawn on them, let this be a long overdue wakeup call. The FTC look at all this stuff on a case-by-case basis anyway, they arent going to attempt to police this stuff down to the last blog or twitter, indeed a large point of updating the guidelines is to get most people to self-police because they wont have the excuse that they never even considered this stuff or that the guidelines didnt mention them. And for those who persistently mislead or just ignore the issue, well occasionally the book will get thrown at them, further raising awareness for everyone else. Im sure that a few genuinely murky areas may emerge where people may be justified in not knowing how to handle things, or where there seems to bean injustice, but overall after reading the guidelines I think quite a lot of sensible thinking has gone into them and for the majority of cases its quite straightforward. If I have understood the guidelines properly, one area that may spell trouble for certain corners of the blogosphere is that companies can be held to account if bloggers that they pay or give freebies to, make misleading claims about the products. Companies are advised to shield themselves from this stuff by taking some steps to limit this where possible, such as monitoring the bloggers they seduce, and not giving any more freebies to bloggers who make spurious claims about their products. The celebrity stuff brought a grin to my face as celebs can no longer rely on a 'I was just reading a script/sticking to my contract' defense if they are bullshitting about a product in certain specific ways. I consider all of this as fairly inevitable considering the changed nature of the distribution of these messages. Endorsers messages are no longer published only by the company who make the products, do the endorsers themselves are deemed responsible and will sometimes be held to account. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David King davidleek...@... wrote: I know a lot of bloggers that mix business and pleasure, professional interests and family, and well - they're still in that murky middle area where policies like the FTC is going after ... wouldn't even dawn on them. That, plus the fact that there are like a gazillion blogs out there, makes this a hard thing to enforce, I think :-)
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Anyway enough of my opinions, here are 3 examples from the guidelines that apply to blogging etc, as opposed to adverts, and hopefully clarify just what we are talking about here. They are taken from a few different sections near the end of this document: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005endorsementguidesfnnotice.pdf Example 5: A skin care products advertiser participates in a blog advertising service. The service matches up advertisers with bloggers who will promote the advertiser's products on their personal blogs. The advertiser requests that a blogger try a new body lotion and write a review of the product on her blog. Although the advertiser does not make any specific claims about the lotion's ability to cure skin conditions and the blogger does not ask the advertiser whether there is substantiation for the claim, in her review the blogger writes that the lotion cures eczema and recommends the product to her blog readers who suffer from this condition. The advertiser is subject to liability for misleading or unsubstantiated representations made through the blogger's endorsement. The blogger also is subject to liability for misleading or unsubstantiated representations made in the course of her endorsement. The blogger is also liable if she fails to disclose clearly and conspicuously that she is being paid for her services. Example 7: A college student who has earned a reputation as a video game expert maintains a personal weblog or blog where he posts entries about his gaming experiences. Readers of his blog frequently seek his opinions about video game hardware and software. As it has done in the past, the manufacturer of a newly released video game system sends the student a free copy of the system and asks him to write about it on his blog. He tests the new gaming system and writes a favorable review. Because his review is disseminated via a form of consumer-generated media in which his relationship to the advertiser is not inherently obvious, readers are unlikely to know that he has received the video game system free of charge in exchange for his review of the product, and given the value of the video game system, this fact likely would materially affect the credibility they attach to his endorsement. Accordingly, the blogger should clearly and conspicuously disclose that he received the gaming system free of charge. The manufacturer should advise him at the time it provides the gaming system that this connection should be disclosed, and it should have procedures in place to try to monitor his postings for compliance. Example 8: An online message board designated for discussions of new music download technology is frequented by MP3 player enthusiasts. They exchange information about new products, utilities, and the functionality of numerous playback devices. Unbeknownst to the message board community, an employee of a leading playback device manufacturer has been posting messages on the discussion board promoting the manufacturer's product. Knowledge of this poster's employment likely would affect the weight or credibility of her endorsement. Therefore, the poster should clearly and conspicuously disclose her relationship to the manufacturer to members and readers of the message board. Cheers Steve Elbows
Re: [videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
David - true it is sometimes murky and I myself am on the lookout as I am being paid at them moment by SOcial Media CLub (a nonprofit educational organization) to produce a series of conversations across the USA and Sydney about the current state of video. The campaign has a sponsor but the work is not about the product; it is about video. Nonetheless, it is a form of market research for the sponsor, RealPlayer SP. I append my tweets with [client] and now I actually feel bad for not telling this list about the events - your voices would be great ones to add to the conversation. There are 7 more events still to happen tho so I will start a new thread on that. With disclosures. :-) Steve - policies are helpful. Edelman, the PR firm that got blasted for sending two staffers across the USA in an RV to stay overnite for free in Walmart parking lots - as it was positioned as user generated content when i fact it was an early experimental social media campaign paid for by Walmart. They now require their bloggers to disclose the relationship between themselves and sponsoring brands. R On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:26 AM, elbowsofdeath st...@dvmachine.com wrote: Its their own fault if it doesnt even dawn on them, let this be a long overdue wakeup call. The FTC look at all this stuff on a case-by-case basis anyway, they arent going to attempt to police this stuff down to the last blog or twitter, indeed a large point of updating the guidelines is to get most people to self-police because they wont have the excuse that they never even considered this stuff or that the guidelines didnt mention them. And for those who persistently mislead or just ignore the issue, well occasionally the book will get thrown at them, further raising awareness for everyone else. Im sure that a few genuinely murky areas may emerge where people may be justified in not knowing how to handle things, or where there seems to bean injustice, but overall after reading the guidelines I think quite a lot of sensible thinking has gone into them and for the majority of cases its quite straightforward. If I have understood the guidelines properly, one area that may spell trouble for certain corners of the blogosphere is that companies can be held to account if bloggers that they pay or give freebies to, make misleading claims about the products. Companies are advised to shield themselves from this stuff by taking some steps to limit this where possible, such as monitoring the bloggers they seduce, and not giving any more freebies to bloggers who make spurious claims about their products. The celebrity stuff brought a grin to my face as celebs can no longer rely on a 'I was just reading a script/sticking to my contract' defense if they are bullshitting about a product in certain specific ways. I consider all of this as fairly inevitable considering the changed nature of the distribution of these messages. Endorsers messages are no longer published only by the company who make the products, do the endorsers themselves are deemed responsible and will sometimes be held to account. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, David King davidleek...@... wrote: I know a lot of bloggers that mix business and pleasure, professional interests and family, and well - they're still in that murky middle area where policies like the FTC is going after ... wouldn't even dawn on them. That, plus the fact that there are like a gazillion blogs out there, makes this a hard thing to enforce, I think :-) -- Roxanne Darling o ke kai means of the sea in hawaiian Join us at the reef! Mermaid videos, geeks talking, and lots more http://reef.beachwalks.tv 808-384-5554 Video -- http://www.beachwalks.tv Company -- http://www.barefeetstudios.com Twitter-- http://www.twitter.com/roxannedarling [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Yeah, I was killing time before leaving work and amping up the bad media / freedom of speech thing to give you an argument - take with salt :) But still... I don't buy the regulation here. Maybe my experience of bloggers is different from most, but I certainly don't trust them more or less than journalists. And what you talk about, Steve, with the inbuilt suspicion of journalists reducing the capacity to mislead, is equally true of bloggers, if not more. I don't detect a great surge of trust and love among other people I know for bloggers I look at probably 1000 new sites a week for my work, and most of the blogs I come across are spammy adsense-driven nonsense, running on freebies and linkbait. Needless to say, I pay them no attention. As for fams and freebies - they are the lifeblood of the PR industry - which acts as intermediary between manufacturer/advertiser and press. And they provide an astonishing amount of content for the press. An intelligent PR company understands that by demanding a tone from the journalist, you are undermining the piece that results. We're all smart enough to know the difference between a proper review and something that's either advertiser-driven or filler content. You don't need regulation for that. As for travel - Rox mentioned one blogger who didn't declare her Fam trip to Hawaii - media Fams are still going as strong as ever in the travel industry press. But there's an understanding between PRs and journalists in most of these cases - the PR needs the journalist to trust them to build a relationship, the journalist or especially the columnist needs their readers to trust them. Same is true for travel agents who get fam trips - see this: http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/blogs/2009/08/on-fam-trips-and-honesty.html If you trust bloggers and print writers, it's because you develop a relationship with them. If they gush about something and don't declare an interest, someone in the comments will call them on it. Their livelihood is harmed by having their reputation questioned - so they tend to pre-empt that, by declaring interests. If one of them abused trust by doing any of the things that Roxanne listed from the FTC site, they'd be risking more than just contravention of regulations. And anyway, in any of those examples - short of a blogger recommending that someone else do something that harmed them, on the basis of a paid post - I don't see how someone could be realistically prosecuted. And surely unenforcable law is bad law - apart from the fact that it creates a false sense of security. If you think people need to be protected from being stupid and believing everything they read, I'm not sure regulating blog content is the way to change that. In the end, you trust bloggers who are honest about the bad aspects of the free stuff they're sent, or free trips they get. I know plenty of bloggers who get sent oodles of gadgets for free - just like tech journalists for print publications. The proof of their worth is in their balanced reviews. Again, regulation isn't going to change that. Surely all this kind of regulation would do is make money for lawyers and lawmakers? I don't know - I guess I'm missing what's getting you all so excited about this. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 6-Oct-09, at 5:56 PM, elbowsofdeath wrote: From what I have read of the FTCs guidelines and stance so far, it mostly boils down to whether people are being mislead, and the regard that consumers have for different messengers is taken into account . eg if people dont trust journalists very much in the first place, or expect them to be distorting things for commercial reasons, then this is taken into account when considering how likely people are to be mislead, ie the capacity to mislead is reduced if the messenger is not trusted in the first place. When individuals blog on the net, there are not likely to be so many preconceived ideas, people may be more inclined to take them at face value, hence the need to disclosure of commercial relationships and suchlike. permit to speak' is rhetoric that just makes me laugh, thats not what this is about at all. Nobody has to get a license to speak, its just that they dont have freedom to say whatever they like without potential consequences, which is fine by me. We are never free from the consequences of words, whether its me being unpopular for things I say, or someone risking a fine for trying to promote things in ways that are potentially misleading. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert Howe rup...@... wrote: Ethical standards is funny in relation to newspaper journalism. I don't know many newspapers in the UK that have much in the way of real ethics, certainly not much in the way of morals. Sure, they have some house standards, and they are
[videoblogging] Re: FTC rules on blogger Payola
Well I think I understand what you are saying, and agree with some of it, except the idea that this stuff is not enforcable, not sure what makes you think that? The FTC has teeth, companies are prosecuted under previous rules so why should the new rules be any different? I mean they arent going to go after every single violation, but I dont think they will have too much trouble making charges stick in most cases they do go after. And as I already mentioned, I think that a lot of people companies will now be proactive and avoid violating the rules in future, which is a result. I seem to recall one company that got a bit carried away on this list and elsewhere with its hype, and when I did a google blog search I turned up evidence that they had been posting on various forums in misleading ways. Well just as anti-spam regulation has hardly eliminated spam, some will continue such practices, but I suspect that companies that want to appear legit will now think extra hard before trying those sorts of stunts in future. Im not defeatist about the merits of regulation just because it is not completely effective. Advertising in general still has plenty of bull involved, but regulation has tamed some of the worst excesses and is surely better than nothing. And when the FTC is trying to shield the consumer from certain practices, they do not assume that everyone is sophisticated in their understanding of who to trust. And just because there are some gaping holes in attitudes towards policing traditional media, thats no excuse for leaving new media wide open to abuse. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert Howe rup...@... wrote: Yeah, I was killing time before leaving work and amping up the bad media / freedom of speech thing to give you an argument - take with salt :) But still... I don't buy the regulation here. Maybe my experience of bloggers is different from most, but I certainly don't trust them more or less than journalists. And what you talk about, Steve, with the inbuilt suspicion of journalists reducing the capacity to mislead, is equally true of bloggers, if not more. I don't detect a great surge of trust and love among other people I know for bloggers I look at probably 1000 new sites a week for my work, and most of the blogs I come across are spammy adsense-driven nonsense, running on freebies and linkbait. Needless to say, I pay them no attention. As for fams and freebies - they are the lifeblood of the PR industry - which acts as intermediary between manufacturer/advertiser and press. And they provide an astonishing amount of content for the press. An intelligent PR company understands that by demanding a tone from the journalist, you are undermining the piece that results. We're all smart enough to know the difference between a proper review and something that's either advertiser-driven or filler content. You don't need regulation for that. As for travel - Rox mentioned one blogger who didn't declare her Fam trip to Hawaii - media Fams are still going as strong as ever in the travel industry press. But there's an understanding between PRs and journalists in most of these cases - the PR needs the journalist to trust them to build a relationship, the journalist or especially the columnist needs their readers to trust them. Same is true for travel agents who get fam trips - see this: http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/blogs/2009/08/on-fam-trips-and-honesty.html If you trust bloggers and print writers, it's because you develop a relationship with them. If they gush about something and don't declare an interest, someone in the comments will call them on it. Their livelihood is harmed by having their reputation questioned - so they tend to pre-empt that, by declaring interests. If one of them abused trust by doing any of the things that Roxanne listed from the FTC site, they'd be risking more than just contravention of regulations. And anyway, in any of those examples - short of a blogger recommending that someone else do something that harmed them, on the basis of a paid post - I don't see how someone could be realistically prosecuted. And surely unenforcable law is bad law - apart from the fact that it creates a false sense of security. If you think people need to be protected from being stupid and believing everything they read, I'm not sure regulating blog content is the way to change that. In the end, you trust bloggers who are honest about the bad aspects of the free stuff they're sent, or free trips they get. I know plenty of bloggers who get sent oodles of gadgets for free - just like tech journalists for print publications. The proof of their worth is in their balanced reviews. Again, regulation isn't going to change that. Surely all this kind of regulation would do is make money for lawyers
