News

The FTC’s Freebie Rule

ice cream and stripes.jpgYesterday, the Federal Trade Commission ruled that bloggers must disclose any sort of payment for any sort of product reviewed or discussed on their blog.

It’s something I’ve tried to do, though we’ve never had an official policy on Fashionista. We get a fair amount of free stuff over here, in fact we probably get a handful of packages each week, but we only really post product reviews once obsessed, like with my new James Twiggy jeans, or confused, like that Lancôme vibrating mascara primer. More often than not, products come after we write about something we’ve discovered and fallen for on our own, as a thank you.

The New York Times wrote, “the move suggests that the government is intent on bringing to bear on the Internet the same sorts of regulations that have governed other forms of media, like television or print,” as if it’s a compliment; blogs are suddenly legitimate.

Which is great. Except that print publications, at least the ones we pay attention to, aren’t held to the same standards.

In fact, basically every element of a fashion magazine is free, from the clothes on the editors’ backs to the blonde dye in their hair. Banana Republic bracelets land in editorials because they’re major advertisers, not because the stylist thinks they’re perfect; the fragrance credit denoting the model’s Calvin Klein scent is silly, but it pleases the major advertisers; the beauty director might put Cover Girl’s mascara in the middle of her market pages even though she uses Dior, because, you got it, they’re major advertisers.

If a magazine was forced to disclose everything they received for free, they’d need to publish an entirely separate magazine. Before I worked in this industry, I didn’t have a clue how vast the freebie system was which makes me think the average reader’s also unaware. Whether an editorial can be classified as a review might be up for debate; but I’m sure more people take their styling tips from magazine editorials than blog reviews.

So what’s my solution? I’m not sure, but double standards make me squirm.

(Also, I know the picture’s irrelevant, but it’s pretty and there wasn’t another obvious choice.)

Comments

avatar
1

posted by guest

Oct 06, 2009 2:08PM

I like that you are addressing this issue, and starting a discussion on it. I don't like the "why do we have to do it if they don't have to do it" vibe. Full disclosure is the honest, ethical thing for you to do, and you should do it as a matter of course (official policy) not just as an incidental effort. Yes, magazines should do it too, but it doesn't really hurt your competitive advantage to do it even if they don't. And most people know that fashion magazines are one big advertisement anyway, and don't really see them as an independent news source, as they do blogs.

avatar
2

posted by guest

Oct 06, 2009 2:25PM

word. good piece..

3

posted by kawiline

Oct 06, 2009 2:26PM

Ugh hate double standards. Yeah, even without the rule so many bloggers mention when they are endorsing a paid product!

4

posted by bastylefilegirl

Oct 06, 2009 2:33PM

I agree with the double standard issue, and I think it's a little shady. My main issue with this new ruling is it's really vauge, really how will it be regulated?My fear is small blogs like mine will suffer companies will no longer want to deal with the "little guy" for fear of fines etc. If I get a product for free and talk about it on my blog I always give a nod and say thank you ( my way of disclosing) I also don't feel an obligation to write a review that is "I love it" " this is the best ever" because I got it for free either.

The thing that makes Magazines/Blogs (Web log/Diary) diffrent is for the most part a Blog is someones sole opnion and to assume they are writing a good/bad review of something because they got it for free is silly.

avatar
5

posted by guest

Oct 06, 2009 3:28PM

I agree with #1 -- most people understand mags are basically all about advertising. It's not always obvious, but I read them with a skeptical eye because I know advertising pays for their publication. I would *hope* that the beauty recommendations sections were legit, but you figure that it's not always on the up-and-up.

Blogs, though, do have a more independent, person-to-person/inside scoop vibe. It's not obvious to readers that you're being given freebies in the way it's obvious that mags are getting paid by advertisers. So, frankly I'm glad bloggers have to add disclaimers to their reviews now. No more "Wow, this rollerball wrinkle remover is awesome!" and having us all scratching our heads, wondering if you're being for real, or just trying to thank whomever sent you that package.

avatar
6

posted by guest

Oct 06, 2009 8:24PM

I agree with the double standard issue and also think its very shady. Yes we all know advertisers pay magazine's bills, but it goes deeper than that. As someone who has worked in the industry, I agree that the freebie system is more vast than the average reader knows. On my first internship I was able take home quite a bit of beauty products bc they were freebies given to the fashion and beauty dept by advertisers and were no longer needed after being shot.

I agree that this may deter companies from working with smaller independent blogs for fear of fines or some other such penalty. Also as an independent blogger, I know that I and most blogs I read do say something like "this came in the mail today" or "thanks for the..." as a means of disclosing that the product they are revieing was a gift. Also most bloggers I know don't just write up on a product bc they got it for free they talk about it bc they love the product.

avatar
7

posted by guest

Oct 07, 2009 9:13AM

While it may seem unfair to you, it is unfair to your readers not to tell them. The reality is, you probably blogged about a lot of things that came to you free that you would not have bought. Maybe the way to handle this is to write a policy on a separate page and put a link on top, and then use some shorthand on posts about items sent to you for free. I'm sure regulations will specify. But not only are you getting things for free (I strongly doubt that bloggers include the value of this free stuff as income for tax purposes), but when you blog about it, you are essentially telling people "buy it" - its relevant that they know that you are talking about something that you have been gifted. Once you accept free stuff, you are not "pure" like consumer reports (which does not accept advertising or free or discounted products), you are now part of the machine that convinces a person to buy one thing over another. By adding a notice on the free stuff items, you are, in a sense, preserving your integrity. I don't see why whether magazines have an explicit disclosure would affect your desire to do that.

avatar
8

posted by Holly

Oct 07, 2009 9:42AM

I have to admit I was naive to think that when you wrote about a product it was because you happened to come across it and loved it. And ,yes, what you write does have an influence on the reader. There are times when I shop for cosmetics and remember what I've read about them here.

I agree with #5 that blogs have an insider, *person to person* feel about them. I also agree that I'm more suspect of magazines because of the volume of advertisers and that quite a number of editorials are in fact *advertorials*.

My question for you is: what happens if you're gifted a product and it really sucks. How do you handle a situation like that?

avatar
9

posted by guest

Oct 07, 2009 10:24AM

#8 - if a blogger does not like a product, it's best to just not write about it OR disclose it was free and offer the opinion (the latter may cause tension with said brand) so most go with 'if you have nothing nice to say...'

avatar
10

posted by Holly

Oct 07, 2009 11:03AM

Fair enough.

11

posted by bastylefilegirl

Oct 07, 2009 2:24PM

#7 I think people who actually blog have already stated that some of us already disclose so the point your trying to make is a generalized one about all bloggers ....and all bloggers are not created equal. Again a blog is a weblog, a diary that is open for public view and if someone is to read MY diary and then go out and buy it because I like again because "I" like it regardless of if it's free or purchased by me is up to that individual. I like many other blogs I read have a disclaimer at the bottom of it stating that this blog is my "personal opnion".

avatar
12

posted by guest

Oct 07, 2009 10:19PM

I realize this is a fashion blog, but since we are talking about a much more general law, it's important for everyone to remember that this isn't just for fashion and beauty blogs created by 20-something individuals. I suspect that this idea was created at least in part with the idea of debt-relief services, financing companies, and the like in mind, as people with trusted reputations in economics could go freelance and blog, and promote services because of graft. But beyond that, just think about all the topics that blogs cover and the fact that many have entire staffs.

As for me, I work for a newspaper, and some stuff (books, mostly) is put out on a table for employees to take, but a lot of the free stuff is sold at the end of the year in a Christmas sale for the staff, with the money going toward a charity. The writers can't take home the stuff they report on. But newspapers have a decades- or even centuries-long history of ethical standards drilled into journalists through their schooling, internships, etc., not to mention a community reputation and the cache of newspapers in general to be accountable to. Not that journalists are all perfect, but perhaps that's part of the reason for the double standard (can't speak to magazines).

The point is, it's not all free makeup and clothes.

avatar
13

posted by guest

Oct 07, 2009 10:29PM

bastylefilegirl,
No insult intended to you. There are bloggers who blog favorably about a product and receive a benefit from the company. I remember, for example, reading about a design blogger who got a discounted kitchen partially in exchange for blogging the experience - he removed his posts about the negative portions of that experience from the blog. What if, for example, if a doctor prescribed medication for you, made by a company that gave him a vacation to attend a presentation about the medication, that he really believed in, but it cost more than the generic medication (the maker of which did not give him a vacation), you would not question whether his recommendation was influenced? how about if the context was a mortgage, or a car purchase, or a real estate transaction, or a broker? I don't think that saying "its my opinion" is the same - that's distinguishing it from "fact". Think about it like this - a club is considered successful if celebrities attend. Is it more or less successful if the celebrities only attend because it is free, or because they are paid? Do you still think the fact that celebrities were there was because they liked the club, or would you suspect that they might have liked the money, or that it was free? I'm sure that a blog like yours, that is personal and not commercially oriented, has a different aspect to it. there are a lot of "professional" blogs out there, however, and the level of disclosure is inconsistent. I think this is just evolution. Years ago, if you saw a coke in a movie, you didn't think it was paid for. But now, if you see a coke can in a movie, you think "product placement." I suspect this is an attempt to make the same distinctions clear regarding blogs. I also suspect, however, that the rules were not written for personalized diary blogs like yours, but I don't know = maybe it is recognition of how powerful bloggers, even personal diarists, have become. On a speed basis, blog posts are quicker and in some ways more durable than magazines, especially ones that don't free online content.

Post Your Comment