Bio
Son-Noah.Daughter-Berit. Dog-Uma Thurman. One of my first assignments as a TV reporter in 1973 was to get an interview with Elvis Presley. Obviously,...
 
 
 
 

What’s Hot on BlogHer.com

Online Reviewing May Be Dangerous To Your Bottom Line. FTC Says Bloggers Can Be Liable

  • Share This Post
  • submit
  • 8
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

For the first time since 1980,the FTC is changing it's guidelines and it could have a chilling effect on bloggers who write online reviews. The new guidelines basically say "word of mouth" advertising is not exempt from truth in advertising laws. According to the Financial Times, the main target of the new guidelines appears to be the widespread practice of viral marketing in which companies recruit non-employees to talk up products in exchange for samples or promotions. Under the new proposed regulations which are expected to go into effect,bloggers will be held liable for statements they make about products.

If a blogger received a free sample of skin lotion and then incorrectly claimed the product cured eczema, the FTC could sue the company for making false or unsubstantiated statements. The blogger could be sued for making false representations. “This impacts every industry and almost every single brand in our economy, and that trickles down into social media,” said Anthony DiResta, an attorney representing several advertising associations.                                                               Financial Times

Advertisers are none too pleased, saying the new rules are "too stringent." and thatit will" stifle innovation" in social media. Does anyone really believe that? While the new rules may have a chilling effect temporarily, if the Infomercial industry is any indication,the FTC doesn't have the resources to enforce the regulations it already has on the books. BookCover,But, Wait There's More, According To Remy Stern's But Wait- There's More!( which I read on my iPod Kindle Application, Thank You Denise),The FTC typically fines less than 10 infomercials each year for false claims. That's less than 10 out of 300,000 infomercials that air each year in the United States and Canada. That,however, may be changing. In the past couple of months,infomercial marketer Kevin Trudeau and QVC were fined millions of dollars for false advertising. Trudeau was ordered to pay $37 million for violating an FTC order.That's the amount consumers spent on his book, The Weight Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You to Know About. He's been banned from TV for three years. Of course, a previous conviction in the '90s banned him from infomercials for life except for information infomercials. That isn't stopping him from publishing and selling his books. His latest -Debt Cures They Don't Want You To Know About is available on Amazon.Karen Oakes of the Debt Law Network has an extensive review which she doesn't pan the book. In reporting the QVC fine, The ShoppingBlog.com quotes QVC as saying they don't believe the programs were deceptive but they were accepting the fines to avoid further legal fees.

The settlement requires West Chester-based QVC to pay $6 million to consumers who bought the products and a $1.5 million civil penalty. [...]According to the Commission, QVC aired approximately 200 programs in which false and unsubstantiated claims were made about For Women Only weight-loss pills; Lite Bites weight-loss food bars and shakes; and Bee-Alive Royal Jelly energy supplements. In addition, the complaint charged that QVC violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by making unsubstantiated claims about Lipofactor Cellulite Target Lotion.

Meanwhile, in the same guideline change that will impact online reviews,The FTC just changed the rules of how advertisers can use testimonials. From now on, advertisers have to show "typical results" instead of the approach used now, "individual results may vary." Think Jared in those Subway spots.

Under the new rule, marketers using, say, body builders to advertise weight loss pills are also going to have to show an average lardass whose results might be more typical. You can guess how advertisers are reacting to the change... The revisions have drawn sharp criticism from product manufacturers, advertising agencies and trade groups who say it is the "aspirational" theme of their ads that motivates consumers to purchase their goods. Show less than the ultimate achievement, they say, and consumers are less likely to buy.

As some who is in search of the perfect stain remover--can someone tell me why the builders put white carpeting in my town home?-- I have a cabinet full of promises. It would be so nice to find a product that actually works. Of course, I was introduced to OxyClean via an infomercial and that has become a standard in my laundry room. But, I am also the owner of Mighty Putty ( didn't fix the handle on my beloved coffee mug that broke)  ShamWow the Magic

  • 8
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Philbo 5 pts

Great article Elana,

Having been involved in the discussions leading up to these FTC actions, please forgive me if I sound miffed a bit.

Many warned of the ramifications of sponsored reviews and the ways in which they should have been handled long before the FTC jumped in.

I guess my question is; "How come anyone is surprised?" Better yet, with the obvious and rather blatant "how to" circumvent the rules advice going around, has anyone considered the FTC can read?

My view on all this, in the end, is that selling big, fat, juicy, lies is something that probably should go out with the bathwater. Especially since we are obviously not as smart as we should be where products are concerned.

You do a great job of informing peeps Elana, keep it up gal.

Always,

Phil Butler
Managing Editor - Everything PR News
Senior Partner - Pamil Visions PR

Latoicha 5 pts

This is a great article!

I am of the opinion that rules are needed regarding blogger endorsement reviews.  Many (not all) bloggers do receive free products and or cash to write a favorable review for the advertiser and do not disclose the financial relationship.  Not disclosing the financial relationship does not give consumers the opportunity to make an informed decision about the quality of the product.

In addition, advertisers should substantiate claims they state about their products.  It is only fair to the consuming public.  I know many advertiser feel that this bill will hinder the sale of their products.  However, I disagree. If your product is a quality item, it will sell itself.

I wrote an article about this very subject and made some suggestions on how bloggers and advertisers can minimize liability.  Here is the link:  www.phillipsgivenslaw.com ( http://www.phillipsgivenslaw.com ).

Latoicha Givens

www.luxetips.com ( http://www.luxetips.com ), Every Woman Deserves to Live the Luxe Life!

www.phillipsgivenslaw.com ( http://www.phillipsgivenslaw.com ), Intellectual Property 101

kylinsmom 5 pts

Should bloggers be fearful? Only if they lie. If you're honest and informed as a business model, it's irrelevant.

I also don't see doing only "positive" reviews on a blog any
different than the product roundups in the front of the print magazines
(Parents magazine Goody Blog and product pages comes to mind.) As long
as there has been media, there has been positive features done on
products. As long as bloggers are selective about what they "review"
and never assume anything other than the truth, they should be fine.

I will agree that we as bloggers have (and always had) a
responsibility to get as much information from the manufacturer or PR
company as possible to relay accurate info to our readers.
Fact-checking is a must.

Linsey Knerl

Blogging about finance for real people ( http://www.wisebread.com ), and raising 4 little humans as I go!

Shelly Kneupper Tucker 5 pts

I imagine that salesmen have been exaggerating their pitches since the first huckster sold "T-Rex salve to boost masculine performance." I'd love to think there could be truth in advertising, but the "truth" is that folks will try to get you to believe anything so you will pull out your wallet.

It's a shame that the FTC has to resort to making a ruling to require truth, but I say, "Good on 'em."  As for bloggers doing reviews, I agree with Rita.  Use a product before you review it, tell the truth as you know it ... and then your conscience can rest easy.

The real problem with those infomercials lies with us, the consumers.  We don't have to believe everything we hear.  As consumers, we can make liberal use of the "off" button on our television, and learn a simple word: "no."  If it sounds too good to be true, then it usually is.

But, Elana, if you are dying to spend some cash, I have some oceanfront property in Oklahoma that might interest you :-)

Shelly Kneupper Tucker

Rita Arens 7 pts

It's about time, I say. If you're telling the truth about the product you review (that is, if you actually use them, then tell the truth about them), you have NOTHING TO FEAR.  Just don't exaggerate and be clear about what you thought and why, and everything will be fine.

I'm incredibly relieved this is happening, actually. It'll clear the air in a much-needed way.

Rita Arens writes at Surrender Dorothy ( http://surrenderdorothy.typepad.com ) and BlogHer and is the editor of Sleep is for the Weak ( http://tinyurl.com/9pg62e ).

Virginia DeBolt 5 pts

I want to recommend my latest book. It will make you brilliant, cure disease, create perfect skin, make you attractive to the sex of your choice and show you the way to riches. Really.

Virginia DeBolt@vdebolt
BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/virginia-debolt )
Web Teacher ( http://www.webteacher.ws/ )
First 50 Words ( http://first50.wordpress.com/ )
( http://twitter.com/vdebolt )

Maria Niles 5 pts

Meanwhile, in the same guideline change that will impact online reviews,The FTC just changed the rules of how advertisers can use testimonials. From now on, advertisers have to show "typical results" instead of the approach used now, "individual results may vary."

I've been looking lately at a number of online marketing efforts of authors, coaches, teachers, etc... and many use testimonials to sell their products and services. I've noticed some put disclaimers on the testimonials. I wonder if this new rule you cite will require them now to have testimonials that read something like "Meh, didn't change my life."

Very interesting news. Thanks for this post, Elana.

BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/maria-niles )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer )
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ )

Gena Haskett 6 pts

One of the things that bothered me in his informercials is that he made them like a news program or talk show. I had remembered his prior commercials and knew he was a sales man.

But if you aren't media literate and watch his ads most don't know they are watching straight flim-flam, in my opinion.

I understand the reason for the FTC action and maybe they will use this as a means of collecting cash but I see this as a way of advertisers having a tool to stifle bad reviews.

For example, A company make a complaint to the FTC and then they come looking at me. The company can say, "Hey we never gave her any stuff and that blogger is misrepresenting our product." Unless I do extreme due diligence to document how I cam to my conclusions (and even if I do) I got potential trouble.

I'm not total against the action but it needs some deep tuning and refining to protect freedom of speech.

Gena - Out On The Stoop ( http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com )