This whole things seems unreasonable, it’s not like I force myself into peoples homes and make them listen to how wonderful Nyquil is. They come to my site, if they don’t like what I have there they are free to leave.

Makes no sense at all.

I have been besieged lately with e-mails from companies wanting me to plug their stuff on my blog, but I doubt that they would like the way I play. I would just as easily give a bad review as a good one, and I would say up front “I got this for free.” What’s the problem with admitting you got something for free? Total transparency.

hello, first amendment. It’s the bloggers calling.

how can they get around amending THAT?

like you standing by your opinion, i will stand by mine that there is more to endorsing products than meets the eye.

i agree that singling out bloggers is egregious but like i said, i’ll have to look into current rules for other content providers before i stand on that point.

my real hope is that people will continue to be mindful of the information they get – whether it’s through blogs or magazines or conversations with friends.

and that’s what’s beautiful and exciting about our times, the truth is out there for everyone to find (unless some big business squashes it. mwahahahaha)!

Unless you consider “17 ways to drive your man crazy in bed” editorial content, I can assure you these are magazines created to entertain.

Besides the FTC said themselves they weren’t going to insist magazines carry a disclaimer. Hello? Why not? If EVERYONE providing content for entertainment purposes had to do it…I would not be upset. But it is because they are just SELECTING BLOGGERS that pisses me off. I like transparency too…but um, I want it FOR EVERYONE. That includes TV programs, magazines, newspaper and anything giving any kind of information to the public. Again…NOT JUST BLOGGERS

And it isnn’t a for profit thing. Magazines are for profit and they are not being asked to include disclaimers at all. And let me ask you, what if someone WAS paid $50 to send an email out to promote a product (let’s use Nestle again)….is the FTC going to regulate that as well? I think even you will agree that would be creepy and cross the line of control. And yet I ask…how is a blog any different? It is like one big email that has been POSTED for the reader to come to read, instead of being mailed to someone.

 And yes, I realize the FTC has a ‘payola’ policy (thanks for sending the link http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/PayolaRules.html…which strictly only refers to CASH payments for media coverage. Says nothing of receiving a free product for a review. And refers only to broadcast media and does not mention written publications

Note to all readers: Lisa is a GOOD friend of mine who has like a million years working for/with one of the largest credible newspapers….she has a different perspective and I appreciate this. I feel strong. She feels strong. That is a-okay in my book.
FOR REALS. I heart you Lisa.

Aww, Hell…never mind bail…I’m in, too.

I DO think it suspect that blogs are suddenly being regulated in this way, and feel it has much more to do with getting a grip on and squeezing the life out of them than it does fairness in advertising or whatever sad excuses they’re giving us to attempt justifying the boneheaded decision they just made.

Laws should apply to EVERYONE, and not just a select few.

But then…I may be a wee paranoid.

Shade and Sweetwater,
K

Discussion yesterday of this very thing on Facebook with my friend Devanie Angel, who has been a newspaper journalist for many years. At least one commenter there had worked for a magazine, and she said that the swag was sent back or auctioned to the employees.

are you sure all 16 of those magazines are there purely to entertain? none of them have editorial content? do the journalists reviewing those products keep them? or are they required to return them?

here’s a good discussion on how NPR defines advertising and underwriting: http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R909160900?itemMD5=fe11859b3712d5982fb5184a21797c67

maybe the distinction lies with a blog that is for profit. there are many bloggers that don’t take ad revenue but my guess is a majority want to make money with their blogs. does your mom have a link in her email voicing her opinion about nestle that will send her a couple of pennies if her friends click on it? just a thought.

in this long dawn of change in how people receive information, it seems important to me to be mindful of the perils of polarized opinion. conventional journalists minimizing the impact of bloggers is a good example of where that can lead.

and i see regulating undisclosed profit to bloggers by the ftc as a way of providing transparency for those being entertained — helping to ensure they aren’t mislead.

there’s no disputing that blogging creates relationships between people. the most successful of them resonate with authenticity, critical in any relationship. in relationships, there needs to be understanding and trust. that’s what reputable media outlets, whether they’re meant to only entertain or if they’re meant to inform strive for as an ideal.

all for now. my lunch is over :)

I’m in. Totally. It’s a crock.