Could Google Wave Replace Course-Management Systems?

Want to Learn Anatomy? There's An App For That

October 07, 2009, 12:00 PM ET

Why the FTC's New Rules for Bloggers Could Hurt Publishers, Too

At least one university press does not like the Federal Trade Commission's new guidelines governing "endorsements and testimonials." Laura Sell, a senior publicist for Duke University Press, wrote on the press's blog that the new rules "will have a chilling effect on the online book-reviewing community" -- a community that publishers rely on more and more as print review outlets fade away.

The FTC guidelines now say that "the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service." If they don't, they risk substantial fines. The worry among publishers and reviewers is that "in-kind payment" could include review copies of books.

"We send these books with the hope of a positive review, but with no agreement or contract with the recipient," Ms. Sell wrote in an open letter to the FTC posted on the Duke press's blog. "They are free to give the book a negative review, or to toss it in the trash. It's just a way to get the books into the hands of people who might write about them."

In the letter, Ms. Sell talked about how much literary activity has jumped online. "Many of us have turned to new media to get review attention," she wrote. "We consider the writers for this new media to be journalists or columnists, just like those at old-fashioned print publications. The threat of huge fines might make many of them stop accepting books from publishers. I hope the FTC will reconsider these new rules that will make it harder for consumers to learn about new products from online reviewers that they trust."

Categories: Publishing

Comments

1. jkcohen - October 07, 2009 at 04:26 pm

I foresee no major problem here. Bloggers will simply have to add a bit of boilerplate to the bottom of their reviews.

"Random House sent me the above book for review purposes. It will allow me to keep the book. I have no other connection to and have received no other compensation from Random House."

2. paullev - October 07, 2009 at 05:27 pm

I agree completely with Ms. Sell's concerns. Here are my further thoughts on this important matter http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2009/10/ftc-wrong-to-regulate-deceitful.html

3. inarchetype - October 07, 2009 at 05:39 pm

Agree entirely with jkcohen;

I have no idea what objection an honest book publisher or producer of any other product could possible have to a blog reviewer simply stating that his only releationship with them is that the material being reviewed was recieved gratis. A reviewer truly concerned with their credibility would simply return the product prior to publishing the review, and state that they had done so. The statement would be one line or less of small print. This does not seem burdensom to those seeking legitimate reviews.

The dirty secret of the internet, however, is that the vast majority of the reviews that one stumbles accross when googling for information on a product are actually paid endorsements, which is misleading and contrary to the public interest.

Personally, I think the FTC's requirement is long overdue. Of course, they have no authority whatsoever over offshore bloggers. As always on the internet, jurisdiction will be unclear and enforcement difficult and costly.

4. sonomalass - October 07, 2009 at 06:18 pm

The full FTC statement is rather intimidating. I know book bloggers who intend to stop accepting review copies rather than risk violating the rules. According to an FTC spokesperson, it's not just a blogger's reviews that constitute endorsements, but any statement the blogger makes about the product, such as in comments on another blog or on Twitter. Each of those would require a disclaimer as well. For those who read many books, trying to keep track of which ones were complimentary copies would be very difficult, but entering into discussion of books could be risky without it. If fewer bloggers accept review copies, that will be harmful to new/unknown authors.

Of course it may be that once the FTC clarifies its position and implements some additional enforcement guidelines, things will normalize. At the moment, though, I expect many bloggers will err on the side of caution.

5. allens - October 07, 2009 at 07:06 pm

Should someone who receives a free product then goes on to tell others about it verbally - potentially to a large gathering, via making a speech - also be regulated by the FTC? If not, why should communication on the Internet be more impeded than offline? If so, is this really within the government's proper powers, given the First Amendment?

6. tdmoritz - October 07, 2009 at 08:39 pm

non-issue -- soluble by norms as suggested in comments...

7. dwilliams1066 - October 08, 2009 at 04:30 pm

Your story appears to imply that these new FTC regulations, whatever they require, when they come into effect, would apply only to bloggers.

8. laoshi - October 09, 2009 at 08:54 am

Yet another example of big government doing what it does best: stifling freedom and progress.

Even book reviews in peer-reviewed journals must be positive, or at least not negative enough to deter purchases of the book. Since publication in journals helps our careers, is scholarly reviewing also a form of "endorsements and testimonials"?

9. annagasking - October 12, 2009 at 08:10 am

Given that tweeting is pushing blogging aside, will it apply equally in the twittersphere? Adding a boilerplate disclaimer to a seven word tweet ("I read this book. I liked it.") seems to defy the point of the medium.