Comments on: 11,000 Reasons to Listen to the FTC http://kylelacy.com/11000-reasons-to-listen-to-the-ftc/ Social Media Training and Consulting Sun, 20 May 2012 06:28:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Wild and Whacky Ways to Promote Your Blog | PPC Search Engine Internet Marketing http://kylelacy.com/11000-reasons-to-listen-to-the-ftc/comment-page-1/#comment-3300 Wild and Whacky Ways to Promote Your Blog | PPC Search Engine Internet Marketing Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:38:02 +0000 http://kylelacy.com/?p=1569#comment-3300 [...] 11,000 Reasons to Listen to the FTC (kylelacy.com) [...] [...] 11,000 Reasons to Listen to the FTC (kylelacy.com) [...]

]]> By: Sarge http://kylelacy.com/11000-reasons-to-listen-to-the-ftc/comment-page-1/#comment-3257 Sarge Mon, 12 Oct 2009 03:47:06 +0000 http://kylelacy.com/?p=1569#comment-3257 I would love to see some examples of how people are disclosing such 'deals'. What would be the best way to disclose the details if I reviewed a product that I was given for free? Let's say I have a site that reviews products all the time. Is a simple terms and conditions/disclosure button that applies for the whole site saying 'the reviewer was given the product for free to write the review' adequate discloser or would there need to be more specific for each review? A seperate disclosure per post? Does it have to be on the same page or can it be a link linking off to the disclosure? So many questions! Just want to make sure I know this back to front :-) I would love to see some examples of how people are disclosing such 'deals'. What would be the best way to disclose the details if I reviewed a product that I was given for free?

Let's say I have a site that reviews products all the time. Is a simple terms and conditions/disclosure button that applies for the whole site saying 'the reviewer was given the product for free to write the review' adequate discloser or would there need to be more specific for each review? A seperate disclosure per post? Does it have to be on the same page or can it be a link linking off to the disclosure?

So many questions! Just want to make sure I know this back to front :-)

]]> By: robbyslaughter http://kylelacy.com/11000-reasons-to-listen-to-the-ftc/comment-page-1/#comment-3256 robbyslaughter Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:21:13 +0000 http://kylelacy.com/?p=1569#comment-3256 Laws about disclosure are kind of like laws about copyright: they don't actually make sense, but they are enforceable when publishing is expensive and controlled by only a few people. You cannot contain and regulate information. Until we realize that information is not property and veracity cannot be enforced, we will continue have silly, ineffectual laws like this one. Laws about disclosure are kind of like laws about copyright: they don't actually make sense, but they are enforceable when publishing is expensive and controlled by only a few people. You cannot contain and regulate information. Until we realize that information is not property and veracity cannot be enforced, we will continue have silly, ineffectual laws like this one.

]]> By: Hannah http://kylelacy.com/11000-reasons-to-listen-to-the-ftc/comment-page-1/#comment-3250 Hannah Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:19:41 +0000 http://kylelacy.com/?p=1569#comment-3250 I think you make some good points here. But aside from your example above, there are lots of clearer cut situations where advertisers are getting play for pay on popular blogs. I am always wondering if Daily Candy reviews products because they get free stuff and not because that particular $300 face cream is actually the best things since sliced bread. Consumers do have a right to know if a blog recommendation is really just advertising in sheep's clothing. On the other hand, I totally see your point and I think there are going to be lots of closer calls when it comes to blogs being used cooperatively to help people network their businesses. On the whole, I think the bottom line is that the federal government is just trying to make a statement that it doesn't matter the form of the endorsement, if it is paid for, it needs to be disclosed. Which means, as you said, that the feds are finally understanding the influence of the Internet. I think you make some good points here. But aside from your example above, there are lots of clearer cut situations where advertisers are getting play for pay on popular blogs. I am always wondering if Daily Candy reviews products because they get free stuff and not because that particular $300 face cream is actually the best things since sliced bread. Consumers do have a right to know if a blog recommendation is really just advertising in sheep's clothing.

On the other hand, I totally see your point and I think there are going to be lots of closer calls when it comes to blogs being used cooperatively to help people network their businesses.

On the whole, I think the bottom line is that the federal government is just trying to make a statement that it doesn't matter the form of the endorsement, if it is paid for, it needs to be disclosed. Which means, as you said, that the feds are finally understanding the influence of the Internet.

]]> By: robbyslaughter http://kylelacy.com/11000-reasons-to-listen-to-the-ftc/comment-page-1/#comment-3249 robbyslaughter Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:37:05 +0000 http://kylelacy.com/?p=1569#comment-3249 While I applaud the federal government for acknowledging that meaningful trade, commerce and conversation occurs over the Internet, this law is mindboggling. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you receive some dispensation for promoting a cause on the web, <strong>disclosure is now required by law</strong>. This is wholly untenable, because value can neither be measured nor contained. I may say here (without provocation) that "Brandswag is awesome!" If Kyle later sends me a referral, must I admit that I once posted here? What if an idle comment spawns a business idea? And if it is only a planned exchange that breaks the law, all we have to do is reduce formality. "I'll send you a product for to review, and when you are done you can either return it or destroy it (wink wink) so there's no net value to you." The death of Napster did not kill file sharing; it is more rampant than ever. The FTC will not enforce authenticity and transparency. Instead, the social web will demand it, just as it has in in person for all of human history. While I applaud the federal government for acknowledging that meaningful trade, commerce and conversation occurs over the Internet, this law is mindboggling. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you receive some dispensation for promoting a cause on the web, disclosure is now required by law.

This is wholly untenable, because value can neither be measured nor contained. I may say here (without provocation) that "Brandswag is awesome!" If Kyle later sends me a referral, must I admit that I once posted here? What if an idle comment spawns a business idea?

And if it is only a planned exchange that breaks the law, all we have to do is reduce formality. "I'll send you a product for to review, and when you are done you can either return it or destroy it (wink wink) so there's no net value to you."

The death of Napster did not kill file sharing; it is more rampant than ever. The FTC will not enforce authenticity and transparency. Instead, the social web will demand it, just as it has in in person for all of human history.

]]>