It's all over the news around here. The Federal Trade Commission has just revised guidelines about "Endorsements and Testimonials" in advertising. So if you are an independent blogger and you get paid in any way by someone you write a nice post about, you could incur the wrath of the federal government, to the tune of $11,000 per hit, unless you disclose the "payment".
Now, the idea probably isn't to go after Active Rain folk who write Localism posts about their favorite art galleries or restaurants.
But wait!
I often write nice things about the Uptown Cathay, my favorite Pan Asian restaurant and take out place. And Peter, the owner and a very old friend, often pours me a glass of wine while I'm waiting for my crispy beef to cook back in the kitchen. Oh, and he started doing this way before I started to blog. But I guess that, theoretically at least, I'd better disclose the Chardonnay.
And what about the local book store, Politics and Prose, that carries The Irreverent Guide to Real Estate. Oops! I forgot to mention that when I wrote a nice post about their store and coffee shop.
And what if one of the salespeople (also a wonderful friend) who works in the Georgetown boutique I'm writing about later this week passes out my business cards? If that leads to a transaction, I guess I'll get paid for it. OK, if you want one of my business cards, I'm hoping that my friend, Barb, who works at The Pheonix in Georgetown, will give you one!
While I haven't read the entire document, here is an excerpt from the FTC's press release:
"The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that 'material connections' (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers--connections that consumers would not expect--must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other 'word-of-mouth' marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, 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."
Oh! And this also applies to Facebook Fan pages and maybe even some Tweets!
How on earth they plan to enforce this is way beyond me. I'm certain that Congress is not going to increase the agency's budget so they can go after bloggers like us. But unless they do, I see a lot of room for the people who do get caught up in their net to cry capricious and arbitrary enforcement.
I think the FTC needs to get on with other issues that might, in fact, actually protect us as consumers. Meanwhile, I'm going to try to be safe instead of sorry. I have better things to do with $11,000, like spend it at the Uptown Cathay or The Phoenix or at Politics and Prose Book Store.
Ooh, that's scary. However, Pat, you are right. There is absolutely no way they are going to be able to enforce this, so endorse away!
Jane, endorse away, but disclose any quid pro quo that comes from it. Even if you are writing about friends.
I'm not sure I follow your point.
Patricia, That stinks for most of us but I do know of one firm that paid several bloggers to write glowing reports about their product. A simple disclaimer stating this is a public service and no payment or gratuity was received for this blog should keep all of us legal...
Bob, the FTC regulates pretty much all forms of advertising. When someone is paid to write something nice in a blog about some business, as many of us do when we write Localism posts, this is what they are talking about. And if the business does something nice in return, a free meal or a discount on merchandise, that is considered to be a form of payment. You are breaking the law if you don't disclose this in your blog.
And Paul, you don't need a disclosure unless you are paid in any way for writing a glowing report.
Great, more government interference. I think 'wine' always produces a 'glowing report'.
It's big brother again with the in our pocketbooks again. You would think that they would be working to get the 10% unemployment decreased instead of this ludicrously.
I would let it all go and just keep leading the wonderrful life you do. time is too precious
Lyn, the wine thing works only if you're doing a little BWL - Blogging While Loopy!
Leolinda, they're probably only after the high profile celebrities whose stuff is more widely read than mine, but I do think that the existance of this kind of meddling is pretty offensive.
Pat --- surely not!!!!!! --so, if I write a post about my agent-owners, guess I would fall into this group!! Holy Cow!
Mama Liz
Pat..I just read that article..I really don't think it applies to us no one cares to pay us to endorse their product..blog on ..worry free..
That's it! I'm not writing anything more that's nice about you. I've enjoyed your parties and the fact that you get my referrals to settlement (which, by the way, involves money). From now on, Pat Kennedy is a no good, low down so and so (but, please, keep sending the checks after settlement).
Pat - glad this is being shared. I'm not surprised that this is being put in place, but sure can't see how they can possibly enforce it. But it pays to be careful, just in case. Glad that I have not gotten any freebies as a result of thse articles I have written. :)
Jeff
Pat
Absolutely sad that the government gets involved in stuff that they should not be. In a day when there are more productive things to do they channel their energy into bloggers.
Maybe we should all add a disclaimer to our blogs that says: I might get compensated for writing all this some day!
Pat -
I endorse your blog posts.
(I'll pick up my pay-off next time I make it to Washington.)
(Let's see, last time I was there was 1983. So don't go to the bank anytime soon just on my account...I'll call you from the airport. You'll have plenty of time to find an ATM.)
The FTC has bigger fish to fry.
Disclosure is a good thing. You've disclosed the futility (and the danger) of their chances of enforcement.
Liz, if you're writing about your employer, the name of which is all over your blog, I think that's disclosure enough.
Hannah, the federal government's idea of "pay" and yours may be very different, and in this case the fed's version is what they use. And that is accepting "anything of value". So if I was blogging when my old hairdresser gave me a referral who bought a big old house, became the subject of a subsequent blog post, I'd have to disclose the referral, as it was of great value. If you write a blog for a friend who's just opened a restaurant and have ever gotten a free meal, you'd need to disclose it. And this is the type of blogging that many people do on this site.
Ken, if I ever say a single nice thing about you in a post, I'll need to disclose that you did give me something of value, a referral, and I got more than I gave on that one!
Jeff, I agree that we need to know about it. And while I've never been paid for writing a blog about a local service, I got the federal equivalent in Chardonnay!
Tom, now that goes without saying!
Dianne, that's never a bad idea.
And Jim, stupid, unenforceable laws make me crazy!
Patricia,
Will they ever get tired to come up with that stuff? This activism is just crazy. They really do not have better things to do.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I need to watch this closer.
That is ridiculous! We're blogging and creating an interenet presence in order to grow our businesses and let others know who we are. Doesn't the governement have bigger fish to fry right now?
Thanks for letting us know about this. I don't think they will care about the free piece of candy I received from the candy store I wrote about.
Patricia, I read this story and also heard about it on the radio. The rule kind of makes sense to me if you are getting PAID to endorse. Kind of truth in disclosure. But bloggers better be careful now. Besides they will go after the advertiser not the blogger.
Hi Pat... Why do I envision that before long our disclaimers for things such as this and copyrights will be longer than the content of many blog posts?
There was a lot of banter on CNBC about this. It's seems pretty silly with all the major problems that we have in this country that they have chosen at this time to make it an issues Like all parts of business I'm sure someone is paying large amounts of money for blog endorsements. If their going to do this we also need to know who is behind the political ads placed for politicians by unknown political action committees. The politicians know where this money is coming from and they have much more effect on our lives than a bloggers endorsement.
It's no secret that the feds have wanted to get their paws on internet traffic and exert control (and collect $). This ruling makes perfect sense if you look at the big picture. Whether they enforce it or not, they are setting precedent.
Patricia- Is this the post you told me about? I have been following this and it comes along with many other controls the government is planning and has been planning probably since the onset of the internet. The government wants control and they want to control bloggers. They hate the fact that Twitter and Bloggers know the news and spread the news and yet are not made to pay those big broadcasting licensing fees. So this is just one step towards regulating more of our free speech, free markets, liberties and oh the list goes on. The GOP wants controls in the name of security and the DEMs want controls in the form of licensing and limiting our access to information and free speech. They both hate that we the people can actually think and then create noise and thus create a voice. I am becoming more and more libertarian every day!
There are bills almost daily on the floor about regulating the internet from security issues, like giving the White House the authority to shut the whole internet down if they feel threatened to passing laws that may call what you say that offends someone else a hate crime and the court you have to go to is in the town of your accuser!
The FTC is going too far with this one. I have read a lot about this one. Unfortunately for those who are blogging for business, they need to be careful because there is a whole segment of bloggers who feel it is immoral to make money through blogging so they will rat on anyone they feel is violating this ruling. It is not going to be the FTC that has the man power to hunt us down, it is the fellow bloggers! I read it all the time, the two different camps on blogging and tweeting.
I will disclose as I do when I write about the affiliate programs I am a part of. They are going to track the affiliate codes and make sure we are disclosing the fact that we might gain a financial benefit- and that includes being ambassadors for active rain. Katerina
Funny * by coincidence $11,000 is the amount you can be fined in a Fair Housing violation....interesting
Wallace, what a very interesting thought. Hmm...
Great, just what we need...another thing to worry about. Who is going to police this? What worries me is that any wacko who wants to cause some grief can stir up trouble for you using your blog as their weapon of choice.
Good luck enforcing this one. I'm applying for the job of "blogging czar" ;)
I read the 80 pages...81 pages the day it came out. "The Guides"
Earlier in the day a lawyer in Columbus who blogs (not law) had made a crack on Twitter about the disclosure on Twitter was going to eat up a lot of the 140 characters.
*** Disclosure: Although Pat and I share a last name, we are not related and she has not (yet) sent me any referrals. ***
I'm actually hoping they award a bounty to whistle blowers who rat out fellow bloggers for drinking free Chardonnay! LOL
Patricia,
It really has just occurred to me that I really don't get paid directly or indirectly by anyone. I'm going to have to re-consider my approach. And, yes, I'll throw in a disclaimer.
Brian
Does this legislation apply to all forms of advertising or just blogs?
" 'material connections' (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers--connections that consumers would not expect--must be disclosed."
What does "NOT EXPECT" mean? I always assume that an endorsement equates to some form of compensation whether it be direct or indirect. Does the average person not understand this?? If I recommend a mortgage broker to a client its probably safe for my client to assume that the mortgage broker is probably doing the same for me which leads to referrals (ie $$$).
What's next? Lebron James' Nike tv commercials showing a disclaimer stating that, "Lebron James is paid by Nike to endorse Nike products," to ensure that even the most clueless amongst our society realize the true nature of Nike and Lebrons' relationship!
At some point they will take editorial responsibility from you as well..but think about it, with enough bureaucrats involved they should give you the editorial OK in about....six months!
Unbelievable... Just more of government intrusion, and yes, the federal government is doing all it can to try and get their greedy paws on the internet. They despise losing control. The states want their hands in it also. They want the lost sales tax when we purchase a product from a website out of state and we pay no sales tax. I have an interest in an internet business and believe me, the potential paperwork nightmare from that will put many internet based businesses OUT OF BUSINESS!
This blogging crapola with the FTC is nothing more than more forced intrusion in our lives. Nestor & Katerina #26 said it best,
"The GOP wants controls in the name of security and the DEMs want controls in the form of licensing and limiting our access to information and free speech. They both hate that we the people can actually think and then create noise and thus create a voice. I am becoming more and more libertarian every day!"
I agree.
I agree that it will be very difficult to enforce and prove this. I personally have endorsed a restaurant or two and never received a penny or even a free cup of coffee from them. So are they going to be monitoring every blog that everyone writes? How absurd!
Unbelievable that they have the time to even think about this when we are hijacked by the cable companies into buying 200 channels when all we want is 10!
I read something about this yesterday. Seems a little extreme I think for them to be in crack down mode.
Let's think about this. You go to your favorite restaurant to write a blog. While you're waiting the owner pours you a free glass of wine. Then the two guys dressed in black in the corner pop up from their table and arrest you? Are you kidding me?
Or maybe it will work this way...there will be a hot line where someone can rat out people who get free glasses of wine or coffee while they're working on their computer.
We're on the way to George Orwell's 1984 people.
Pat - That is incredible! Seems like this wouldn't be a huge issue for anyone. If I'm reading your blog, as far as I know, it is still entirely up to me if I select a business or visit a restaurant you've written about. Who cares if you got cash for the blog? I do look at reviews of places to see what is out there before I visit. But my experience is still my own.
Golly gee whiz...and who will fund the big brother watchdogs...or marshall the freedom of speech suits...grrrr
Patricia -
Yikes, I hadn't heard this one. You are so right, the FTC has so much more to worry about than a glass of wine (which could happen under any circumstance, right?). What about referrals you get from a mortgage broker or stager or or or or anyone else you might have written something about?
As Bugs Bunny would say, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiculous!
Michael
I'm still waiting for the government to fine the first telemarketer who calls those on the DNC registry.
I'm not worrying about this in the least.
Tell me one broker or agent who was been fined for calling people on the DNC list.
Of the millions of people who download music and movies illegally, there have been only a handful that have been charged with the crime.
I think it more of a guideline than something they will inforce.
A link to what your speaking about would be helpful for the rest of us to look over. Thanks!
I guess maybe some type of legislation is needed to take care of those out there trying to trick the consumer. No tricks here so we will be ok:)
Why does anybody on here believe that the government can't enforce this? Collecting proof will be easy, and it's a relatively low-cost way to get more revenue.
And actually I agree with it. Blogging was never meant to be an avenue for subversive advertising gimmicks -- it's a way for average people to make honest and sincere comments about things they like don't like, think, feel, etc.
Getting paid for "nice" blogs without posting your intentions is evil. Much the way the insurance companies are sending "average Joes" to speak out against health-care reform when they are actually paid lobbyists and employees or contractors for the insurance companies.
Get real, people! Any law the forces people to be more honest is a good law to me.
Gary -- they will go after the advertiser AND the blogger!
Geez, I write a lot of localism for Lewisburg, WV...never, never received a free meal, money, etc. I've read other blogs on this issue this week. The government wants their hands in everything.....there are more important issues they need to concentrate on...health program, welfare, terrorists...etc etc etc
Not sure I understand who is getting paid for blogging? Do people really blog for compensation? I don't so I am clear.
as you say how will they enforce it but the fact that this made it as an issue that should be dealt with is beyond me
@Corinne. Blogging is BIG business. Folks flock to the internet for information about everything from politics to products. You know all those reviews seen on Amazon and other retailer sites? What if most of those "positive testimonials" were simply placed there by some paid data entry guy? Well, buyer beware, because they often are. While I understand the FTC's concern, I am fundamentally opposed to the overreaching of government. Besides sanctioning the retailer or site host, enforcement seems unrealistic.
That's what we need...a whole new layer of government and a deputy director of blog testimonial endorsements and what the perk, side benefit is for doing it. How to spot someone benefiting from kind, from the heart words of endorsement. And hunting for how it hurts the competitor in your market, the other guy making a competing widget. Free enterprise..what does that freedom look like any more?
This is another attempt to control free speach...blogging is an exchange forum...where people talk about different topics, issues, expressing their opinions, points of view etc...
If one cannot differentiate between an opinion and an advertisement you need help!
We cannot 'save' everyone from making a wrong decision! It is so out of hand...consumers can spend a lot of hours researching the vacation route, prices, what wedding place and dress, where to buy best tickets etc...catching my meaning?
This is one more step closer to restrict and control...and there will be a lot of money made by people who are unqaulified, overzelous, snitches, and new CZARS!
With smiles,
Bo in Yukon
Patricia, you hit on the dirty little secret of Washington DC rule making. Carry a big stick, make a show of how you are protecting the consumer, then never fund it.
Morning Pat, I see an important difference between someone pitching product in the commercial sense as opposed to you or I paying a sincere compliment to a nearby business or service.
Are we sure this is about the government wanting money. I have been reading articles on how the FTC wants to regulate Talk Radio with the "Fairness Doctrine". This seems to be just another avenue for this concept to be enforced. How many Political Blogs are out there pointing out allegations of fraud and misuse of federal funds? How many bloggers bring to the forefront actions of our electied officials that they want to keep hidden?
Is this law about revenue, or about putting out of business those who have no benefit from political ties, thus are not corrupted by politics (even though we may disagree with them)
It seems that we are paying attention to the right hand (the money) but what is the left hand doing?
I think the overall intent is good and I agree with disclosure and to be honest, we've known for years that just because they blog about it does not mean one is credible about what they blog about. The fact someone can be paid to blog about a product they do not use nor believe in makes a mockery of the whole system. At least on a TV ad we know these are actors pushing a product for which they receive a generous compensation.
I'm with others when they ask how in the world will they enforce it?
Is it any wonder why so many people are upset about the size and power of the federal government. Sounds a lot like Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984. It is time to throw all these bums out of office. Re-elect nobody in 2010.
Pat, thanks for the article. I saw this on the news and believe the main targets will be the big advertisers with the deep pockets. Since I'm just a guppy, I think I'll be fine. ;-)
Patricia,
I guess you must disclose the Chardonnay. Great post!
Linda Metallo, Re/max Impact, Lockport, Il.
I doubt the government is going to be very interested in our real estate blogs. The focus is more on political action committees who have staff writing anonymously, while not disclosing their "agenda". It is still a good practice to only write what can stand up to scrutiny. If you are worried, then disclose that complimentary glass of champagne you enjoyed after your wrote up your favorite restaurant. Your post gives us a lot to think about.
This is very interesting..... Censorship by the FTC.... Paul has a great idea with the disclaimer.
Okay I have to admit I did not read every comment, but what about when you give someone a "thank you" gift card for a referral. Does that count, who do you disclose it to?
There are services out there whose sole purpose for existing is to pay small fees to various bloggers to endorse products and services of big-time advertisers on thier blogs, forums and various social media outlets. This has been going on for a long time, and, in my humble opinion, has not served CONSUMERS well. I highly doubt these rules have anything to do with your localism posts, or potential real estate transaction referrals, but I must say I am somewhat surprised that so many of you are up in arms over being asked to behave HONORABLY.
Truth in advertising beggs for such disclosures to be made, and they've affected traditional media for decades. If you want ANY credibility - then yes, I think you should disclose payments and connections in any endorsements and testimonials. BTW - there is a difference between a testimonial or endorsement or an oped piece, and the rules only apply to the former.
Consumers have been swindled into buying crappy products or services from companies by $10 bucks an hour freelance writers for years. I am happy that there is finally a possibility that these practices might subside.
Lastly, to expect the FTC to fix healthcare or fight terrorism is an exceedingly bizarre recommendation.
I am just sayin'
Inna Hardison is NOT in any way affiliated with the FTC or the current administration.:-)
Sometimes I feel like we have to disclose to the point that the consumers think we're paranoid. Oh wait, just because we're paranoid does not mean 'they' are not out to get us. Wooooo
I really think your chardonnay example is an extreme reaction. The fact is that many people are not tech savvy. People think my blog is my website all the time. They don't understand the difference. If someone writes a review of a product, I hardly think putting a little disclaimer at the bottom saying that it was a paid review is a violation of free speech or a sinister plot. Is it unenforceable? Yes, for the most part. They will rely on consumer complaints just like they do for the DNC list. It's not like they go around monitoring people's phone lines to see if they are violating DNC.
Some consumers are just not savvy and this is meant to protect those folks.
Now if you write a review for Top Producer and they give you free software in return, then yes I think it is appropriate to do a disclaimer that you are being paid in-kind. AR has the big ambassador buttons so we know who is being compensated for being an Ambassador.
THey just need a little "paid review" badge or something.
That is crazy! I had to re-blog and I also shared the link to your story on FB & Twitter. TONS of people I know are bloggers!!!!
Patricia- I came back to see you were featured, congrats! The best one IMHO to be featured on this subject.
Aaron- You are kidding right? Since when has any government anywhere at any time been able to legislate morality,honesty or integrity. No matter how many laws you make to curtail the 'evil' of which you speak, people are human and those that wish to will find a way around the law or won't care about breaking the law. Nanny states do not provide the protection when trying to legislate, 'evil'.
And I am sure they will be rewarding those who snitch on their fellow bloggers just because they don't like them or what they are selling.
Patricia- It amazes me and continues to baffle me how people don't do their due diligence before commenting on something so grievous to our basic freedoms and liberties. I was against this when Bush tried to do it, I was against it when Clinton tried to do it, I am against is when Obama tries to do it. I don't care who tries- it goes against the very essence of who we are as free speaking Americans.
This is so much bigger than just our real estate blogs. For agents that are looking at this issue as just for themselves, how it affects their own little world- I highly recommend some historic research into where this may and could lead. No longer is my head in the sand.
Michael- Thanks for the compliment about my comment:) This is a government thing, not a party thing.
Patricia- This is what I wrote on another featured blog about this:
The scariest words ever in legalize- "not binding law but rather 'interpretations' of the law. Who gets to interpret and who gets to bring charges is the next question. FTC has a kangaroo court wherein I know many companies and people who have been bankrupted because of their ' interpretation of laws' and not one case where a person won in their kangaroo court. Katerina
Yikes! I have never been, nor will I ever be, a fan of the government interfering with the daily lives of citizens. You are right that this may be seen as entirely arbitrary. I hope that it is one of those laws that is there, but not enforced. We will see...thank you for the information.
Patricia- oh, and here is one more thought that I wrote on Judi's blog:
- Policing it will be easy, they have all the army of community organizers ready to go to snitch. There is a whole group of bloggers who think it is disgusting that any blogger would want to make money blogging. There are two camps, the kumbaya camp of bloggers and the blog for business bloggers. Believe me- while they are holding hands singing kumbaya together they will be gladly snitching on anyone they don't agree with blogging. Katerina
I would not mind getting paid to blog and would be happy to disclose it. But like many of the people who have commented here, I don't care for an over abundance of ggovernment interference!
I simply cannot believe this is what our government is spending their time doing. Aren't there more important things on their agenda to take care of than stuff like this?
Looks like the folks in Washington just don't have enough justification for their jobs...and are looking to add staff...how much are we going to pay for this one?
Looks like the folks in Washington just don't have enough justification for their jobs...and are looking to add staff...how much are we going to pay for this one?
Looks like the folks in Washington just don't have enough justification for their jobs...and are looking to add staff...how much are we going to pay for this one?
Interesting post. I agree with the spirit of the law...only because I have had clients dump me for high-priced lenders that their Realtors "endorsed," (Of course, the lender also shares ad expenses with the endorsee.) But I don't know how they would enforce it either.
Hi, Guys! I woke up to a little gold star on this one and a bunch of comments. While I'd like to answer each one indiviually, I have to leave in a few minutes to sell houses. But here are a few thoughts I had after reading your comments.
First, and this may be worth an entire post, there are some things the government ought to be charged with. These would be national security, law enforcement and keeping the court system running smoothly and fairly, and some health and safety regulation. But in the whole area of consumer protection, we need to be very, very careful - and this coming from an ex-Nader's Raider. And I think this applies to all types of government - federal, state and local.
In the old days (pre Bush), federal regulators issued rulemaking notices before they initiated this type of rule. They gave the industries that would be impacted as well as the public a chance to comment. I don't think that happened here - at least I don't remember reading it. Had they had a rulemaking, we could have sent in our two cents, and it probably would also have attracted attention from Congress. This kind of stuff usually got derailed early on before the agency got a chance to look foolish.
Do I find anything offensive about disclosing that glass of Chardonnay? No, I don't. If I have a friendship of any sort with my Localism subject, I usually do work it into the post.
Our tax dollars will go to pay the salaries of people in the FTC's enforcement office who are doing a job that I, for one, think serves no socially useful function. And with this type of rule, I think the possibility that it could be capriciously enforced is significant.
So, when I was a regulator and we were considering whether to require something of the airlines, we knew we had the authority to do all kinds of stuff, but always asked, "But is it a good idea?" And if some grown up at the FTC had asked that questions with respect to blogs, I think the answer would have been "No!"
And Katerina is very right on about one thing. The Obama administration isn't the first to try stunts like this. She's on point - they all want to do the same stupid stuff, the Republicans in the name of national security and the Democrats in the name of consumer protection. These are both laudable goals for our government, but this rule is an example of how not to meet them.
I think my blogging may turn into more disclosures than content. Between Do Not Call, Fair Housing, Code of Ethics and NC state laws on agency...I don't have time to collect endorsements! LOL!
Pat - Two thoughts come to mind after reading this:
Ridiculous.
Better not grab a $5 off coupon on your way out of the restaurant or you'll have to go write another blog about it!
Ridiculous!!
It's called a blog, not a tv commercial!!
Stay out of our blogs government!
www.MorSystems.com
I wonder if this will lead to the appointment of a Blogging and Social Media Czar.
Patricia, Thank you for bringing this to our attention. And I agree with Christiane, cannot believe this is what our government is spending their time.
I agree with you, but we all knew that it was coming. I think that they just saw a friendly enviornment for government internvention and pounced!! Nothing is ever as good or as bad as the first appear. This will evolve.
How does this ever get enforced? one would think the government has better things to do with their time.
I've been following this on line.
Yes better to disclose then be sorry. I wonder, like you who has the time to moderate all the tweets, guess this will be another government paid job for some lucky soul.
Hi Patricia -- I heard about this in NPR yesterday. I think they ought to assign a simple dollar amount to it and be done, it would greatly simplify things and it wouldn't take 897 people and 343,292 collective hours to design, implement and monitor this craziness.
This just sounds crazy. I know some have said here that it would be easy to enforce, but I cannot see how. I'm sure that the intentions in this new regulation were genuine, but it seems quite ridiculous to me.
This has been all over the news the past few days. It is nuts! One more thing to regulate and give someone a job in Washington.
Hmmmm . . . crispy beef!
That's where my mind is . . .
;-)
Sorry . . . couldn't resist LOL of the Day Award . . . Goes to the United States Federal Government FCC
Hey they don't enforce many of the real estate regulations like HUD and referral laws unless you are a big player. If you are an individual breaking the law no and like once a year I don't think the will have the manpower or the want to come after you.
I often mention businesses or products offered by friends... Never have I been paid... Is friendship a "material relationship"? Probably, so I'll keep disclosing it.
But this is a SERIOUS pain in the butt, and a great tool for people that have a grudge to use to bring pain to those they have grudges against.
Pat... why don't they regulate themselves, all of those paybacks and favors? Whoops... did I let the cat out of the bag? lol This is sad and pathetic. I read Katerina's comments and a few others. If I just keep doing what I am doing, I will be fine. And yes, it will be your fellow blogger that wants to bring you down, that will try to report you. So sad about some of this crap. PS... I guess I can't be affiliated with my favorite toy shop, that .... never mind... lol <just being goofy>
Like Katerina, I find that I am becoming more Libertarian as our federal government becomes more Big Brother like.
I don't have issues with honesty and fair dealing but am concerned that it will move beyond the sublime to the ridiculous, such as the glass of Chardonnay or perhaps the free meal I receive the next time I'm in as a thank you for the post written previously.
Patricia - With the first sentence of your last paragraph, I agree. That written, I suppose this will lead me to throw in some creative disclosures when need be:)
I'll tell you what's ridiculous - when a reasonable regulation about misleading advertising is turned into an anti-government screed by people looking for AR points.
Don't worry, there won't be any bureaucrats hired to fine you $11,000 for your free glass of wine.
[Re-elect nobody in 2010.]
I'm with Rob on this. And no I was not paid. HA
It would appear many folks seem to think that NOT DISCLOSING a paid relationship is a good idea????? How so? We have truth in advertising laws that have been on the books for decades, and we have people whom others feel to be authorities... and are some saying that we should let these "Authority" figfures sell us a bill of goods without letting us know that they are endorsing this thing because they were paid? I think we have enough chicanery without allowing bogus endorsements...
We have had this sort of thing in print media and television for many years... as can be seen with teh PAID ADVERTISEMENT text that accompanies many pages that look to be articles... we get that on TV too... this new rule is about including online media under that same rule set... nothing wrong with that if you ask me...
You know that the government is passing out money right and left to greedy banks, and insurance companies for "BAILOUTS" don't you? How about "cash for clunkers" and all of our favorite stimulus packages? Well they are just trying to find back door ways of paying for all of it. I would be very careful where you leave your money, the feds are getting more clever all the time.
Certainly big-ticket items should be tracked and scrutinized as they would lead to higher costs for the consumer. However I guess I now have to disclose the honey-bbq ribs at the house warming as "payment" for my services. ;)
I can see both sides of this and it will be interesting to see what happens. On the one hand, we really do not want people to be advertising for a company theat they are beholden to in some way financially and have it look like it is an independent testimonial. On the other hand, I do not want to worry about if I blog about a restaurant that gives me a glass of wine, that I may be in trouble. Hopefully, this will work itself out in a logical manner.
You are so funny! Thanks for the warning!
Pat -I agree with Katerina. The Government has better things to worry about and it is only about control over the people.
I guess we have to explicitly tell people we are real estate agents and hope to be paid for pushing a house we might blog about?
I am always writing about fantastic shops, restaurants and areas in Connecticut and New York. Heck, I wish someone would throw me some free items!! ;-)
Thanks for the info - us Bloggers need to be aware.
Diana
Pat,
As with most things... this to will go by the wayside....
Kathy Opatka
Pat, I knew there was a reason why I don't do restaurant reviews. I'm not a food critic LOL. I stick to real estate. Having spent 20 years in advertising and media prior to real estate I understand and believe in separation of church and state - advertising and editorial.
The Internet has blurred the distinction. I don't know the laws in all 50 states but in NY state websites and blogs owned by real estate licensee's must prominently display their name, type of license, brokerage and address on the site. Many do not. Many are masquerading anonymously tricking consumers. I believe in transparency. Isn't that what we all talk about?
Despite disclosure laws, in real estate transactions NY is still a Caveat Emptor state. "Buyer Beware"
My get rich quick scheme, down the drain,.... ah there it goes!
I sure hope you paid for those Chips and Salsa at Lauriol Plaza before you wrote that nice post !
Why dont they go catch a real crook !?
These guidelines should also apply to our government officials, especially the Congress, Senate AND ALL their employees.
This is going to be monitored by the new "blog czar."
To Aaron Hoffman - I know an agent that got nailed twice for calling people on the DNC list. They don't have to get everyone, they just need to make an example of a few to scare the rest of us.
Let's be honest, consumers signing closing documents, all the disclamers, disclosure and all the other stack of minutia and concumer protections...their eyes glaze over after the 3rd page and then they just now a keep signing sheet after sheet so they can get the keys and get the hell out of there.
This could escalate into God knows what kind of disclosures this has the potential to warp into. Will there be magic words that need to be included in these disclosures?Who'll read a blog that has to list a wordy disclosure before they get to the meat of the blog. But maybe it would keep me safe from all those bloggers who claim theiri Sham WOW has changed their lives or whose Swiffer taught her how to poll dance.
I wonder if there is an award for turning people in??
Big Brother is Watching you....
Informative and funny blog Patricia. I think that this could get out of hand. I hope that it does not.
There are some misconceptions on here....first there is NO FINE associated with these new Guidelines (directly out of the mouth of Mary Engle of the FTC). That $11,000 was written on several blogs and is erronious.
Second-they stated very clearly they are not going after bloggers, but the Advertisers that hire Affliate Marketers. Most specifically these guidelines came into effect because of the misleading and often fradulant Weight loss Industry ads.
Third- it was mentioned on here about no notice. These guidelines were drafted in November of 2008, and notice was given. They will go into effect 12/1/09.
And as far as due dilengence, if my memory serves me correctly Nov. 08 is before Obama was sworn in as President!