Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: bloggers, disclosure, FTC regulation, poll, self-police, survey
“The Concern: Consumers often go online to find reviews of products, but how do they know whether a blogger has received compensation for his or her review?” (Yao, 2009).
“The Proposal: New guidelines would clarify that the Federal Trade Commission can go after bloggers – as well as the companies that compensate them – for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest,” (Yao, 2009). This would be the first time the FTC has attempted this kind of control over bloggers and approval may take place as early as this summer.
I’m aware of blogs and reviews and how companies offer free trial products to influencers/consumers who will then write about them and tell either the company how they feel about them, or other consumers, or both. I have also seen blogs in which the disclosure is evident, in a ‘support these sponsors’ section, as well as blogs or reviews in which there is a disclaimer such as ‘no compensation has been received for this review.’ However, I am sure many bloggers provide no disclosure as they are not required to, considering these bloggers currently ‘self-police.’ One thing I was unaware of was the fact that bloggers can receive a lot of money or goods for their work. The ‘perks’ can be as little as a free product or be as expensive as “a free laptop, trips to Europe, $500 gift cards or even thousands of dollars,” (Yao, 2009).
In the offline world, this compensation is considered a standard practice in which I have personally been involved. I was part of large number of people who were invited to sample products and give feedback to the organization for both the free trial and compensation, but allowed to do so every six months. During the course of 5 years I answered surveys on diet soda, sampled Tyson sliced chicken strips (the pre-grilled stuff in the refrigerated case at the market), and was one of the first persons to use the Schick Quattro razor and give feedback on the aloe strip (which made me a brand advocate and is now the only razor I will use). I was not only able to try the Schick for 3 weeks straight, but I was also paid about $200 for my opinions. So from what I understand about the proposed regulations by the FTC, what I did in the past was fine, but I would not be able to write about it on my blog, or give my opinion unless I disclosed that I received the items for free to try, and also reported that I was compensated.
Currently, bloggers are self policing, much in the same way as search engines. I am a fan of regulating that bloggers disclose when they are compensated. This can be stated as simply as “the products discussed herein have been provided for free for this review,” or “free trial products and compensation have been provided for my opinion.” If this uniformity were made a law, then consumers would be in a better position to know who to trust, and who not to. I would rather read a review on a product that was provided for free without further compensation, than one where the reviewer was paid for their comments. I would feel it was more honest.
However, I am not a fan of the idea that previous violators be forced to pay restitution to persons who read their reviews and later purchased a product in which the blogger’s viewpoint had been tainted by compensation. This regulation has also been proposed by the FTC, (Yao, 2009). These bloggers should be ‘grandfathered in’ and a notation could be made on blogs before a certain date that compensation may or may not have been received for products reviewed before that date.
What do you think?
References:
Yao, D. (2009, June 22). “I’m Blogging about a Great Fantastic Super New Product…That, Ahem, the Company Gave Me For Free…” The Virginian-Pilot. Retrieved June 22, 2009.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: China, cyber theft, FTC regulation, identity theft, internet security, obama
Over the weekend, I found two articles on the above topic that dealt with internet security from opposing viewpoints; however, both made strong arguments of which many of us will probably agree. One was about President Obama’s recent appointment of a ‘cyber security czar’ whose main task is to make all our inter-webs safe from cyber crime. The article contained some startling facts:
• Cyber crimes against businesses cost the global economy $1 trillion per year.
• Many cases of identity theft stem from hackers obtaining your personal information from computers.
• Cyber extortion (‘pay up or we’ll wipe out your website’) is a major problem in the corporate world.
• The U.S. government has admitted that the Pentagon’s computer system has been invaded by hackers from both China and Russia in the past, (Hunker, 2009).
In the last 10 years, four different sets of plans have been drafted on how to handle cyber crime, and who will regulate it. In a move that reminds me of our lesson this week on search engine advertising regulation, until now it has been the job of software companies in the private sector to ‘voluntarily’ take most of the initiative in how they design their software. The departments who are in charge of the government end of the regulation; the Secret Service, the FBI, the FTC, part of the Justice Department; as well as a wrestling match between the NSA and the Dept. of Homeland Security to see who runs it just makes me think there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Just like the Carter administration mucked up the whole business of nuclear power legislation in the aftermath of Three Mile Island, it seems there are too many organizations who are spewing differing directives and assuming that everybody is doing their part. What is really needed is a new committee with representatives from all of these above agencies who will discuss what part everyone is currently playing and how they can play together nicely. In my opinion, this new Czar needs to find out what the current standards are for each branch of the regulation game, and also involve the private sector to see what else is possible in the design of software and hardware. And maybe they should employ some of the best hackers. Give these losers who live to mess up my computer, make them abide by strict rules and pay them a lot of money so they don’t bite the hand feeding them.
Okay, so I’ve explained about adding more regulation, but what about monitoring computers less? This is not just the other side, but a new coin all together. The monitoring of which I refer is that of oppressive dictatorial countries who monitor their citizens and their personal internet usage. As I write this I think about when Bush signed over more power to the NSA to monitor domestic computer usage as a way to pre-empt and combat terrorists within our borders, (Nakashima, 2008), and I shudder. This is already happening in our country, and most of us never think about this fact. We feel for those persons in the Middle East and China who are subject to this. Chinese president, Hu Jintao, has even stated the “stability of the socialist state will remain at risk unless China’s multibillion-dollar cyber-police initiative can effectively ‘purify’ the internet…[by] control[ling] internet use and information” (Jianli, 2009). If this cyber initiative fails, China will lose their control over what information is relayed to the people and their hate filled propaganda will fall on informed and deaf ears.
I am all for helping another country of people to see the light, but who makes the determination on what is allowable and trusted information and what is propaganda? Consider our own elections. If you wanted McCain to win, you could read and believe that Obama was really in tight with terrorists and would lead the U.S. to defeat from the Middle East. If you were an Obama supporter, you could find a slew of stats on McCain’s love of big oil and big business and that he would tax us to near-death and then tax our right to get medical help. When a people is being led by a person or a party, there are going to be dissidents who disagree with how that party is ruling. In a free society, you can gain access to both sides. I agree this is important, but what if one side plays fair and the other side wages violent war on the first? Then who is really being protected by free speech and open internet?
This is a big head-full of ideas to wrap my brains around. Any thoughts?
References:
Hunker, J. (2009). “It’s a Jungle Out There.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved June 7, 2009.
Jianli, Y. (2009). “Online Toward Democracy.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved June 7, 2009.
Nakashima, E. (2008). “Bush Order Expands Network Monitoring.” Washington Post. Retrieved June 10, 2009 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/25/AR2008012503261.html
