The FTC in the US has just passed regulations enacting the requirement for bloggers to disclose. WOMMA (Word of Mouth Marketing Association – of which Vocanic was a founding member) issued its ethics guidelines 5 years ago taking the same stance – that of transparency and disclosure.
Strangely the FTC regulations hold bloggers to a higher level of disclosure than journalists or editors .... personally I think they too should be legally required to disclose.
Whilst I agree that it is “buyer beware”, disclosure at least gives people more information with which to judge the authenticity of the recommendation.
As a Word of Mouth and Social Media marketing agency with 5 years of experience of running projects we have always insisted on the Transparency ROI (of Relationship, Opinion and Identity), not only is it the right thing to do, it also protects us and the most importantly the brand from the backlash from people angry with having being deceived.
Bloggers should be required to disclose their ties to brands. I think that it keeps the blogosphere fair and balanced. Consumers have the right to know that a major hotel is paying me (I blog about the family travel industry) to talk about the great family packages and service that they offer. In fact, I won't event partner with a property if they ask that I NOT disclose the fact that I'm a paid advocate.
Honestly, I don't think this will be enforced. Advertising is misleading and to have bloggers tell the truth, wouldn't be in alignment with what advertising is. It will really be up to the reader to disern, for themselves, whether the blogger they are following is GENUINELY sharing this information because they are TRULY a raving customer or if it's all fluff to get a paycheck.
Stuart - 15 years ago
I just voted yes, but now I think about it, should have voted no. Why should they have to disclose? Its up to people what they write about. But, as Andrew says above, many magazines and media owners here will run 'paid editorial' without flagging it as such and all it does is serve to undermine their credibility as a medium - the consumer isn't an idiot, she is your wife, as David Ogilvy once said. They can generally spot if something is being overtly promoted (and rail against it in many cases online).
It is exactly this differentiation - ie where consumers know they are reading something with integrity that is not swayed editorially for commercial reasons versus a publication (online/print) that does - that will mean the full circle back to paid content online (and potentially packaged with print). The internet is full of dodgy sources/rumour/tittle tattle/gossip. It is up to the credible organisations (FT, IHT, WSJ etc) to differentiate from that and by doing so find a way of monetising their trusted editorial - and by doing so save the future of quality journalism.
andrew - 15 years ago
Whilst technology has provided the consumer with more power (information), the old adage of 'buyer beware' still stands.
Any form of information (especially on the internet) should be treated with a healthy degree of skepticism.
Paid bloggers that blog or seed opinion on forums should not be made to disclose any links with brands that pay them. One must ask one's self is any medium or sales person actually truly impartial? TV stations and papers have long leant either to the right or the left when it comes to reporting politics. Then there's 'paid editorial' which happens frequently in Asia, where journos are paid to write articles on companies and brands. Salespeople in all types of industries also 'sell' based on commissions, and they will recommend anything that gets them the biggest cut.
As long as bloggers are not making false claims about products, I have no problem with them not disclosing which brands are paying them.
The FTC in the US has just passed regulations enacting the requirement for bloggers to disclose. WOMMA (Word of Mouth Marketing Association – of which Vocanic was a founding member) issued its ethics guidelines 5 years ago taking the same stance – that of transparency and disclosure.
Strangely the FTC regulations hold bloggers to a higher level of disclosure than journalists or editors .... personally I think they too should be legally required to disclose.
Whilst I agree that it is “buyer beware”, disclosure at least gives people more information with which to judge the authenticity of the recommendation.
As a Word of Mouth and Social Media marketing agency with 5 years of experience of running projects we have always insisted on the Transparency ROI (of Relationship, Opinion and Identity), not only is it the right thing to do, it also protects us and the most importantly the brand from the backlash from people angry with having being deceived.
I vote for full disclosure for everyone
Ian
Bloggers should be required to disclose their ties to brands. I think that it keeps the blogosphere fair and balanced. Consumers have the right to know that a major hotel is paying me (I blog about the family travel industry) to talk about the great family packages and service that they offer. In fact, I won't event partner with a property if they ask that I NOT disclose the fact that I'm a paid advocate.
Honestly, I don't think this will be enforced. Advertising is misleading and to have bloggers tell the truth, wouldn't be in alignment with what advertising is. It will really be up to the reader to disern, for themselves, whether the blogger they are following is GENUINELY sharing this information because they are TRULY a raving customer or if it's all fluff to get a paycheck.
I just voted yes, but now I think about it, should have voted no. Why should they have to disclose? Its up to people what they write about. But, as Andrew says above, many magazines and media owners here will run 'paid editorial' without flagging it as such and all it does is serve to undermine their credibility as a medium - the consumer isn't an idiot, she is your wife, as David Ogilvy once said. They can generally spot if something is being overtly promoted (and rail against it in many cases online).
It is exactly this differentiation - ie where consumers know they are reading something with integrity that is not swayed editorially for commercial reasons versus a publication (online/print) that does - that will mean the full circle back to paid content online (and potentially packaged with print). The internet is full of dodgy sources/rumour/tittle tattle/gossip. It is up to the credible organisations (FT, IHT, WSJ etc) to differentiate from that and by doing so find a way of monetising their trusted editorial - and by doing so save the future of quality journalism.
Whilst technology has provided the consumer with more power (information), the old adage of 'buyer beware' still stands.
Any form of information (especially on the internet) should be treated with a healthy degree of skepticism.
Paid bloggers that blog or seed opinion on forums should not be made to disclose any links with brands that pay them. One must ask one's self is any medium or sales person actually truly impartial? TV stations and papers have long leant either to the right or the left when it comes to reporting politics. Then there's 'paid editorial' which happens frequently in Asia, where journos are paid to write articles on companies and brands. Salespeople in all types of industries also 'sell' based on commissions, and they will recommend anything that gets them the biggest cut.
As long as bloggers are not making false claims about products, I have no problem with them not disclosing which brands are paying them.