FTC: Freebies Must Be Disclosed
FTC: Freebies Must Be Disclosed
October 5, 2009
The Federal Trade Commission passed down a ruling today that could have some impact on the way video game reviews sites and bloggers do business.
The FTC, in a 4-0 ruling, said that "material connections" between advertisers and endorsers (such as payments or free products) "must be disclosed."
The hook seems to be the phrasing that "connections that consumers would not expect." Hardcore video game readers tend to be a jaded lot, and think that many sites are on the take for good reviews any way, whether they are or not. Most understand that sites get free games to review. But the general consumer may not know this.
The ruling also broadened the existing guidelines to cover bloggers:
[The new rules] 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.
The FTC did not rule that bloggers or companies must disclose any conflicts of interest.
There has always been a blurred line when sites accept advertising from game publishers and then review their products. Those same sites get free games and swag as part of review packages from publishers. Some sites do disclose this information, but most don't.
GamePolitics has contacted the FTC to see if these new rules extend to the video game arena. We'll update with a response when we get it.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 11/21/09 at 09:21am
magic_taco: ...ok...
magic_taco: ...ok...
Posted 11/21/09 at 08:16am
ZippyDSMlee: Welcome and goodmorning its zippy in the AM....wat OMG its 8:50AM!!!!
ZippyDSMlee: Welcome and goodmorning its zippy in the AM....wat OMG its 8:50AM!!!!
Posted 11/20/09 at 05:42pm
ZippyDSMlee: oh may the cute stab out your eyes, http://www.youtube.com/user/simonscat
ZippyDSMlee: oh may the cute stab out your eyes, http://www.youtube.com/user/simonscat
Posted 11/20/09 at 05:17pm
JDKJ: O.K. Suit yourself. But when you're wearing Ray-Bans, sitting on a curb with a white cane and a cup of pencils, and doing Stevie Wonder impersonations, don't say I didn't warn you.
JDKJ: O.K. Suit yourself. But when you're wearing Ray-Bans, sitting on a curb with a white cane and a cup of pencils, and doing Stevie Wonder impersonations, don't say I didn't warn you.
Posted 11/20/09 at 05:10pm
ZippyDSMlee: JD:No thank you I don;t want your cooties...or STDs...
ZippyDSMlee: JD:No thank you I don;t want your cooties...or STDs...
Posted 11/20/09 at 05:01pm
JDKJ: Me. I'm rehearsing the role just in case I do get dubbed Zippy The Soecnda.
JDKJ: Me. I'm rehearsing the role just in case I do get dubbed Zippy The Soecnda.
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:59pm
DarkSaber: Wait, is that meant to be Zippy, me or you?
DarkSaber: Wait, is that meant to be Zippy, me or you?
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:49pm
JDKJ: I cud caer lez. =^^= *wakes up in mid-afternoon after staying up until 3:00AM soldering resistors on to circuit boards, stumbles around in formerly white but now grey underwear, while simultaneously scratching groin with vigor and making coffee*
JDKJ: I cud caer lez. =^^= *wakes up in mid-afternoon after staying up until 3:00AM soldering resistors on to circuit boards, stumbles around in formerly white but now grey underwear, while simultaneously scratching groin with vigor and making coffee*
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:46pm
DarkSaber: knell? Don't you mean Neil? Anymore of tht and I'll dub thee Zippy The Soecnda
DarkSaber: knell? Don't you mean Neil? Anymore of tht and I'll dub thee Zippy The Soecnda
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:44pm
JDKJ: Now, now, Saber. Don't be salty. You weren't the first one to knell and bob and you ain't gonna be the last one, either.
JDKJ: Now, now, Saber. Don't be salty. You weren't the first one to knell and bob and you ain't gonna be the last one, either.
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:42pm
DarkSaber: JD's feeling rather desperate it seems.
DarkSaber: JD's feeling rather desperate it seems.
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:33pm
JDKJ: C'mon, Zip. You already touch yourself way too much. Spread the love. Before you go blind.
JDKJ: C'mon, Zip. You already touch yourself way too much. Spread the love. Before you go blind.
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:27pm
ZippyDSMlee: JD:No and I ain't touching any part of you or your friends!! :P
ZippyDSMlee: JD:No and I ain't touching any part of you or your friends!! :P
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:25pm
JDKJ: @Zip: You know Lik Mitaint?
JDKJ: @Zip: You know Lik Mitaint?
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:18pm
ZippyDSMlee: neill and bob,oldest giveing head joke and most lamest...
ZippyDSMlee: neill and bob,oldest giveing head joke and most lamest...
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:18pm
JDKJ: But thanks for the memory. MIB's a classic. *sings* "Here come the Men in Black. Galaxy defenders. Here come the Men in Black. They won't let you remember."
JDKJ: But thanks for the memory. MIB's a classic. *sings* "Here come the Men in Black. Galaxy defenders. Here come the Men in Black. They won't let you remember."
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:18pm
ZippyDSMlee: JD:for the record I told you you can suck your own dck.
ZippyDSMlee: JD:for the record I told you you can suck your own dck.
Posted 11/20/09 at 04:07pm
JDKJ: Naw, man. That's Mueedeegiaap and Bob. And you can stop bobbing. I got Zippy bobbing now, too.
JDKJ: Naw, man. That's Mueedeegiaap and Bob. And you can stop bobbing. I got Zippy bobbing now, too.
Posted 11/20/09 at 03:56pm
DarkSaber: OH I get it now! It's Men In Black quote! The twins that run the comm centre in HQ.
DarkSaber: OH I get it now! It's Men In Black quote! The twins that run the comm centre in HQ.
Posted 11/20/09 at 03:49pm
JDKJ: I'd like to introduce you to them. First, Neil. Then, Bob.
JDKJ: I'd like to introduce you to them. First, Neil. Then, Bob.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
The other fair question is: how comprehensive a definition of "bloggers" are they looking at here? If I get a free sample of a toothpaste in the mail, and recommend it after using it, do I have do disclose that?
Hell, you could argue that -commenters- would be held accountable. Or message board posters. That starts falling into a very weird zone.
This goes beyond 'fair' and into the realm of 'biggie'.
The legal system is having serious headaches figuring out where journalism ends and people just talking begins. Journalists have all sorts of rights (and responsiblities) that random people on the street corner do not have.. but now that anyone can self-publish and potentially be read by millions.. it is getting sticky.
Depends. Do you regularly review and recommend dental hygiene products? Did you receive said toothpaste with the distributor expecting a review of some kind? If not, then you would be safe not disclosing that.
I think the main goal of this ruling is to get those instances of a conflict of interest out in the open so that the consumers can make a more informed decision.
Back to the dental products reviewer. Let's say that you do review dental hygiene products. Colgate sends you a tube of their new toothpaste to test and review. Arm and Hammer sends you not only a tube of toothpaste but a tee-shirt and an invitation to a special preview party of their new line up of products.
The FTC ruling is targeting the second situation.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
And that's the common-sense reading of it, I agree. It just feels a lot less specific about bloggers than it did about "marketers".
No offense to the professionals, but I put more interest and stock in the consumer review over the professional review. While looking at the professional is interesting, seeing those who play a game, shut down their computer, walk away, come back later, and play some more are a little more "realistic" from my viewpoint. They are more likely to catch the casual bug than the professional reviewer who's looking for the more obvious. Plus, the average professional reviewer tends to use one machine. Maybe two. But, looking at a large number of consumer reviews with many different systems, I get an idea of what a piece of software can or can't do.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000
Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
You mentioned swag....
Do things like promotional items and swag count, particularly if everyone is getting them? For example, there's a Bioshock 2 promotion going on right now, where an old fashioned delivery boy has been dropping off telegrams and packages to people, in conjunction with an event hosted on beaches where people searched for messages in bottles. Does something like that count in the things that need to be disclosed?
That's one of the things I asked the FTC in an email I sent them. They returned my call, but asked me to email questions in. Not sure how long they will take to respond.
As a person who wants to be a Video Game "journalist" in the future, I think this is an anwful decision that will ruin everything or do absolutly nothing at all. Reviewers get copies of the game from publishers for free all the time, and they also get crazy packaged goods from the publishers containing weird little notes and gifts. None of the reviewers get money to do a review though, (unless your super shady ala Kayne and Lynch). But I dunno if "shwag" is considered a "payment". They usually do this because the nominal cost of shipping a game freely to them outweight the marketing potential of the coverage of that game, whether it be by review or preview, and most of the time there are not many strings attached. How this would affect or not affect them is that there maybe some reviews that must say at the end "we got this game for free by *blank*" and those reviews start to looks shady, or all reviews will end up with the "we got this game for free by *blank*" because that's how they get the game most of the time, and it will all generally get normalized and it means nothing to the readers anymore. Either that or this just involves cash as "payment" then any reviews that are "bought off" by the publishers effectively become distrusted and means nothing anymore.
Can't wait to see how this changes the way gaming sites like IGN and GAMESPOT does there reviews.
http://www.magicinkgaming.com/
The FTC may not have made a ruling on conflicts of interest presently, but I think this means it will not be far in coming. What is the point of disclosing that you have received material goods from the folks you are reviewing now, if you are not required to disclose you've received material goods from the competitors of the folks you're reviewing now? And who maybe you won't be reviewing so you don't have to disclose them? There will be a small rash of such events, and then there will be an additional ruling. That is how this works.
IMO games reviewers (like Tom Chick, who gets paid cash to write text for game 1 but reviews game 2 without thinking that worth bearing mention) have made this bed for themselves to lie in...so although insanejedi is right that this will ruin game reviewers, they've brought that ruin upon themselves through apparent and bad behaviour.