Articles+On+Advertising

Bloggers in hot watermedia type="meebo" key="QOtObIiNIh" width="304" height="435" align="right"
= = Bloggers who endorse different products or services without saying they’ve been paid to do that will be, starting December 1th, in big trouble. From that day, anybody, from celebrities to college students or soccer moms who use the Internet to express their thoughts, must states clearly any benefits they receive in exchange for their endorsement. This is the subject of NY Times reporter Tim Arango’s article, //Advertising - F.T.C. to Rule Blogs Must Disclose Gifts or Pay for Reviews.// Tim Arango, a well-known media reporter, seems to approve the move Federal Trade Commission (FTC) made by introducing bloggers in its 1980’s //Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in// Advertising. His article quotes a FTC official, two professors and even a blogger, all of them favoring the introduction of new regulation. The only slight opposition comes from a lawyer who expresses some concerns about FTC capacity of understanding blogging. Of course, arguments expressed by the supporters of the new regulations make sense. The ones NY Times article quote sustain that electronic media has to respect the same norms as the traditional media, and advertising has to be made in a transparent matter. They believe, also, that bloggers have the responsibility to be truthful to their readers. In order to convince us that the new rules are a good thing, even the author comes with some examples of pseudo-independent blogs created by companies in order to endorse their own products. Of course, the online advertising has to be regulated, as long as big companies, including Microsoft, Ford and Pepsi, starting investing billions on word-of-mouth and social media and PQ Media projects that marketers will spend $3.7 billion on word-of-mouth marketing in 2011 ((Bush, 2009). But to which extend the new regulations will be applied? It is important that a blogger to disclose he has been paid with thousands of dollars to write a positive review for, let’s say, the new Beatles game. The writers, who are actually virtual consumers, have the right to know that the blogger’s “opinion” might be the result of an advertising contract. But what about somebody who reviews books or CD’s he receives for free from publishing houses or record companies? Traditional media reporters receive this kind of things for free, also, but I’ve never seen any disclosure. Why then will be bloggers forced to do that? Isn’t that something that can affect the credibility of the endorsement even if the blogger maintains his objectivity? How FTC will determine if the blogger is guilty of deceptive advertising, as long as any opinion is, by its nature, subjective? So far, Federal Trade Commission addresses those questions by saying that “whether a particular endorsement or testimonial is deceptive will depend on the specific factual circumstances of the advertisement at issue” (as cited in Mullan, 2009, p.10). Pretty vague, isn’t it? Another counterargument that can be made is that the Internet has changed the classical relationship between advertiser and consumer. Consumers are becoming now prosumers, “proactive consumers who reject most traditional advertising and use multiple sources” (Baran, 2009, p. 346). They have multiple ways to counteract deceptive advertising and exchange information. The 21th century consumer can comment even on the blog where the deceptive ad has been posted. A blogger can’t block all the users having a different opinion than his if he wants to have traffic and to remain a player into the blogosphere. Without being against benefits disclosure, I think FTC still have to set clear limits and norms. I realize, though, dealing with Web 2.0 is not an easy task for an institution that has been created to regulate advertising more than sixty years before the dawn of Internet.

In a Recent decision by the FTC, bloggers and celebrities or anyone advertising any type of product must tell their viewers or readers if they received endorsements, free products or any type of compensation for their opinions. Because the global mass media market is relying more on bloggers and the opinions of non-experts, businesses have been hiring bloggers and people on Twitter or Facebook to promote their products. Jonathon Zittrain a Harvard Law Professor said, “the rules are looking ahead to a quite possible future when there is a market to buy ‘authentic’ public endorsements.” (Arango, 2009) The FTC was created in 1914 to monitor the growing advertising business It was a result of many false claims by doctors for their cure all’s or their dietary supplements, and a result of the muckrakers close examination at the United’s States big business. In 1938 we see the first big increase in the size of the FTC, congress passed the Wheeler-Lea Act, which extended the FTC’s powers even further into the advertising business. (Baran, 2009, p.328-329) New regulation is not uncommon in the advertising business, with its creation and its expansion from the end of the civil war to the beginning of WWI, the government needs to keep up and find new ways to regulate an always changing system. This decision to make bloggers disclose any affiliation is something that our government has always done, it just increases their power into a growing cell of the advertising agency.

This current legislation was put into full swing back in July when a petition was circulated and rallies where formed by “Mommy Bloggers”, these good Samaritans want ethics brought back into blogging. Blogging should not be about PR and profit margins or who can get the most free stuff; it should be a about the sincere spread of correct information.(Kuhn, 2009) I have had experiences with this problem, lately I’ve been getting quite a few Facebook friend requests from people who seemingly are real people, then once I accept them I will get messages and comments from them about this specific event I should attend, or this specific product I should use. I knew these people are advertising for a company and more than likely are getting paid for it. I understand the use of viral marketing and how companies will advertise through a seemingly credible source, trying to make me tell my next door neighbor but, some people might not. So even though these companies are invading my computer under a neutral flag if you read between the lines you already know what their intentions are. I can see the “look to be credible sources” having an affect on young children, or even adults who don’t know much about companies advertising schemes. It is possible that someone will read one article and go out and buy the product because Brad Pitt endorsed it. This new legislation I believe is aimed at preventing this, preventing the ignorant populous who are awed by the beautiful celebrity, and will do anything to be like them.

Advertisers have become more adept at integrating their ads into places very inconspicuously, making them appear as just an average person's review on a product or a "public service" piece on the evening news. This seems to be especially true with new media. There are tons of bloggers or twitterers out there touting the virtues of this cool new product, movie, or album. The FTC has always been there to keep advertising "honest," and up until now, bloggers online have been unregulated in what "gifts" they have been receiving to tout the virtues of these products. That is all about to change. Just this past week the FTC decided that a revision in the rules of advertising on blogs and social media sites was in order. Beginning Dec. 1, bloggers will have to disclose what "gifts" or payment they were given for any sort of testimonial or endorsement that they make on their sites(T. Arango, Oct. 5, 2009). There has been a sort-of free for all on the internet, up until this point. This, often times, makes it nearly impossible to separate the true and honest love of a product, by an every day Jane or Joe, from a paid endorsement on a blog or website. Often times these sites pose as independent consumer groups when actually they are being run by the same companies whose products are being endorsed on the site. Baran (2010) says that "US advertisers spend $500 billion a year - half the world's total - trying to get your attention and influence your decisions." It's obvious that advertisers are very good at finding new ways to inundate us with ads 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It's their business and there is plenty of business to go around. The internet has been the last bastion of "free" advertising. That is advertising without letting the consumer know where this information is coming from. It's important for consumers to know who or what is sponsoring the information they are consuming from blogs and websites. It is the consumers right to know and to be informed so that the consumer can make informed decisions about the products and services that they will be purchasing. There is no doubt that as technology and newer forms of media are made available, that advertisers will waste no time in filling those mediums with ads as quickly as possible.

Contributing Authors: Daniel Worcester, Joel Mackie, and Adriana Tomasevici Produced By: Tom Paolantonio and Conor Broderick Updated: November 4, 2009

include component="pageList" homeAtTop="on" limit="10" 