SMITH,+MATTHEW+R

=  **FTC VS. Bloggers** = We live in an advertisement-laden society. Whether we’re walking to school, driving on the highway, or even sitting in our own living rooms, there’s no escaping the blatant onslaught of advertisements that are hurled at us each day. This advertisement overload may raise the question; how are all of these ads regulated, more specifically, who regulates them? Well, the primary federal agency that regulates all of the advertising we see is called the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). It’s their job to manage and enforce complaints of advertising that may me deemed unfair or deceptive. This general oversight was a direct result of the deregulation movement of 1980, but since 1980 there has been monumental leaps and changes in media (Baran, 2009, p.341). Changes which have caused product placement and advertising to manifest itself within these new forms of media.

One massive form of new media that advertisers have utilized and, in some cases, taken advantage of, is social networking and blogging. According to an article in Tuesday’s issue of The New York Times, the FTC has decided that it’s time to revise the rules that were put into place in 1980. The FTC has determined that beginning on Dec. 1st, any blogger who endorses a product or company on a blog/social networking website, must fully disclose any connection to or compensation received from the advertisers (Arango, 2009, p.1). This disclosure of information will hopefully cause fewer transparencies in these blogger endorsements as well as possibly create a market demand for authentic public endorsements. This revision of rules brings light to the fact that the internet, a medium that has long been considered free from the bounds of media and advertisement regulation,is now receiving a form of regulation similar to that of which television, radio a  nd print media undergo. Some marketing groups are objected to the new rules. According to Linda Goldstein, a partner at Phelps & Phillips, a law firm that represents three major marketing companies, “If a product is provided to bloggers, the F.T.C. will consider that, in most cases, to be a material connection even if the advertiser has no control over the content of the blogs” (Arango, 2009, p.1). She considers this to be an unfair move that will cause a “seismic shift” in the blogging community. This idea of regulation based on material connection is one that has been applied to other forms of media for many years now.

According to Eddie Gaut, author of the article titled, “3 Errors that Could Get You in FTC Hot Water,” the FTC heavily regulates this material connection when it comes to product testimonials on radio and television. He claim’s that it’s a good idea for advertisers to steer clear of hiring illegitimate product users to give false testimonials or providing customers with any kind of incentive or compensation for testimonials, as this is something that could ruffle the feathers of the FTC. “ No compensation or material connection can be offered    to the participants of a product study. This means that your testimonial study is exactly that — a study with no mention or promise of television or other benefits for great results or extra effort” (Gaut, 2009, p.57). Gaut goes on to explain how even a legitimate potential testimonial speaker cannot have prior knowledge of the possibility of appearing on television or radio, because the FTC would have an issue. According to the FTC, the prior knowledge can be seen as a material connection given the provided motivation element (Gaut, 2009, p.57).

In the section of chapter 12 where Stanley Baran discusses the FTC, he explains the types of action the FTC will take against an advertiser in the case of suspected material connection or deceptive advertising. According to Baran, the FTC will issue a cease-and-desist order asking for the removal of the advertisement. They can also impose fines as well as purpose the distribution of corrective advertising in which a new set of ads are created in order to correct the deceptive ones. Advertisers have the option to fight these regulations in court (Baran, 2009, p.341). Though, even with a clear set of rules and standards, the FTC still sometimes has trouble discerning the types of misleading nature within an advertisement. “One of the greatest difficulties for the FTC is finding the line between false or deceptive advertising and puffery—that little lie that makes advertising more entertaining than it might otherwise be” (Baran, 2009, p.342). Regardless of this difference, both problems found in advertising are considered to be unacceptable by the FTC.

So, after all the regulation is said and done, has it really improved the quality and legitimacy of the advertising we see? Or, has it been overly detrimental on the abilities of companies to choose the most effective technique in advertising their products? As we shift into an age clouded with new media and forms of advertising, the problems concerning media regulation facing the FTC will only continue to grow, only perpetuating the idea that federal agencies need to adapt and adhere to an ever-changing society.    ** Works Cited **  -Baran, S. J. (2009). //Introduction to mass communication: media literacy and culture//. New York: McGraw Hill.  -Gaut, E. (2009). 3 Errors that could get you in FTC hot water. //Response,// 17(9), 57-57. Retrieved October 7th, 2009 from Business Source Premier Database.

-Arango, T. (2009, October 6). Soon, bloggers must give full disclosure. [Electronic Version]. //The New York Times.// Retrieved October 7, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/business/media/06adco.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=advertising&st=cse