a review and explanation of the new rules - including several examples.Bloggers Must Give Full Disclosure- NYTimes.com

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Amy Wohl <amy () wohl com>
> Date: October 6, 2009 17:06:14 EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: RE: [IP] a review and explanation of the new rules -  
> including several examples.Bloggers Must Give Full Disclosure- NYTimes.com

> I have read all of the Internet material I could find on the new FTC
> Guidelines for bloggers and discussed them with others in my position
> (professionals in the computer industry who are consultants or  
> industry
> analysts and write blogs about trends and companies in the  
> industry).  Of
> course some of these companies may be current, past or potential  
> future
> clients.
>
> They most certainly do not pay me for writing about them and I have  
> on many
> occasions commented that when someone pays for my opinion (which is  
> what
> most of my consulting engagements boil down to), they will certainly  
> get
> that, but it carries no offer of my good opinion about their  
> products.  Over
> the years I have "fired" two clients who couldn't understand that  
> concept.
>
> Many clients actually require that our relationship is confidential  
> and we
> have, from time to time, signed contracts with this clause.
>
> I have no idea what the FTC thinks people like me should do.
>
> (1)    I don't write for consumers, but on the Internet you have no  
> idea
> who is reading your blog.
> (2)    We don't recommend products, but we sometimes comment on them
> favorably or unfavorably.
> (3)   I see that Anne Martin, who gave some excellent examples, did  
> not
> cover "my" kind of blogger, an expert offering their opinions about  
> some set
> of (usually) current topics to a business audience.  All of her  
> examples
> (and much of the FTC Guidelines language) seem to be about blogs  
> that are
> for consumers.
> (4)  Nevertheless, I see that Anne has a tagline on her blog now, a  
> kind of
> general statement about her position on endorsements.
>
> Should I do that (put some general vague statement up on my blog  
> sites)?
>
> It is my understanding that the courts have not determined that  
> bloggers are
> the same thing as journalists and therefore entitled to the same
> protections.
>
> But, clearly, there is a vast difference between someone writing  
> about baby
> powder for other mommies (and getting free samples) and someone  
> writing out
> of years of experience about why cloud computing is or is not an  
> important
> new computing architecture and what companies might be expected to be
> important players.
>
> Is there some way we can tell the FTC that they have created a set of
> unintentional consequences?  Or should we assume that they are not
> unintentional at all?
>
> Amy D. Wohl
> Editor, Amy Wohl's Opinions
> 40 Old Lancaster Road, #608
> Merion, Station, PA 19066
> 610-667-4842
> amy () wohl com
> www.wohl.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 2:31 AM
> To: ip
> Subject: [IP] a review and explanation of the new rules - including  
> several
> examples.Bloggers Must Give Full Disclosure- NYTimes.com
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <amitchell () isipp com>
> Date: October 6, 2009 2:09:12 AM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: Re: [IP] Soon, Bloggers Must Give Full Disclosure-  
> NYTimes.com
>
> Dave, et al,
>
> >
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/business/media/06adco.html?ref=global-home
>
> I've just finished reviewing the FTC's full 81-page document relating
> to this, and we've just published our review and explanation of the
> new rules - including several examples.
>
> The short bottom line conclusion is that if you are endorsing
> (recommending, suggesting, enthusing or raving about) something -
> anything - and you stand to gain from the sale or other uptake of it -
> or have already gained something (anything) in exchange for your
> mentioning it, then you shouldn't take a chance:  disclose that fact.
>
> If you want to read the somewhat longer analysis, it's here (I am not
> going to post it here because it *is* long - particularly as it
> contains 16 examples):
>
> http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/the-new-ftc-rules-on-bloggers-blogging-test
> imonials-and-endorsements-explained/
>
> Anne
>
> Anne P. Mitchell, Esq
> CEO/President
> Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
> http://www.ISIPP.com
> Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee
> Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of SJ
> Author, "The Email Deliverability Handbook"
> Helping businesses get their email delivered to the inbox since 1998
>
> Email Accreditation:  http://www.SuretyMail.com
>
> Email Deliverability Blog: http://www.GettingEmailDelivered.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.420 / Virus Database: 270.13.112/2390 - Release Date:  
> 10/05/09
> 18:23:00



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com