This is www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=507959226's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=507959226's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=507959226
Recent Activity
Doug, I agree there are grey areas, and that's part of the problem. I personally believe I've addressed the letter and intent of this law with my site's policies and practices. We've disclosed how we get the equipment we review and that if we exceed this normal operating procedure, we'll note it in context on a case-by-case basis. I think the goal of this re-clarification by the FTC is twofold. The first is to get people to disclose how they obtain their review equipment. The second - and this is more the "intent" than the "letter" of the law, I believe - is to actually stop the true bought-and-paid-for endorsements that some sites have. After all, let's not forget that not every "review" is an "endorsement" by any stretch of the imagination. A review which explains in detail how badly something sucks, without mentioning a competing product, isn't much of an "endorsement" and it certainly isn't something for which the company who provided the "sucky" equipment would pay. In the end, a review is not necessarily an endorsement and an endorsement is not necessarily a review. This whole thing gets even trickier (greyer) when you get into software or other non-physical goods. Or consumables. Etc.
The way I'm reading it, this talks only about "endorsements" and not "reviews." It does say that if a reviewer receives cash or other "in-kind" incentives - which I do not take to mean freebie equipment - that the review would be considered an endorsement instead. But straight up reviews? I think they're covered. On my site (golf), we cover this in a blanket review policy post available to anyone. We cover sponsors with advertising on the site as well.