In light of Federal Trade Commission ruling, I need to confess that Singlebarbed.com did in fact give me a set of the Precious (Sixth Finger scissors) and that I did willfully foist said device on the unsuspecting eyes of my readers.

To rectify this heinous breach of confidence, witness the left hand (of the author) paying the right hand (of the author) the full and complete purchase price of the aforementioned bloody awesome scissors.

Now that I’m a reformed whore – I get to throw big rocks at everyone else…

The Federal Trade Commission has ruled that as of December 31, 2009, bloggers will be required to list their relationships with any vendors, and whether the product they’ve reviewed was paid for – or provided free by the manufacturer.

Rather, in analyzing statements made via these new media, the
fundamental question is whether, viewed objectively, the relationship between the advertiser and the speaker is such that the speaker’s statement can be considered “sponsored” by the advertiser and therefore an “advertising message.” In other words, in disseminating positive statements about a product or service, is the speaker: (1) acting solely independently, in which case there is no endorsement, or (2) acting on behalf of the advertiser or its agent, such that the speaker’s statement is an “endorsement” that is part of an overall marketing campaign? The facts and circumstances that will determine the answer to this question are extremely varied and cannot be fully enumerated here, but would include: whether the speaker is compensated by the advertiser or its agent; whether the product or service in question was provided for free by the advertiser; the terms of any agreement; the length of the relationship; the previous receipt of products or services from the same or similar advertisers, or the likelihood of future receipt of such products or services; and the value of the items or services received.

This isn’t a really big deal as most blogs are personal and therefore exempt, but there’s plenty of grey area to stumble over. Many blogs are supported by the manufacturers (especially those that give favorable reviews) and a great deal of “loot” is dispensed through all the various angling mediums; magazines, blogs, forums, and the like.

In industries unrelated to fishing, manufacturers have commissioned “independent” blogs as a source of free word-of-mouth advertising and the FTC wants to shutter these “surrogate mouthpiece” sites.

Assume now that the consumer joins a network marketing program under which she periodically receives various products about which she can write reviews if she wants to do so. If she receives a free bag of the new dog food through this program, her positive review would be considered an endorsement under the Guides.

Individual authors lack the funds to buy multiple $700 rods each year – and may lack the desire even if the fundage was forthcoming. Manufacturers queue themselves willingly for the chance to reach your precious eyeballs, and the larger for-profit sites will now have to spill all the sordid details.

… and lest you think I’m pointing fingers, “for-profit” describes any site with Google’s AdSense advertisements – the irritating little ads to the right of this column that you never click on anyways.

I think this is a great idea and long overdue.

Popular blogs are besieged by unrelated vendors who will pay just for a link to their site. Something as innocuous as the word “shoes” can be worth money to a high traffic site. Vendors don’t care whose eyes they capture as long as there’s lots of them.

Product reviews have always been a sore spot – even amongst the magazine crowd. Fly fishing is such a personal issue that one fellow’s idea of a great rod may not be shared by others. Numerous articles on the topic have surfaced on this and other blogs about these “rock and a hard place” pressures.

If you play the game well, applying the lips to whichever hindquarters are presented – you get more free stuff, and advertisement revenue. If you don’t – well, you don’t get anything.

… and that’s fine too… only the FTC no longer sees it that way.

I’m not a legal mind, but if Sage is paying you a monthly stipend to host their banner and you review one of their rods, are you on their retainer?

Example 5: A skin care products advertiser participates in a blog advertising service. The service matches up advertisers with bloggers who will promote the advertiser’s products on their personal blogs. The advertiser requests that a blogger try a new body lotion and write a review of the product on her blog. Although the advertiser does not make any specific claims about the lotion’s ability to cure skin conditions and the blogger does not ask the advertiser whether there is substantiation for the claim, in her review the blogger writes that the lotion cures eczema and recommends the product to her blog readers who suffer from this condition. The advertiser is subject to liability for
misleading or unsubstantiated representations made through the blogger’s endorsement.

So how does it all work? The Redington RS4 review that TC and I did came with the requirement that we link back to the Redington site twice. The rod and reel we reviewed was donated by the vendor to our collective bosom with the understanding we’d both review the product.

The Trout Underground thought it a sturdy serviceable rod, and my opinion was that it was sturdy … too damn sturdy for my taste. That’s the gamble the vendor takes when putting his “best foot forward” – loose cannons like myself may not like the product and have the affront to say so.

The manufacturer is gambling on a favorable review and the topic (plus links) to bring your precious eyeballs back to their site for ritual exploitation.

Our combined (Underground/Singlebarbed) loot policy requires us to donate the rod and reel to the readers. I’m guessing this will happen after TC becomes more skilled in whip finishing his new daughter’s diapers …

The Modified Singlebarbed Loot Policy:

I own more tackle than a fully equipped fly shop. I’ve got more reels, rods, fly tying materials, books, hooks, waders, boots, and vest-based errata than I care to admit.

… the fact that my brother has borrowed or broken half of it is immaterial.

I will tell my girlfriend that any item she claims is new – was provided free by a vendor – and I’m counting on you not to spill the beans.

In the case of a product review I will outline the requirements the vendor has saddled me with – and whether I paid for the beast. As Singlebarbed does not kiss vendor buttocks, we’re considered “a loose cannon” by that community and I expect I will continue to pay for all products reviewed.

Tags: FTC endorsement rules change, FTC guides on endorsements and testimonials, Redington, trout underground, Google AdSense, bloggers, blogging ethics, schwag