The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

FTC to crack down on review-blog freebies. Holy plugoly!?!?!?

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ranger 9

Guest
Oops, just thought of another thing:

Even in my Scenarios I and II, it's possible that a competing blog or blogger that did NOT receive sample equipment from that manufacturer (possibly as punishment for past unfavorable reviews?) would feel that the subject blog was getting a competitive advantage by receiving samples not available to others. The competitor might argue that this competitive advantage constitutes a "material consideration" and requires disclosure.​

And looked at that way, I'd have to agree. I'd have to say that as a reader, I'd prefer to have disclosure of anything a blogger receives that isn't readily available to the general public. As noted earlier, this wouldn't necessarily reduce the blogger's credibility -- I just want to know about it, that's all.
 
N

nautilus

Guest
Im looking forward to getting the information if Ken Rockwell is sponsored by all camera manufacturers or nobody. ;-)
 

LJL

New member
There are so many lines that can be crossed that are of benefit to either or both sides, as well as beneficial to the larger readership/potential buyers at large. It does not seem like such a big deal for those reviewing or blogging about gear to be upfront if there has been any sort of consideration given, directly measurable or not. If the OEM is looking for only favorable press and a positive review, they have a lot more means to influence reviewers/writers than not. That is sort of business as is and many readers understand that. They eventually "vote" by not reading the blogs and reviews that do not interest them. The harder part is the more unknowing public that go look at a review to help them in the decision process, and may not have access to the gear to make the same sort of evaluations. I know that I have told many folks that have been interested in some camera or lens to go to some sites, read the reviews, and that has helped them narrow things down sometimes. That is sort of the point. For folks that have a lot of familiarity with gear, they can usually quickly read through the BS of the reviewer or blogger, but for a lot more folks that do not have that sort of knowledge, they can be more easily swayed or even duped into leaning toward one type of gear over another. Let's face it, the issue is mostly about ethics, which is merely another word in the language, not something they ever care as much about. My father used to tell me that the only thing you take to your grave is your name/reputation. My rebellious/flippant reply used to be but then you are dead so what does it matter. I quickly learned that it is far, far better to be open and honest if you are going to weigh in on something, as trust is what will carry you through good times and bad. Once you lose that trust, as many bloggers do routinely, it is hard to regain. Think of all the heat Leica has taken for the slippage of trust in its products over the past several years. They are killing themselves to regain that among loyal followers as well as to gain new customers. How much is that cost over time, versus being more open and honest from the start? Not saying they are hiding anything, but Leica could also have publicly said they were inviting a bunch of folks on a junket to check out the new gear, and they were both proud of the gear, and hoped others would appreciate it also. Instead, we get NDAs, some subtle and direct influence for reviewers to publish the good points and maybe glide past some of the less stellar points. Not a way to win my trust.

This is not to rail at Leica, or any reviewer in particular. I stopped reading many reviews where I know the reviewer was receiving something for a more positive consideration to write more about only the good. I still like reading what folks have to say and seeing what things look like, but I learned long ago that one has to take it with lots of grains of salt....some more than others, and then do your own testing if you can. That last part is the most difficult for the less skilled, as 20 minutes in a camera shop with a hovering and somewhat pushy salesperson is not the best evaluation setting.

Just a long way of saying that I would much rather see full disclosure of benefits, considerations, etc., and then an honest evaluation, warts and all. Hoping the "hit their wallet" approach gets the attention of the less scrupulous, but I am still too cynical to believe this will straighten things out.

LJ
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Re: FTC to regulate blogging

Will be interesting to see whose going to start owning up...
Ben maybe not so much that but it is going to be very easy to turn someone in. Just the investigation alone will be deadly be it they are guilty or not does not matter. It will stop a lot of folks dead in there tracks. Just the hint of impropriety will ruin someones reputation.
 

Dale Allyn

New member
I actually feel that disclosure of special discounts or air-fare, lodging, etc. would make for a much better review. For example: "Leica were kind enough to provide air-fare, lodging and meals so the I could participate in a previewing of the new blah-blah..."

IOW if I were a reviewer I would put it right out in front to show that I'm not ashamed of it. Taking the "there's no need for disclosure" seems counter intuitive to me, and in fact suggests that it might be controversial. I say put it out there and show that you're not afraid of truths. It makes the review more credible IMO. Use it as an advantage, rather than pretend that people are stupid and don't think about this stuff.
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
On the other hand can you imagine the forums Guy?

"X had a free soda at PMA from the manufacturer, we all know that son of a *bleep* is a biased *beep* let's all discount anything he ever said."

Heck they've been saying for years that MR was on the canon payroll just because he used and reported on them for years. I personally don't think he ever was but now that he's shooting with Sony and Nikon, were he to say anything about being lent gear or having them sponser a workshop, boy you can imagine the flames from the great unwashed.

Perhaps this kind of thing is needed for those who are not savy enough to work it out at present but perhaps those are the same people who won't see past the disclosure to the truths inside... :banghead:
 

LJL

New member
Exactly it could be a mess. Just think piss someone off and bam!!!!!
But let's face it.....someone is ALWAYS going to piss somebody off with what they may say or report. The issue becomes one of credibility over time. If a reviewer/blogger has been up-front, honest and discloses stuff, folks will see that as his reputation, and that will help carry things should somebody fire off a poison pen note to the FTC. Any investigation will be quickly dispatched if it is known that X does not take stuff on the side, and speaks candidly.

Just cannot see a downside to the folks that disclose things and then honestly report what their impressions or evaluations are. The other ones that like to BS and toss out crap will catch a lot more flak, as they should.

In the end, the buyer/reader is still the one responsible for any decision they may make. This just seems like a tool to give them a bit more info to help decide how much bias may or may not be in the review.

LJ
 

LJL

New member
Put another way.....if Leica GAVE me an S2 and lenses and said go play with it for several months and then write something about it, you can bet I would be positively disposed toward them. I would probably find "excuses" to edit out the little niggles, while talking about all the good stuff. If I were to start such a review with the disclosure, folks would immediately know that there was maybe some indebtedness and could more easily know how many grains of salt to take with the review ;-) Leica would not have to "ask" or "request" I write something positive, but the expectation might be rather implicit. On the other hand, I know me well enough that if I saw something ugly, I would spill on that regardless of how many lenses they let me keep, and that would pretty much probably end that gravy train for me from them ;-)

Just too much incentive for too much coziness between OEM and reviewers that are not more bound to ethical reporting right now, so this FTC effort is an attempt to try to get things more open. If the worry or threat of being called out is real enough to keep some folks from spewing BS, we all win on that front.

LJ
 

LJL

New member
I agree LJ but the possibility of it being a nightmare is there.
Guy, I fully understand your point here. If there was any bad blood or friction say between X and Y, one could try to undermine the other with so much as a an unproven hint of something wrong, and everything could grind to a halt. Not a good thing at all. That is why it just seems the best thing to do on the reviewer or bloggers part is put all the info out at the start. Nothing to hide will mean little to lose if swords got crossed.

"The Truth Shall Set You Free". Yeah, I spent too much time with those guys many ages ago.....:eek:

LJ
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
Not a bad idea at all. Reminds me of commercials where a big brand actor is explaining just how good a certain product is and you see "paid endorsement" in fine print. Same should apply.

Just my 2¢ worth...
 

johnastovall

Deceased, but remembered fondly here...
This can get insane. For a while it was with goverment contracts you could even buy a cheap lunch. We had several Contracts at NASA Houston. A good friend ask me too look up his nephew who had just taken a job there and see how he was doing. We had no contracts in his area but I couldn't even buy him lunch. Later such nonsense was changed to a limit of 15 dollars for lunch. Oh, it was in the NASA cafeteria so we were both badged.

Did you know Byte magaziine was founded as a scam to get free software?
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
John I do a lot of work for defense contractors and these policies are very strict. I can't buy them lunch nor can they buy me lunch. We have to do separate checks. Also same with travel I have to pay everything out of my pocket than invoice for that since it is part of my expense. They can't buy me a plane ticket to do there job for example. This part is almost with every client I have regardless of government contract. If they want me in Thailand i pay the freight for all the travel expenses to get there than I have to wait the 30, 45 or yes even 75 days to get paid. I have a client that is 75 days out on all jobs.

But the bottom line it is clean and cut dry to the bone and no questions.
 
O

Oxide Blu

Guest
This is s no-brainer ... sit in Calif, host your website on a server in Canada, no new FTC rule to worry about. :rolleyes:
 

kevinparis

Member
Ranger9

sure send your email... but don't even mention GetDPI... you have no right to use our names even by proxy ... I am surprised Jack and Guy havent stomped all over you on this.. you do not and cannot represent the views of get DPI.

I don't care what your bugbear is over this issue.. but it is your issue and not that of the forum as a whole

Jack, Guy... knock this on the head now

K
 

Terry

New member
I'm locking this thread for the moment. Ranger, GetDPI's name should not be used in any correspondence without express permission from the owners of GetDPI as you don't represent the group and perhaps, the owners views.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Jack and I rather this not go out with our name on it. This is not in GetDPI's best interest and we will have to maintain a neutral state with regards to the FTC ruling. It is up to each individual , blogger, reviewer and any other person this law that touches those individuals on a legal basis and Get DPI will not step in the middle of any law or political debate . Thanks this thread will remain locked and certain items deleted from the forum postings. Thank you for your understanding


Thank you folks for bringing this to our attention .
The Admins
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top