The Disclaimer
Any fans of The Offspring out there? On Ixnay On The Hombre they have a track called The Disclaimer. It’s a sarcastic jab at all of the politically correct idiocy that wants to sterilize the world of everything that might possibly cause anyone any discomfort. Well, today I’m singing along with The Disclaimer.
The FTC (federal trade commission) chose to remind people, in particular bloggers, that if they write about products, they have to disclose any type of relationship they have with the company or freebies that they get from the company. So here goes.Imagine reading this with The Offspring’s The Disclaimer blasting in the background (The Offspring must always be played painfully loud).
SolidWorks, probably in the vein of a legal CYA, has taken the extra step of reminding bloggers that write about SolidWorks about the FTC’s reminder.
Due to my activity as an author of SolidWorks related books, I have a license of SolidWorks sponsored by the partner program. This is in addition to the commercial license which I purchased. I also have had a relationship with SolidWorks as a part of the user group committee, but that comes to an end this year. I get a trip to SolidWorks World with accommodations and free admittance to SolidWorks World due to the committee membership. I don’t get anything from SolidWorks (aside from a occasional ration of grief) for being a blogger. I have been hired by SolidWorks at my usual rate to do various contracting tasks such as writing training manuals and creating models.
The point of The Disclaimer is so that people reading blogs who are making purchasing decisions about products are not mislead by bloggers who are compensated with something of value for writing nice stuff. Since part of the underlying purpose of my blog is consumer advocacy, I hope that no one feels mislead by anything they read here, and that the stuff I write would be the same with or without the freebies.
While I’m not in favor of the government making laws to threaten people into doing the right thing, I do think that disclosure is the right thing for people writing about products. Several CAD bloggers and even the advertisement supported CAD press have argued against disclosure of freebies. You need to take the credibility of a source into account when reading anything. Does the source seem objective? Do they present both sides of the story or just the sun-shiny side?
I just recently put a disclaimer up on a sidebar at SolidWorks’ suggestion. I wonder, though, if there isn’t some sort of threshold that the FTC should have. I seriously doubt that anything I review is seen by enough people to impact any company’s sales. It just seems strange that a small-time reviewer, such as myself, needs to worry about being accused of committing fraud. If you write reviews that are seen by enough people to significantly sway sales, then I can see the need for a disclaimer. If not, then you really shouldn’t have to worry about it, IMO.
Yeah, Jeff, I don’t know, and it seems mostly silly, which I guess is why I took a sarcastic approach to it. SW thought it was serious enough to mention it to us, so I at least did the disclaimer. I don’t think (m)any of us fall into the blatant marketing category that the new interpretation of the law targets, but you never know.
I think the president of the USA can keep only those gifts valued at less than $100.
Never mind this silly attempt by the FTC couldn’t possibly pass the test of objectivity for enforcement, nor federal jurisdiction constitutionally. I’ve nothing but venom for this draconian intrusion.
Sure, there are some abuses by some bloggers who completely veil their motives. Caveat emptor.
Does that include the Nobel Peace Prize and the 1.4 million check he received? That was a gift if you ask me, certainly not something that was earned.
As my mother often told me as a child, you reap what you sow.
Honesty is still the best policy and that never goes out of style.
@Jeff Mowry
I’m going to start with a disclaimer. For this next comment, I am not speaking as a representative of DS SolidWorks Corp, but voicing my own thoughts as an individual.
Two things here. From its perspective, the FTC is not creating new rules. They way that they see it, existing consumer protection rules, especially as relate to paid endorsements, extend beyond TV, magazine and radio advertising to blogs and other forms of web communications as well. It’s their perspective that bloggers simply aren’t aware of these laws, and they’re trying to bring them into compliance. The FTC has openly stated that they are not a policing agency, and that any potential action will continue to be handled by existing enforcement agencies.
Secondly, what they’re really trying to combat are three things. The first being the situation where someone like a diet pill company pays a blogger to say that he or she lost XX pounds using the diet pills, whether it’s true or not. The second is a situation where someone is being paid for a review of any kind. The third concerns celebrity endorsements on blogs, Twitter, etc.
Everyone else is getting caught up as sort of collateral damage. The question that any blogger has to ask him or herself is when is it better to be safe than sorry?
@Matthew West
I’d say a fine of up to $11,000—per “infraction”—by the FTC’s rules is a tad more than the mere informing. Face it, whether something said on a blog is an endorsement or not is highly subjective. If someone wants to stick it to a blogger (private citizen with rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights), these rules allows the government to make use of wide latitudes of subjectivity to go after them. This isn’t a legitimate way to make and enforce law for this reason alone.
And there are “new” rules being applied—81 pages document them. In fact, they went into effect as of the first of this month:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005endorsementguidesfnnotice.pdf
Further information is available at this story at PC Magazine:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2353749,00.asp
What is someone forgets to disclose they received something free from someone else? What if that free item came not from a company selling such wares, but from a friend of the blogger? Do these rules apply also to those who comment on blogs (as I am doing here)? If so, does liability therefore extend to the blog’s host/author as a result? How can a blogger expect to reasonably disclose what “reasonable” results can be expected by product x, and whether those results truly are reasonable? How can we say a blogger is improperly motivated by personal gain (by means of fraud) if such posts earn the blogger nothing? There are so many ways which enforcement of these rules can be abused, at the cost of civil liberty.
There was a time in this nation when liberty was prized over safety/security. These aren’t such times.
@Matthew West
I’m all for this. I dont see any difference in principle between diet pills and CAD software when it comes to disclosing relationships and rewards.
If I visit a SW related blog I want to know if the site was paid for or has content prepared by SW or if the author received presents – even obscure ones – from SW that might compromise the integrity of what I am reading.
In most cases the people who obtained freebies are going to be predisposed or obligued to write only safe or nice things.
In the case of the ‘blog squad’ we know or should know its mostly about passive advertising or promotion anyway but it doesnt hurt to make that clear.
I am sure there are bloggers who still dont see themselves as involved in that way though.
Its just a pity the US govt cant impose a similar disclosure standard on the futures market , the FED and themselves. I guess there is a bigger problem for the economy from bloggers.
Nicely said Neil!
Offspring rule!
Yeah, Matt is pretty fly….FOR A WHITE GUY!