On October 5, 2009, the FTC
published their final guidelines regarding disclosure between endorsers and advertisers, and more specifically,
bloggers. The FTC
has decided
that books are a form of compensation to new media blog reviewers and
should be disclosed, but that old media reviewers do not. Are blog
reviewers so much different that newspaper reviewers? Is this setting
a double standard? Are bloggers being punished for being
"unprofessional" or "amateurs"? Or should everyone just disclose anyway?
Katherine Farmar:
As someone who reviews books both professionally for print publications
and online for free, I have to say that Richard Cleland is misinformed
if he thinks -- and I quote -- "In the case where the newspaper
receives the book and it allows the reviewer to review it, it’s still
the property of the newspaper." Reviewers for newspapers
keep
their review copies! This has been recognized as one of the perks of
the job since at least the 1930s, when Cyril Connolly mentioned it in
Enemies of Promise.
George Orwell (who reviewed books for a living for some years) talks in
one of his essays about how the extra cash from selling review copies
to secondhand bookshops supplements the reviewer's income. In the rare
cases when I've reviewed a book for the
Irish Times and haven't
been able to keep it (usually because it got sent to the graphics
department so that an illustration could be scanned and while it was
there somebody pinched it), my editor has been deeply apologetic and
has offered to compensate me.
In any case, it does look as if
the FTC is not planning to go after individual bloggers, even those who
get review copies and don't disclose this fact, but will be targeting
the advertisers who offer free swag, get endorsements of the free swag,
and advertise the swag on the blog in question. It occurs to me that
maybe what they have in mind is a situation like the advertising on
The Escapist:
that website sometimes has huge advertising for various video games
running alongside Yahtzee's video reviews of the same games (which he
often receives for free). That would be a potent, and potentially
unethical, situation... if Yahtzee's reviews weren't notorious for
being negative.
Justin Colussy-Estes: I guess I have a slightly different
perspective as an academic--It's generally understood in academic
circles that you can fairly easily separate the wheat from the chaff,
or the puff piece from a well-considered review, no matter how positive
the review. But leaving that aside, I think there's lots of panicky
hyperventilating about this as I've seen going around the blogosphere.
I'm in no way convinced that stating where a review copy came from is a
bad idea. It's never affected my view of a reviewer, except positively.
I mean, what's the problem with transparency? I don't think authors who
discuss books by their friends and are up front about that are merely
shilling for friends.
Actually, let me rephrase both of those last examples in the
context I began with: if the reviewer writes intelligently, has
something to say more than "thumbs up!" or "teh suxxors!", and seems to
either have similar tastes as mine or makes a work seem suitably
intriguing, then I don't question their motives simply because they
have a relationship with an author or have received a free copy of the
book.
On the other hand, the internet crawls with fake social marketing
schemes attempting to sell me something based on friendship. Why
wouldn't I find simple, boring honesty about sources both trustworthy
and refreshing. My feeling is, simply placing a standard "Review copy supplied by the publisher" at
the beginning or end of the review is the equivalent of my including
the publisher's volume and series description at the beginning of my
reviews--just a standard, boring thing that the reader can take or
leave, but has nothing to do with the substance of my review.
A few quick additional things I have more to say about but want to let others chime in before I suck all the air from the room:
1) I think there's a lot of false comparison to print. Who cares
(other than the mis-informed FTC) about what we look like compared to
print reviewers? Isn't that simply an anxiety of legitimacy? And aren't
we over that yet?
2) I think there are ways in which receiving comp copies can
affect the way we understand our relationship to the material we review
that has nothing to do with notions of undue influence. I think the
economics of reviewing volumes of free material is something worth
looking at. For instance, I find Tom Spurgeon's frankness about his
buying habits, and lack for the need therof, helpful, honest, and I
think it makes him a better reviewer and critic for keeping that in
perspective.
As I said, I have more to say on these last points, but why don't I shut up for a bit so other's can get in their two cents.
John Thomas: If it is possible, I agree with both of
my above fellow reviewers. Let me put in my take, and we'll see where
the chips lay. I don't think there is anything wrong with transparency,
but I do have a problem with forced transparency with one slice of the
ever-expanding media world, but other sections are not held to the same
standards.
Some of my favorite reviewers do the transparency line in all of
their reviews where appropriate, but there are times I find that a
distraction. Maybe I am over-thinking it, but in a way I feel by
closing a review with "BTW I got this book for free" can put a caveat
on the end of review which may cast doubts. "Your experience will not
be the same as me, as you will have to pay for it." This may be making
a mountain out of a molehill, but since you asked, personally I don't
like it. I especially don't like being forced to do it.
I agree that floggers and paid bloggers who get money from
sponsors should be held to a standard they are not now. However, even
if Comics Village has banner advertisers, that money (I assume) goes to
maintain the site. At least I don't see any of the money (but maybe
that is a conversation for another day).
My sense is the FTC didn't intend for book reviewers to be
included in with paid bloggers and for-profit reviewers. Whether this
really applies to us remains to be seen.
In terms of transparency, I always assume a reviewer received the
material for free, whether it is a laptop or camera review, a new game
review, or a manga review. If the reviewer doesn't have the integrity
to know his loyalties are to his readers, not the publishers, then he
won't be a respected reviewer for long.
The odd language of the FTC regulations means that if I read a
book I like, I am "endorsing" it (without an express contract?) so I
need to become transparent. However, if I pan a book, then that isn't
an endorsement, and the line about getting it from the publisher can be
omitted. What kind of system is that? If I like a book, then I am a
shill? I think this is an example of a sweeping federal government
regulation that is victim to its own vague language.
Allow not-for-profit reviewers to keep doing what they are doing,
and don't allow the government to force them to mark reviews with
government regulated language based on how enjoyable a title is.
JCE: Oh,
I don't think the FTC ruling applies to us specifically. I could be
wrong, but my read on it is that the ruling is directed at a
pay-to-play, quid pro quo arrangement. It's all about the expectations
of the publisher: are they supplying us books with the understanding
that we will write positive reviews? If not, then we're in the clear.
In addition, we are a decidedly international website--does it even
apply to us? Only to reviewers in the US? If anything, my problem with
the ruling is the false notion that in print is different from online.
Luckily we're not in the position that newspapers now struggle with--if
they've moved some of their reviews to "online exclusives," do these
articles have to do something their print reviews don't? What about
material printed both in print and online? At some point we're all
going to have to recognize that information is information, no matter
the format.
Alain Mendez: It is clearly a double standard. There are
countless stories of professional film reviews being flown out to movie
premiers in exotic locations with luxurious accommodations for a sneak
preview of a film and no one says a word. Video games companies are
infamous for threatening to cut adverting due for less then stellar but
still positive reviews. I am sure that professional reviewers get more
review copies and promotional material as it stands. I think that due
to a mixture of recent popular scandals and the generally more
fractured nature of bloggers than professional reviews that the FTC has decided to go after bloggers.
I myself have always assumed that review copies
are just part of the symbiosis of publishers and critics. Companies
give away review copies and usually realize that any publicity is good
publicity. It is only when the companies either implicitly or
indirectly state that good reviews should be made for some sort of
compensation that a line is crossed from a legitimate exchange to
something shady that should be regulated.
That being said I don’t see any reason for anyone
on the site on in general not to disclose when he or she gets a review
copy. This transparency is healthy and really does no harm to the
reviewer. A simple mention that you received the following book as
review copy is all that you need. This lets everyone be on the same
page and prevents needless accusations. If people still think you are
biased then is nothing you can do but try and give them the
best-written fair and balanced reviews. If you give your readers that
than you are bullet proof. But if you try and hide the facts you give a
bad impression to the readers even if nothing inappropriate is actually
going on.
JT: I don't know that the language is
crystal clear, Justin. I agree with you that paid bloggers should be
forthcoming about that, especially if if they are paid to give good
reviews, but I don't think it should apply to us. And, Alain, I don't
like marking up my reviews with language about where I got a book, as I
don't think it should make a difference. Like I said, I always assume
reviewers get things for free, so I don't feel a need to spotlight that
fact.
Lori Henderson: I totally get where everyone is
coming from on this. I completely agree with Alain that this is a
double standard with the burden being laid on the new technology while
the old, faltering technology gets a pass. There is no implicit or
indirect understanding between Manga Village or publishers for positive
reviews, and no one, not even me, is getting paid here. If anything, I
would say we fit Mr. Cleland's definition for reviewers that this
ruling wouldn't apply to. The review copies are sent to Manga Village
(me as representative), and the books are then distributed to the
reviewers. Just like he described it happens at newspapers.
But
John, I have to say, I've thought the opposite of many reviewers. I
believed they bought their books unless stating otherwise. Until I
started reviewing and receiving copies myself, I was shocked at how
some reviewers got a hold of some books so early. But I don't have any
kind of experience in journalism (beyond my high school newspaper for a
semester). There may be a lot of people out there thinking we just
have a lot of money to spend on manga. Where the book came from has
never mattered to me. It's always been about the reviewer and his
opinions that mattered. It shouldn't matter to anyone else, but I
don't think we should work on the assumption, one way or the other,
that our readers know where all our books come from. Several of the
titles I've reviewed I did purchase.
So, should we differentiate
between our review copies and personal copies? I'm going to leave it
up to the individual. Because we are a more international site, I
don't think it's fair to require Katherine to include a line that is
directed at US citizens. And while we have nothing to hide, neither
should we be required to prove it. Just like privacy, just because I
have nothing to hide, that doesn't mean I have to tell everyone my
personal information.
Dan Polley: I don't have much to
add here that hasn't already be addressed. But I do want to throw my
hat into the transparency ring. I think you provide the reader with as
many facts as possible, including where the reviewed book comes from,
you're putting yourself in a position to be assessed as honest. And
whether those readers agree or disagree with your review is immaterial;
at least they know there was no quid pro quo involved in the publishing
of any review. I have certainly never been or felt forced by a
publisher to write a review a certain way for Manga Village.
JT: If as a reviewer if you differentiate
between personally bought books and books received free from the
publisher, then you have lost that journalistic credibility already.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone at Comics Village or the manga
and comic review scene as a whole has breached that trust, and that is
why I think spotlighting such an innocuous point by law is what bothers
me so much. I guess to be clear, it's not so much that I assume a
reviewer gets a book for free, as usually it doesn't occur to me to
care. Lori, I appreciate you making the decision to leave the decision
up to the individual, as I think that level of discussion is a decision
that should be made by individual reviewers. Personally, I will not
make an effort to talk about where or how I got my hands on a book, and
focus on the content of the book itself.
Alex Hoffman:
I agree with John here, because, while I'm on board for keeping scams
and other bad journalism in check, I firmly believe that this either
doesn't or shouldn't affect casual manga bloggers. I don't think that I
need to disclose where the book came from when I review it. The source
of the book may not be a big deal to the reviewer, but I do believe
that by saying "I bought this," or "The publisher gave me this,"
reviewers tend to lose a bit of the credibility. By saying that you
purchased the book, you can alienate readers - reviewers do tend to
review quite a few books, and saying "I bought this book" at the end of
every review seems rather pretentious. On the other side of the coin,
by saying "The publisher gave me this book," you open yourself to
attacks from readers who think that your positive review is due to the
free book.
To elaborate on my point about these new laws not
applying to ComicsVillage: The FTC legislation looks as though it
targets writers who "promote" books - I certainly am not promoting
anything. I do give my opinion of the read, and many times, I'm am wont
to give a fairly scathing review, even when these books come at no
charge to me. I don't think that a non-biased, fair review is
considered promotion, so I don't think that any manga reviewer is bound
by these laws, provided that they give a fair and unbiased review.
The
most immediate solution that satisfies both sides of the isle is to
create a section of the website that addresses these laws and takes the
onus away from each individual review and places it squarely on an
explanatory block of text. This way, reviewers don't have to say
whether or not they received a book from the publisher, and the
integrity of the review is left unchanged. Reviewers would only have to
acknowledge that they follow the rules as set by this section of the
website (and of course, this section would prohibit reviewers from
posting reviews if they did not follow these rules).
JT: Alex, I am asking without looking, but is the
terminology "promote" or "endorse?" I think there is a difference, as I
don't promote a book I do endorse one I like.
AH: John,
they use "endorse" as the buzzword, but endorsement seems far too
general to me. The FTC uses the following as an example of what is
acceptable behavior for bloggers. Take a look:
"Example 8: A consumer who regularly purchases a particular brand of dog food decides
one day to purchase a new, more expensive brand made by the same manufacturer. She
writes in her personal blog that the change in diet has made her dog’s fur noticeably softer
and shinier, and that in her opinion, the new food definitely is worth the extra money. This
posting would not be deemed an endorsement under the Guides.
Assume that rather than purchase the dog food with her own money, the consumer gets it
for free because the store routinely tracks her purchases and its computer has generated a
coupon for a free trial bag of this new brand. Again, her posting would not be deemed an
endorsement under the Guides."
As regular manga consumers, we can blog our opinions without being considered endorsers of manga.
Here's
the stink though - if the FTC considers review copies of manga a
"network marketing program," then any review we publish is actually
considered an endorsement if the manga was given to us for free. In
this case, we have to disclose the review copy.
The problem is
though, that their definition of "endorsement" is that you are
essentially advertising a product. That's certainly not what we're
trying to do here. The language is very vague.
LH: And that definition has been clarified by another FTC
representative. Associate Director for Advertising Practices Mary
Engle
spoke at
the 2009 Kidlitosphere Conference to further clarify the FTC's ruling.
She said, in no uncertain terms, that independent bloggers, who do not
work with an advertiser (meaning us)
DO NOT have to disclose.
That doesn't invalidate this conversation though. While we are all not
agreement about disclosure, we have all made one thing perfectly clear
throughout this. Our reviews are our honest assessments of the
materials we receive no matter the source. And that is what is most
important, to be true to ourselves, and our readers.
Lori Henderson