Another dark side of social media, especially blogs
Hardly a day goes by when I, as the author/owner of this blog, don’t get at least one pitch from someone selling a product or service. The pitch usually begins with the writer telling me how much they enjoy reading steveheimoff.com, and then they identify themselves, tell me about the product or service they’re selling, and add that they’re convinced that my audience—my readers—will be interested in said product or service. This is followed by an invitation to me to be sent a free sample of the product (it can be a bottle opener or an aerator or whatever), or, if it’s a service, the writer will sometimes offer to pay me a fee of some kind.
Well, I don’t even bother responding to these pitches; into the Trash bin they go. I’m a fairly polite person when it comes to replying to personal communications (and Lord knows I hate it when somebody doesn’t respond to mine), but these pitches don’t feel like they were written expressly to me. They feel like templates that just happen to arrive in my in-box, but really the identical email could have arrived (and probably did arrive) in 1 Wine Dude’s in-box, or Jo Diaz’s, or any of hundreds of other bloggers who are perceived to have some impact in the wine industry.
I suppose there’s nothing legally or morally wrong with such an approach. But it does raise, to me anyway, questions about transparency. If I were to blog about some sensational new aerator, would it be incumbent upon me to let you know that the owner of the aerator company sent me a few of the gizmos? If I told you that, would it color your perception of my review? Or let’s take it a step further. This morning I got this article in my in-box detailing “marketing strategies that don’t involve social media.” One of them suggested that bloggers might be asked “to host a giveaway on his or her site by collecting email entries you can add to your newsletter.” The way that would work, I guess, is that I, the blogger, would announce a contest on my site in which you, the contestant, would send me your entry via email, which I would then “share” with the manufacturer of the thing to be given away. Now, that would pretty much make me a marketing agent of the manufacturer, not an independent blogger, wouldn’t it? And what would I get out of it? A quickie post, for sure, but also the author of the “marketing strategies” article adds this: “Understand that you may have to give them [the blogger] a freebie of your product and/or a fee to be featured or reviewed.”
Wow. I have a lot of problems with wine blogs, but this non-transparent collision of editorial independence and paid shilling takes the cake.
It is very, very important for readers to thoroughly know if a blogger is benefiting in any way, shape or form from the content of a post. Ideally, the blogger will volunteer that information upfront (and the Federal government has taken and is taking steps to ensure such candor). Still, there are ways for bloggers to hide indirect forms of compensation. I would never do that; neither would most bloggers I know, but some would; and the problem extends beyond blogs to other forms of social media, such as Instagram, Facebook and Twitter, where a positive word or image about a product or service can be advertising. If somebody sends me that aerator, and I praise it on Facebook, do I have an obligation to inform my “friends” that I got a freebie? Just asking.
If you started accepting such freebies without telling us readers, you would lose lots of credibility. Simple as that. And even if you did tell us you were accepting freebies in relation to blog posts, there would still be a cost to your cred.
There is dirty laundry in any business. The brands and people that stay true to their moral compass and the service/product they supply, will be the ones that ultimately succeed long term.
“If I were to blog about some sensational new aerator, would it be incumbent upon me to let you know that the owner of the aerator company sent me a few of the gizmos? If I told you that, would it color your perception of my review?”
Substitute the words “wine bottle review sample” for wine “aerator.”
Is there a nuanced difference between your current position as a wine blogger, and your previous position as a reviewer at Wine Enthusiast magazine?
I presume the magazine didn’t buy each wine that was reviewed.
(Early on in his career, Parker boasted about not taking free samples — spending tens of thousands of dollars of his own funds to buy each and every wine he reviewed. No so today.)
Do book critics pay for their review copies? (No.)
Do theater critics pay fir their opening night performance seats? (No.)
Do movie critics pay for their admission ticket? (No. Films are privately screened in advance of their release date.)
The only critics who consistently pay for their “samples” are restaurant reviewers — to preserve their anonymity.
Hey Danny Fay, nice to hear from you!
I think it is always good to disclose that it was a free product. It will only give you more credibility and protect you from possible attacks. I also like that you state that you didn’t receive any compensation for your review which to me is the most important factor in my opinion.
The FTC has made it pretty clear that amateur bloggers must disclose they have received compensation or free items (wine aerator, etc.) in their reviews or on social media.
http://diannej.com/2009/new-disclosure-law-for-bloggers-11000-fine/
http://diannej.com/2012/new-ftc-rules-on-writing-reviews-affiliations-and-sponsored-posts/
Let’s define terms here.
What’s the difference between an “amateur blogger” and a “professional blogger”?
One difference with a distinction.
An amateur doesn’t get paid for his/her work. Akin to a hobby.
A professional — in any field — receives compensation. (The very definition of “professional.”)
One difference with a distinction.
An amateur doesn’t get paid for his/her work. Akin to a hobby.
A professional — in any field — receives compensation. (The very definition of “professional.”)
Peter,
Thanks for the second link to Dianne Jacob’s blog.
Excerpt:
“1. The FTC can fine both the blogger and the company for not disclosing an arrangement where the company compensates the blogger for a review, positive mention, or sponsored post. . . .”
“2. The definition of ‘disclosure’ is more specific. . . . The discloser must be contained in the post itself. . . . That means you can write something as simple as, ‘Company ABC gave me this product to review’ and you’re done. . . .”
“3. Even if you satisfy the requirements of numbers 1 and 2, you and the company could still be fined if your post contains ‘misleading or unsubstantiated representations.’ This seems like common sense, but apparently it isn’t. Here are the main points:
“Don’t write about a product if you haven’t tried it”
HoseMaster prides himself on “reviewing” books he hasn’t read.
I surmise the legal loophole is his never receiving the book in the first place. (Or does he?) Hmmm … 😉
How W. Blake Gray handles this issue.
From http://blog.wblakegray.com/
Quote:
“LEGAL NOTICES
“1) The material on this blog has been created by W. Blake Gray, is protected under US copyright law and cannot be used without his permission.
“2) To the FTC: In the course of my work, I accept free samples, meals and other considerations. I do not trade positive reviews or coverage for money or any financial considerations, unlike certain famous print publications which have for-profit wine clubs but, because they are not classified as ‘bloggers,’ are not required by the FTC to post a notice like this.”
As previous comments have pointed out above, legally bloggers must disclose how they received any product samples. While I’ve not investigated it, I cannot think of a single wine blog that is consider a serious leader in the space that doesn’t comply with that FTC mandate.