Time to regulate paid Aussie blog comment – and to penalise the offenders
In this guest post, Daniel Young of PR agency Burson-Marsteller Australia argues that marketers and bloggers who make undisclosed paid comments should be fined
From December 1, bloggers in North America will be required to disclose ‘important connections’ with advertisers as a result of new guidelines governing ‘endorsements’ and ‘testimonials’.
The Federal Trade Commission guidelines apply to ‘bloggers’, ‘consumers who join word of mouth marketing programs’ and ‘postings by participants in network marketing programs’.
This raises the question: Should bloggers and individuals active in social media in Australia be required to reveal their commercial relationships?
The debate that has followed the FTC announcement included many objections, including a potentially negative effect on the evolution of the blogosphere and social media. Many questioned the Government’s right to challenge free speech and called for a voluntary approach.
The Web has shown that it has the ability to self-govern when it comes to spam comment, sock puppets (vested interests acting anonymously in forums) and flogs (fake blogs), but the whole area of endorsements and pay-for-post relationships is a lot murkier. Savvy readers will detect a significant but undisclosed connection, though many may not.
The sheer volume of posts and participation presents challenges for the agency applying guidelines. The task of assessing endorsements online will continue to be reliant on vigilant readers.
A set of clear rules governing relationships between marketers and bloggers and consumers in social media would be a positive move, within reason. Excessive rules and regulation would obviously be a bad thing – no one wants to stifle the creativity and free expression that lives online.
Marketers that consistently abuse – in a substantive way – the innate trust that we have in each other should be pulled up, named and shamed. Warnings should be given and penalties issued to the very worst offenders.
The difficulties of monitoring the Web should prevent overzealous application of the rules. The FTC Guides are pretty vague in places despite the scenarios that are provided. Locally developed guidelines would ensure that the bar is not so set too low for the reasons I’ve mentioned. The Australian blogosphere should be widely consulted on the development of the guidelines to ensure consensus and achieve self-regulation.
The blogosphere has emerged, in part, as an antidote to an increasingly distrusted and aloof mainstream media. The value and opportunity of social media resides in its authenticity, personal tone and objective voice. In an ideal world, we could relax in the knowledge that no-one would do anything to devalue these interactions.
Unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world. Clear guidelines would prevent commercial entities riding roughshod over these principles for their own gain. For that reason, any regulation of social media should hold both the paid endorser and the marketer to account, which is one of the strengths of the FTC Guides.
Codes of ethics are hardly in short supply. The Australian Press Council, The Public Relations Institute of Australia and The Australian Interactive Media Industry Association all administer clear rules and regulations for their members concerning management of relationships and business practice.
Nothing has been developed in Australia that specifically addresses social media and blogs (and this is a point of vulnerability for an emergent form of media). Social media still requires legitimisation in the eyes of the business community. The introduction of enforceable guidelines managing relationships between marketers and bloggers would instil confidence in corporate Australia and most importantly in Australian consumers.
Trust is the currency of social media; it forms the basis of our relationships (virtual and real). It is worthy of protection.
- Daniel Young is director of technology and digital at Burson-Marstellar Australia
Media Alliance also has the Journalists’ Code of Ethics which addresses this very subject and can be perused at http://www.alliance.org.au/code-of-ethics.html
User ID not verified.
Introduction of such rules or regulations should not target bloggers alone and should be applied equally to all forms of media, end of story.
User ID not verified.
Isn’t there some catch-all Trade Practices law about “misrepresentation”? If someone’s presenting themselves as independent when they’re really a paid shill, is that not misrepresentation?
That said, whether people choose not to do bad thing comes down to the likelihood of being caught out. The sheer volume of material makes that less likely. But, does the massively-increased number of watchers turn the tables the other way?
User ID not verified.
It will be interesting to see whether Australia follows-suit and just how affected word-of-mouth marketing agencies will be – especially those who incentivise their followers or fans to talk about a particular product or experience.
User ID not verified.
Stilgherrian has it.
This kind of thing should be addressed in the context law that outlines the requirement to clearly define paid comment.
Also agree that it’ll be a pretty difficult thing to police; maybe we need to watch how the US model plays out for that one, because if ours is hard, theirs will be next to impossible.
(This comment is brought to you by me; I paid for my comment and agree with it wholeheartedly)
User ID not verified.
Yeah good luck with that. Buyer beware. It’s a nonsense to think something like this could be policed. If it is a problem the blogging community should establish their own code.
User ID not verified.
Jim, policing it is indeed the issue. Everyone is now a “content creator” or, in the eyes of the current law, a “publisher”. When publishing was only done by professionals in an “industry”, or even a “community”, a code can be created and enforced. But even then… well, hello Cash for Comment!
User ID not verified.
To answer the word of mouth agency question…I think it’s relevant if you assume compainies are naive enough to run WOM campaigns that encourage people to say something against their actual opinion (not that surprising an assumption, but a surefire recipe for failure in any case).
So long as you run honest, targeted WOM campaigns, giving people the freedom to say whatever they like about a product, I’m not sure how relevant legislation would be to the industry.
Either way, we find that people mention how they came about a product in conversations they have anyway…so maybe society has already taken care of it in its own way.
User ID not verified.
It’s an interesting debate.
I would assume – under any kind of social media legisaltion – that if people are being incentivised by payment or otherwise to talk about a particular brand (even if it’s one they honestly like) there’s still an agenda that would need to be disclosed.
User ID not verified.
@stilgheririan The crowd will decide what works. If you’re worried about cash comment – research the comment. If you are worried about others being “tricked” by cash for comment… buyer beware. I know we try to legislate against stupidity in the offline world no need to try it online as well
User ID not verified.
Tune in to ‘A Current Affair’ this evening and watch them plug a product away… Certainly all media needs to be governed. or Bloggers should disclose if they are plugging for $’s (a ‘proptional blog’) – like an ‘advertisement feature’ in a magazine..?
It is a good point to raise and legislation is a very important thing online over the next 5 years – it will be massive 🙂
User ID not verified.
Let bloggers do what they want. The stupid or greedy ones will destroy their credibility with readers.
User ID not verified.
@fitzroyalty very eloquently put. The crowd doesn’t like it – they move. It’s not like trad media where broadcasters pay millions for license, so that we’re guaranteed a lack of diversity. If you think your fave blogger is dodgy find another.
User ID not verified.
Duncan Riley is right – needs to be across the board not just bloggers.
ie – TV show product placement, current affairs shows, print media, radio, bands, events etc … it transperency is so important it must be equally important across the board.
User ID not verified.
The line between marketing and journalism gets even more blurred: I’m on a list for freelance journos where we receive info about writing opportunities and something came through the other day from a PR firm seeking writers to ‘do what you do anyway’ ie write comments in blogs. I sent off for more info out of curiosity but got no reply so can’t offer any more details. It doesn’t sit right with me, personally, but I suspect some writers may do it, especially as freelance budgets continue to decrease.
User ID not verified.
your hair is boofy
User ID not verified.
@Katrina Fox It’s nothing new. PR agencies have being doing cash for comment facilitation for years surely? What you’re describing is something different. That’s how they’re trying to facilitate spam. So basically NOT paying the blogger but paying a spammer. Your instinct is right. Don’t do it! You’ll feel dirty 🙂
User ID not verified.
What is it that motivates the average punter to read a blog; authenticity, authoritative review, independent thought etc
It stands to reason therefore that a blogger that compromises their content will overtime see their readership become tired of their commercialised viewpoint, eventually switching to a new, less commercialised commentator for insights.
So that being the natural order of things, is it really necessary to legislate or mandate guidelines for disclosure?
Perhaps Cash for Comment will resolve itself by itself
User ID not verified.
I suppose if you leave a toxic situation long enough it’ll eventually resolve itself naturally. Turds and toilet paper are both biodegradable and will decompose in the pan. But some of us like to flush.
Hmmm… Maybe it’s a little early in the day for that metaphor.
User ID not verified.
Is there an inverse correlation between the amount of “paid for” comment and the quality of the writing? From my observation of Australian food blogs I would say that those with something to say, say it, and say it well, without (obvious) sponsorship. Those who simply recount their PR sponsored visits to restaurants, review donated books etc. produce fairly dull repetitive blogs i.e. the Sydney bloggers who reviewed Swedish cuisine courtesy of Ikea, and the pumping of Angus burgers at McDonalds.
OK these blogs are obviously sponsored, but a worry is that they also seem to be ones that feature in blog charts , etc. But what does the future hold? I see lots of good bloggers run out of steam as either the creativity or cash (for meals) runs low, and I see the sponsored blogs getting more exposure. Maybe a clear declaration of up-front sponsorship on each article would help restore some balance, or at least it would stop any confusion.
User ID not verified.
Stilgherrian never too early in the day for a feces metaphor. However the user always has the power to flush. Asking Dad to come in and do it for you is abdicating personal responsibility. What if you’re in a public toilet & Dad’s not around to flush?
User ID not verified.
PhilD – If bloggers are running out of ideas.. then go and do something else. Why is it a worry if the sponsored blogs are featured in charts? I have had a videoblog for 10 years (altho back then we didn’t call it a blog). In pre google pre yt days we got some sponsorship. We learned the hard way that there are plenty of places for businesses to spend money online. That’s why today I still do a vlog but don’t try to monetize it. It’s an entry point to our other products and services. However I try to give folks valuable info they need so they keep the WOM activity going. If I wanted to vlog about politics or something equally unsponsorable I would not expect to get any $ for it. I would do so because it is something I want to do. Seems to me many bloggers want the benefits of a trad publishing model but don’t want the constraints & shackles of it. Trying to get Govt intervention to help you create a biz model on the Net is a recipe for waste. What’s next? A tax to help pay bloggers? If you betray the trust of your audience they’re unlikely to stick around. So if you are going to try to monetize your blog you’d better paint it red ( the monetization not the blog) .
We had thousands of hours of content (Inc the worlds 1st Net comedy series) that was incredibly hard to monetize back then. So it died.
The Internet is the REAL free market economy. Get used to it. Government can’t help you nor should they.
User ID not verified.
Ah, Jim, thank you for going with the flow of the faeces, so to speak. “Embrace and extend” the metaphor, to quote the old Microsoft strategy.
User ID not verified.
@stilgherrian – classic comparison
though not sure which is the turd and which is the toilet paper in this analogy?
me personally, I like to flush I guess, so I’ll withdraw my earlier comments
User ID not verified.
If this was extended across all media then the street press would have to shut down.
They are completely upfront with everyone except their readers about “editorial” content equaling advertisements.
User ID not verified.
Andrew F, the street press are just publishers like any other, and the Trade Practices Act applies to them like any other business. If they’re failing to distinguish paid-for content… well, I suppose this jost shows how hard it is to police what’s happening already.
User ID not verified.
it’s funny how one person should dictate the thousands of bloggers in Australia.
User ID not verified.
The irony of this angle coming from the PR industry is absolutely sublime.
User ID not verified.