Pay-my-own-way anonymity looks better and better to me; awaiting my winning lottery ticket to support it.

OR, toss it in and agree that I’m an advertorial copywriter, with commensurate pay. Oh, wait, that takes away my “authentic blogger’s voice” that all the marketers are after.

Oy.

“Now, let’s say that Sheraton establishes a long-term, contractual relationship with us. We stay for free at their properties, with the proviso that we write about them when we do (always clearly disclosing our contractual relationship.) Sheraton can also run a banner ad on our blog, for the length of the contract.”

That’s EXACTLY the kind of thing the FTC is targeting, I’d guess: Paid advertorial, as opposed to editorial coverage that may or may not have been influenced by the fact that the writer was traveling on an expense account (his or her own, or someone else’s). For one thing, the evidence is clear: If the writer is being paid to cover the topic, the coverage is likely to be viewed as an “endorsement”. Second, the government can regulate advertising (including advertorial, presumably) but–under the First Amendment–can’t regulate a free press.

The FTC hasn’t given much guidance on the new rules, but the logical place to look for precedent as to how they might be interpreted would be the longstanding disclosure rules for
financial journalists. It’s perfectly legal and considered ethical to own a stock you recommend — even if you write for the New York Times — but you have to disclose it in anything including articles, radio appearances, conference presentations, etc.

I’d much rather see the rules framed in terms of disclosures than prohibitions on what can be published. And I think the larger effect will be on disclosure of affiliate links to recommended hotels, tours, cruises, etc., rather than on disclosure of sponsored or subsidized travel.

There’s more discussion in my blog:
http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001756.html

And my own (new) “Disclosures and Disclaimers” page is at:
http://hasbrouck.org/disclosures.html

The issue at hand isn’t whether bloggers can be objective if they are compensated, hosted or provided with free product. Or that writers in traditional media are somehow more objective or ethical.

It’s whether the average consumer — the reasonable person — will understand that the reviewer may have been compensated and if that knowledge would change the consumer’s perception of the review or story. The FTC believes that the reasonable person would not expect personal bloggers to be compensated and knowledge of the relationship might affect perception of the review. Hence the need for disclosure.

It does not believe that similar disclosure is required in mainstream media. The document states that the FTC believes that knowledge of who paid for the product would not change the reader’s perception of the review, but the FTC stand could change its stand if it learned of a material relationship between writer and company. Why doesn’t it believe the disclosure is required? It’s not explicitly stated but I think it is because the reader ALREADY assumes that the journalist got the review product or trip for free, in one way or another. Either funded by the publication or as a comp. Mainstream media also has pretty strict review policies to protect themselves from abuses and maintain the wall between editorial and advertising. We implicitly rely on them when we read the daily paper or our favorite magazine.

I posted part one of my updated take on the guidelines yesterday and plan to post a pretty detailed analysis over the weekend.

Also, what is the deal with disclosing stays on press rates? Are we also supposed to disclose that, “While last week’s review was based on a completely free stay and is therefore 100% untrustworthy, this week’s was paid 45% out of my pocket and is a therefore a corresponding 45% unbiased”? Or is paying a significantly discounted rate still considered to inspire as unbiased a review as paying the rack rate?

And why is it just “blogs” under attack, and not websites in general? Hmmm… and why isn’t anyone discussing what really matters–writing useful, engaging reviews that will actually help the readers?

It does seem the FTC is being very selective, and in doing so, opening a can of worms. As an example, if I were to send a bottle of my clients’ wine to Gary Vaynerchuck to be reviewed on his wine library podcast, I run the risk of him ripping my clients’ wine, or raving about it. It’s a matter of being confident in your product. and being ok if someone out there doesn’t like it. BTW, sometimes he buys the wine himself, sometimes it is sent to him. I’ve not noticed any consistency in his disclosure on the matter, and that’s because he is not regulated.

Having said that, I know when I invite a travel writer to my destination, i run a similar risk. The trip isn’t going to go perfectly, and the writer can choose to share the negative or not. I’ve never placed restrictions in my invitation. (I’m sort of contradicting myself from a comment I posted on @nerdseyeview’s blog this summer, but I’m not running for president, so I reserve the right to flip flop)

In a perfect world, I wouldn’t have to comp anything for the visiting writers – this would eliminate your dilemma, and it would certainly help our revenue! : ) but we know that doesn’t work for your business model. How can you, the writers, possibly make a living if you had to pay for all the travel?

I see the comp more as a way of cooperation, than a bribe. I’m sure not all destinations would share my opinion. However, as a traveler and reader, when I’m reading someone’s blog about another destination, i of course want to know its not tainted due to comped travel.

Lisa

I’m glad that Angela chimed in about books. I discuss books on A Traveler’s Library and always mention when they are supplied by the publisher. But talking about travel that is comped brings up an issue that nobody has mentioned. Since I freelance for magazines that still have the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, if I disclose in the blog on travel, then I will not be able to write about that destination for the magazine. The end result of that would be that I would not talk about trips on my blog (since nobody is paying me for that) in hopes that I could place a story in a print publication. This is an extreme example of the problem caused by the difference between blog and print journalism enforcement.

And how about if I go somewhere with an assignment which is paying the freight (not the expenses separately). Otherwise I would not be there. So if I write about the same destination on the blog, do I have to say “I was there because X publication paid me for an article.”

British papers have handled it more sensibly for a long time. They just say “The author of this piece had a complimentary stay at the hotel” or some such. Here, NYT requires that you NEVER have received comps under any circumstances.
And, Sheila, you mention that the tourism offices put us up at classy digs and therefore the budget places don’t get covered. Turn that around. Actually, we could probably afford the budget places ourselves, so that is not a problem. If the 5 Stars were not comped they would never get covered.