|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
From what I understand, it affects bloggers that are directly paid to endorse or review a product. Here on HP, we don't get paid to write reviews (well, some of you might), however most of us do benefit if someone purchases a product that we reviewed from Amazon or Ebay via affiliate programs. So, in a way, we do get compensated for our reviews.
I can't find the FTC's actual new 'guide' to read, so I'd be interested to hear if any hubbers (or even the HP staff) have some further information on this.
I think the FTC ruling has more to do with ethics (while not specifically mentioned on the FTC announcement, other commentators have used the word). So reviewing a product with a link for someone to buy isn't the same as being given that product to review or being paid by the company for reviewing the product.
Either way it's still a tax issue, but the compensation in the latter example is either prior, immediate or guaranteed.
I imagine the ruling will also apply to hubbers (though I imagine only US hubbers) because they say 'bloggers or other “word-of-mouth” marketers'. They probably would have been better off saying 'online publisher' but blogger will be whatever they want it to mean to be, be it reviewer, hubber, lensmaster.
All a person has to do is say "I was given this product to review by XYZ company". But I'm not sure how well it'll go down if a person has to say "I was paid by XYZ company to review their product".
The question is though, will people who HAVEN'T been given the product, money or other gift have to state that? eg: "In reviewing this book I was not sponsored, endorsed, compensated or otherwise bought off by Amazon, the author, the publisher or anyone else with a vested interest in this product"
Here you go;
Also the site says: "the revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service."
Cash-in-kind means a direct payment from a manufacturer or vendor to review a product. The implication is that this transaction happens BEFORE the review is written.
That's my take on it anyway. I could be wrong.
I'm not sure that actually applies to hubpages as we do not get to decide what ads Google chooses...and they are ads. If we use Amazon or eBay we are only paid when someone buys. And that's where it gets sticky to me.
Hopefully by December 1 the FTC will have clearer rules.
It's 81 pages long: Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising
And here's my opinion on the FTC new rules for bloggers.
I wrote an entry on it yesterday. But I won't say what the link is.
Starting a thread for self-promotion is wrong, but contributing to the discussion in subsequent posts with an on-topic link is allowed. So please, post the link so I may read
Here ya go;
http://hubpages.com/hub/Federal-Trade-C … e-Blogging
I consider myself a bright fellow, but I don't read minds. If one can assume a government agency has a mind that is.
Yes, from what I can tell, any kind of relationship that involves monetary gain from an endorsement (such as a review) is included.
The document explaining the changes to the guidelines is here:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005end … notice.pdf
I've an ominous feeling it also includes reviews of products, or recommendations for products, for which we receive affiliate commissions. And from the wording I've read, there's even the potential to include situations where we review (or even give a casual opinion on) a product that is also being advertised on the page through an ad network (like AdSense) from which we get monetary gain. It's hard to tell at this point where the line is drawn and what is excluded or included.
Anybody have any citations? I'll be very interested to see the official document that (hopefully) specifies when it applies and when it doesn't.
I went through the entire document, and the word "affiliate" is not mentioned. Earlier news reports which interviewed FTC bureaucrats said that affiliate links would be included.
I would recommend two things:
1. assume the worst, and create a blanket disclaimer
2. post that disclaimer all over the web, whether you need it or not.
My guess is that surfers will see so many disclaimers that no one will pay attention to them.
Hi guys, thanks for your awesome responses!!!
Fiction Teller: I, too, would love to see some actual citations from these new guidelines.
Either way, I am under the same assumption as Darkside:
....this is what stands out to me
The Guides are administrative interpretations of the law intended to help advertisers comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act; they are not binding law themselves. In any law enforcement action challenging the allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the FTC Act.
its nice in theory but without enforcement, and of course Nobody has the power to police the net at that level..its just some words on a page
Yes, but I am wondering if Google Adsense may incorporate these new FTC guidelines into their TOS for US publishers. That wouldn't shock me.
Adsense ads are marked as being advertisements. And if a website owner/publisher does label them they can only use the words Advertisers, Advertising or Sponsors.
I should clarify. I meant that Google could perhaps change their Adsense TOS to ban sites that write reviews without a disclaimer that adheres to the new set of FTC guidelines. Just like they do for other types of sites (gambling, prescription drugs, etc.)
Ahhhh, I see what you mean.
I guess they'll have their lawyers look over all the pros and cons. It could be a case of not wanting to be held liable, therefore they don't include it. Say for instance HubPages, if they were to try and police it, they could be held accountable for all the published content of their members. Which to some degree they are (when it relates to Adsense) but it depends on how big a target they want to be.
That's stating that the Guide is an interpretation of the law.
The law takes effect on December 1st:
And there will be fines:
How will they police it? I imagine rival websites will be dobbing in their competitors for not complying with the rules.
From the included sources:
The FTC said its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final guidelines, which had been expected. The guides are not binding law, but rather interpretations of law that hope to help advertisers comply with regulations. Violating the rules, which take effect Dec. 1, could result in various sanctions including a lawsuit.
Perhaps if your the lead blogger in the weight loss industry this scrutiny could fall on you (probably deservingly!) particularly when your competititors are foaming at the mouth to hurt you in whatever way possible.
Its still a pipe dream, the FTC does point also from included sources taht most likely they would go after advertisers not the bloggers, this could lead to some more fineprint in our advertiser contracts
Really, good luck figuring out who most top bloggers in high paying industries really are FTC enforcers ! But going after the advertisers who are showcased is rather easily done.
I really have my doubts on the success and implementation of this policy...they Just dont have the computing power to be anything but another number to call when you try and take down your comp...this will get old, quick, companies who would be impacted will just become international in name and have no worries about us law
did you see that the pirate party won seats in Swedish government!
Once the first case is succesfully tried, a reason and formula is created for the fine level etc.. etc, then maybe be interested
Personally like to hear from a Lawyer, everything is all O.K. in theory, but they are having trouble policing things such as Copyright Breach on the net. Also some people are in such remote places, that once they too are affected as are Americans, it would be Catastrophic trying to enforce. I just think people would ignore the Fines.
Anything works in theory practice is a very different "Kettle of Fish"
yeah saw the Pirate Party Trust Sweden. So liberal.
I hope you're right. To think an $11,000 fine would put blogging down with file-sharing. In file-sharing cases, laws were designed to relieve the burden of proof from the prosecution.
You mess with the FTC at your own peril.
What you don't want to be is their test case. Comply even if you don't have to.
I agree that this will be impossible to enforce across the net, but don't do anything stupid and in their face to make yourself a target.
Interesting stuff...I hope somebody from HP staff would explain what we have to do (or don't!)
It is not going to effect HubPages as far as I can tell. And especially those of us who are not American.
I have known of instances for a company to send a blogger a sample of a product or gift card for having written something about their site and generating traffic for them after the blog has already been written. These gifts were not an incentive to write, but subsequent result of their page's successes. These types of things are becoming more common.
I spoke with the FTC this morning to clarify how this might affect bloggers, hubbers, etc. who use 3rd party or affiliate advertising such as adsense, ebay Network Partners, Amazon, etc. I wrote a summary of my discussion here: http://hubpages.com/hub/New-FTC-Guideli … l-Bloggers
I gathered from my discussion that this can affect someone who writes about a product and then uses services such as amazon or ebay that are designed to place ads for those specific products on your page.
I will be very interested in how this all plays out. I'm really curious about how they are going to enforce it. My guess is they probably won't enforce it, unless it is brought to their attention by a complaint or an additional infraction. I just know that the threat of $11,000 per instance is enough to make me want to stay well on the safe side.
One more thought:
I think a likely scenario will be that google, ebay, amazon, etc will start placing the disclosures themselves along with the ads, rather than relying on the blogger to do it.
What do you think?
Adsense ads say "Ads by Google". By stating it is an ad it is a disclosure.
Darkside, stating that it is an ad, is not a disclosure that it is sponsored. You may have noticed now that alot of adsense ads are displaying a shaded bar with text inside that reads, "Sponsored Links". That may be considered a disclosure, however I think even more clearly would be a statement like, "The content on this page is sponsored in part by these ads".
You could always just add your own disclaimer such as, "Thank you to all of our sponsors, whose advertisements have enabled us to bring you this wonderful information".
As far as I remember, they've always said "Ads by Google". Sometimes in shaded bars and sometimes not, but like I said, as far as I can remember Google ads have always said "Ads by Google," except the banner ads that sponsor one advertiser.
I get from the announcement that the FTC is talking about a direct sponsor relationship. e.g. the vendor pays the blogger directly to write a good review. They even gave an example of what is not a violation. A blogger gets a free product that the vendor does not know about and writes a blog about the product. If the vendor has no direct knowledge and no direct relationship with the blogger then it's not a violation.
Google ads are pretty much beyond our control. We place keywords and Google determines the content. This is hardly a "pay for play" scenario.
You are correct that the FTC is more concerned about a direct relationship, and I think in most cases you are correct about google ads not being an issue. When I spoke with the FTC however they explained a scenario in which a relationship between a blogger and a seller could be considered "direct" with the use of google or other ads that place ads based on keywords. The short circuit works like this:
Seller of Widget places ads with Advertiser and instructs Advertiser to run those ads when certain keywords are displayed and agrees to pay a fee when people click on those ads. Advertiser then runs the ads on pages exhibiting those keywords and shares the revenue generated by those ads with the Blogger who created the page. Blogger realizes that it can be lucrative writing content with keywords that targets seller's ads and is of interest to Sellers customers and creates a desire within them to click on the ad to visit the Seller's site and/or make a purchase.
I see this being most directly an issue with e-bay and amazon type ads, but also with google, MSN, Yahoo, etc.
You can learn more about my conversation with the FTC, and the new guidelines by visiting my hub on the topic.
From what I read on your hub, your conversation with 'the FTC' was with a person who didn't know much about the ruling anyway.
Direct relationship or not, this ruling is not about advertisers. It's about endorsements. When people are paid to endorse a product but keep that fact hidden.
This is actually quite entertaining - Why?
Because I can see this applying to the Wall Street Journal every time they announce a "recovery in housing prices." which really means "please go borrow some money so our advertisers will come back."
You're complicating it.
The FTC's stance is that an advertisement, pretending to be an unbiased opinion/review, is misleading and unethical.
If you got cash or free product to endorse a product then that is the problem. An ad that looks like an ad and is labeled as being an ad is an ad. It's not pretending to be a personal recommendation.
This ruling shouldn't be new, it's been in effect for newspapers for years (at least here in Australia and in the UK). I imagine that the FTC is updating the existing law to incorporate bloggers and others who previously felt exempt from the rules.
Thus, a consumer who purchases a product with his or her own money and praises it on a personal blog or on an electronic message board will not be deemed to be providing an endorsement. In contrast, postings by a blogger who is paid to speak about an advertiser’s product will be covered by the Guides, regardless of whether the blogger is paid directly by the marketer itself or by a third party on behalf of the marketer.
From Page 9 of the "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising"
Well, i have read the complete guidelines and i still don't get it.
my 2 cents on it, is that ads like google ads are already disclaimed by google and so do not fall under these rules.
I am an affiliate marketer and i use my blogs to market in various niches. So i guess, i need to state that i am affiliated with product x and i make money per sale generated
Am i correct?
And if so, what's the point of that, i am sure my sales will drop faster than a meteorite.
ps: some say it is only for americans, but the FTC says ALL bloggers, so what is it????
This is where it can appear a little hazy, but are you getting paid (in cash or in kind) to give a review? You might be making money from a sale, but it's not a done deal.
You can review a book at Amazon and have an affiliate link and it shouldn't be a problem. If on the other hand you were being paid by the publisher to give a review on Amazon.com then that would be a problem.
If there has to be disclosure for cases like that though I'm yet to see exactly how a person is to make such a disclaimer. Whether it's on a page on the site or in the footer. Or will it have to be as obvious as right next to the link? That I doubt, but I'm sure people will find out by December 1st.
American organisations often forget that there is a world outside of the US. The FTC's influence is contained within the United States. Though things can get a little blurred if the site is hosted on American soil. But that would mean a whole lot more work for not a lot of reward.
From what I understand, if a person is in breach, they'll get a cease and desist order to start.
well, i use blogger.com and wordpress, both hosted in the U.S
so that's also why i am a bit confused.
i live in belgium, so in theory i am not an american, but am an american blogger trough the blogger hosting.
no i am not
if i don't make a sale, i get nothing
so in that case i believe i don't fall under this category
by Dorsi Diaz8 years ago
Something just occured to me, not only are we writers here but we are ALSO CONSUMERS. I see nothing wrong with clicking on a fellow hubbers google ad if it's something we are interested in. I am getting the feeling that...
by Sally Gulbrandsen4 months ago
Will they still be allowed to continue writing for the niche sites or will this site be diluted as our best writers and their work leave for a better deal?
by Izzy Anne8 years ago
Readers are not stupid. We can see when someone knows what they are writing about and when they are just rewriting material from the web.I was looking for (I leave this out, I think, don't want to attack specific...
by Paul Edmondson6 years ago
Last week I signed an agreement with Google to help all Hubbers get access to more demand (Advertisers) and to sell on our behalf the new IAB rising star units that have proven to be great brand vehicles for digital...
by Keith Abt5 years ago
Looks like another content sniper is at work, stealing our shizz from HubPages. This so called "music news" site has sniped at least four of my Hubs and it looks like there are many other pieces pinched from...
by Ananta657 years ago
Well, that’s nice, very nice. I haven’t got a clue of what I did wrong. And after filling in the online appeal form they told me they had reviewed my account information, taken my feedback into account, but still...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.