I do a lot of book reviews, both here and at my own blog. In fact, Blogcritics is built in large part on reviews of products, books, CDs, movies, and the like. All of us who contribute get some of the items we review for free, whether from a publicist, the publisher or studio, or even the author or artist. Evidently, though, that now may subject us to regulation by the Federal Trade Commission.
The FTC is considering changes in federal regulations regarding the "use of endorsements and testimonials in advertising." One of those regulations requires that there must be full disclosure of any connection between the endorser and seller of a product "which might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement."
The proposals don't change the content of the regulation itself. They do, though, propose adding an example dealing specifically with blogs. It deals with a college student with a reputation as a video game expert who also has a gaming blog. A manufacturer sends him a free copy of a new game system and asks him to write about it on the blog. After testing it, he posts a favorable review. According to the FTC, "The readers of his blog are unlikely to expect that he has received the video game system free of charge in exchange for his review of the product, and given the value of the video game system, this fact would likely materially affect the credibility they attach to his endorsement. Accordingly, the blogger should clearly and conspicuously disclose that he received the gaming system free of charge."
Hmm, sounds a lot like what happens with most of the contributors to this site, myself included. Now I certainly don't want to speak for or cast aspersions on other Blogcritics, but I don't know how many of us have a reputation as an "expert" in any particular field. Likewise, the cost of any one book, CD or DVD is nowhere near the value of a video gaming system. I also know it certainly isn't because of a significant economic gain. After all, if you translated the value into an hourly wage for the time spent just writing a review, the minimum wage laws would be violated.
Article comments
1 - Joanne Huspek
It's funny, there were times when I reviewed books by people I knew, and put the disclaimer in the beginning that I paid for the book. I didn't want anyone to think just because a person is an acquaintance, I was giving positive feedback as a payoff. In fact, most times when I review products, it's because I am happy with it, not because it was given to me. I'm just as likely to write a negative review as a positive.
2 - Jacqueline Lichtenberg
I'm a professional book/TV/Film reviewer for an on-paper New Age Magazine, and have been for many years.
I think the reader's perception differs between "traditional" media reviewers and bloggers. Readers expect book reviewers in a magazine were given the book and assigned to review it -- or chose it out of a huge stack of review books sent free.
I get stacks and stacks of review copies, and read only a fraction, and review only a few of those. Most readers know that's how it works. The magazine pays the reviewer to review.
Bloggers, on the other hand, appear to be self-employed and speaking their own mind, not under an editorial policy dictated by a paycheck.
So there could be a conflict of interest that the general reader doesn't understand. I don't think this problem should be solved by a law or regulation.
For example, when I review a book by someone I know, or when the author sends me the book instead of the publisher, I generally mention that and offer something relevant and entertaining with the fact.
I would say, just let the bloggosphere spread the word that free stuff is given to bloggers to review -- and bloggers will vie for the free goodies. That will make it clear to all blog readers that sometimes reviews are biased.
I'm also an Amazon Vine program reviewer and post reviews on Amazon of books they send me, free. But VINE appears on my review byline there, even when I review a book I paid for (yes, I do buy some!)
I am not unbiased, and don't pretend to be. I don't think "review" and "unbiased" belong in the same sentence. Reviews are by nature opinion, reaction, impression, preference. To evaluate a review, the reader has to follow that reviewer's taste for a while.
I used to buy every book panned by a certain reviewer because that guaranteed it would be a good read. Never missed once.
Consistency of opinion is the mark of a great reviewer.
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
3 - roger nowosielski
Jacqueline,
A very fair statement, especially as regard your unabashed assertion that "bias" is not a dirty word. I'm somewhat puzzled, however, about the dichotomy you're posing. You do get paid to review whereas we don't. So why would "the general reader" be any more suspicious of any of us than persons such as yourself?
Are you suggesting, perhaps, that "the conflict of interest" you speak of is more of a question with bloggers because they renumeration is under the table? Because if so, one could pose a counter-argument to the effect that the literary magazine which employs you has a vested interest in promoting certain works rather than others.
Any thoughts?
Roger
4 - roger nowosielski
BTW, just looked at your website. Very interesting.
5 - Lisa Solod Warren
Why on earth would someon who was paid be less biased than someone who was unpaid? I have been both a paid book reviewer and an unpaid one and I treated the books I reviewed exactly the same. I read them and decided how I felt. Whether I was paid to review them or not, the books were free. I have also reviewed books by "friends" or books that had friends essays in them and was fair on those, too. I even recently sent a friend an email warning her that a review was going to be very mixed so she wouldn't be shocked. Friends who send me books to review know full well that I won't just give them a glowing review. I will read and review as I see it. I let them know that up front.
Good grief.
6 - roger nowosielski
My question concerned the integrity of the employer, not necessarily the people who work there. Thanks anyway.
7 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
I hear ya Roger...
The integrity of "Traditional" media has been my concern for quite some time now. I would have to agree that someone who depends on their reviews to make a living via a Media company would have much more of an incentive to be biased in those reviews. I personally think that the FTC is doing this to gain more control over an entity that doesn't necessarily have the same perceived responsibility to the consumer.
Imho, I really don't see the tradition as a viable source anymore. {but,that's for another debate]
8 - roger nowosielski
Well, Brian. She responded on the personal level, which is all fine and good; and I have no reason to question her veracity. But she evaded my question, in a way.
9 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
Ahha... I'm not trying to attack her "personal" opinion. It's merely my feeling about people's conception(?) about the internet. Though, I do not think it was the same person replying to your inquiry. I believe Lisa was making a remark about the article or Jacqueline's comment.
10 - roger nowosielski
Yes, you're right. I confused the two. But you're also correct about their low opinion of the net. I guess it comes with the fact that they're gainfully employed. Oh well.
11 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
Yes, traditionalists are usually hard to persuade to see the benefits of a newer, and possibly better, approach. But, there's a lot at stake though I don't care to get into a discussion about...No offense. But, I definitely agree with you.
12 - Jacqueline Lichtenberg
Google turned this up on my FeedDemon or I wouldn't have realized anyone had answered my comment.
I hope I can clarify.
I have trained several professional reviewers and found that they often start out thinking they work FOR the publisher. It is often difficult for reviewers who don't get paid by a Magazine (or whatever e-pub) to understand that they work FOR THE CONSUMER not for the publisher or even the Magazine.
In tree-publishing the old fashioned way, reviewers are hired by the publication then assigned a particular item to review. They are expected to turn down items only from people they know personally. There is to be no contact between the reviewer and the author or publisher to prevent conflict of interest.
As a novelist, I've had my books reviewed through that system. As a reviewer, I've reviewed books that way (though in my current position I get to pick which books I review from the flooding stream of books publishers send me.)
That business model that separates Reviewer from those with financial gain riding on the reviewer's opinion is GONE. (which I think is a good thing)
But we haven't yet devised a new way to do it. I find myself disturbed by the idea of the government making a law like this. But I think that if they do make a law, it should say that readers should expect we are reviewing products we got for free unless we say otherwise.
Also, does anyone on this blog know how various authoritative review magazines (not Consumer Reports but various others) often give favorable reviews only to products whose manufacturers buy advertising and pay big bucks?
Do you all know that bookstores get paid by publishers to feature a book on one of those islands in front of the store or in the window? And that costs a lot!
Consumers are used to being tricked by marketers. I wouldn't think anyone would think a blog would be any different.
13 - roger nowosielski
That kind of clarifies, it Jacqueline. It's still an insurmountable obstacle to get into your feet wet.
I gave up.
14 - roger nowosielski
That kind of clarifies, it Jacqueline. It's still an insurmountable obstacle to get your feet wet.
I gave up.
15 - Jennifer Bogart
Hmm, well we definitely don't do it for the money. If I divided my reading and reviewing time by the cost of the books/CDs/DVDs etc. I receive I might be making a quarter an hour. Definitely a violation of the minimum wage laws :). I review because I love books...passionately, but that doesn't mean I write gushing reviews. I've written many mixed reviews - likely more than I've written entirely positive ones, and have torn down a few titles to. Huzzah for impartial reviewing practices.