What the OFT Case Against Handpicked Means for Bloggers
To say there’s been a lot of discussion about this would be an understatement. I’ve been studying the case for an economics essay.
Having studied the case and the OFT’s rulings on disclosure I have concluded that bloggers like myself needn’t worry too much.
From the OFT website;
1. Is this a new law for bloggers and tweeters?
“No…it is prohibited to use editorial content in the media to promote a product, where the trader has paid for the promotion, without making that clear in the content”
This would suggest that very little has changed. If a blogger has been paid for a post then they should disclose this. I don’t personally know of any blogger that hasn’t been doing this for sometime, if not forever.
2. Does this mean the OFT will be monitoring the whole of the internet?
“We are not monitoring the whole of the internet with a view to going after individual bloggers.”
So no need to worry that Big Brother is watching us, as long as we’re fairly disclosing ‘paid posts’ then we have little to fear.
3. What about celebrity endorsements on Twitter and Facebook – do you expect bloggers and celebrities to adopt the same disclosure approach as they do in the USA?
“The underlying principle is the same – consumers should understand when they are reading paid-for promotional content.
In practice we would expect there to be a degree of harmonisation in relation to how sponsored posts are disclosed on microblogs such as Twitter”
Note the OFT’s own use of the phrase ‘sponsored post’ this would imply that this is the suitable disclosure that the OFT require when content is “paid-for”
4. Is there special language you require to make the disclosure?
“disclosures should clearly identify, in a manner prominently displayed with the editorial content such that it would be unavoidable to the average consumer, that the promotion has been paid for or otherwise remunerated”
I think the key point here is the that the disclosure should be obvious to the ‘average consumer’, this to me would imply that we should clearly mark our posts with a universally understood phrase such as ‘sponsored post’ (used previously by the OFT themselves).
This section also points out that disclosure should be made if “otherwise remunerated”, once again this should be done in such a way that the “average consumer” can understand what the nature of the trade that has taken place. Therefore saying that X has sent me X is a suitably sufficient way to describe what has happened and how that may affect any further content on the topic. Alternatively marking the post with the universally understood phrase ‘sponsored post’ would also be acceptable.
In short to comply with the law as it stands you must mark your post if it is paid for (or if you’ve been otherwise remunerated) in a way that the ‘average consumer’ can understand. It’s not exactly rocket science and when it comes down to it NOTHING has actually changed other than the fact that Handpicked got their wrists slapped for not ensuring that bloggers in their network were disclosing promotional posts.
Therefore the minimum required, and that suggested by the OFT is that ‘paid for’ or ‘remunerated’ posts should be clearly identified in a way that your average joe (and don’t forget Joe may not be a blogger!) can understand. Nothing more, nothing less. Anythingelse is complicating the issue.
You can read the full set of Questions and Answers relating to the Handpicked case here.
The thing is there is so much difference is now people display the fact that they have been paid to post. There are people who have posted paid content today (I know as I have posted the same and it is not marked as sponsored or paid in any way)
It doesn’t really matter that people display it in different ways, as long as it it’s clear to the average reader.
I’d like to think that those that have published paid for content have done it as an oversight, however not all bloggers will be aware of the rules on printing such content.
But the term “teamed up with” would not have informed the reader that payment has been received, espeically when it is an established “top blogger”. I have to say that this is not a one off, it is common occurance, with lots of blogs
I disagree, I think the phrase ‘teamed up’ with implies a relationship with the brand. As a consumer I would assume that any further information regarding that brand will likely be favourable and it’s up to me to decipher whether the content seems truthful and accurate.
Consumers don’t need to be spoonfed, they just need to be made aware of the fact there may be a conflict of interest, they can make their own mind up from there.
I’m not sure what being a “top blogger” (however you measure that) has to do with it.
I guess we will have to disagree then, as an average consumer I would not feel this meant that they have been paid. people team up all the time, doesn’t imply that they have been paid. I would rather know up front and unfortunately now feel that I can not trust the information received.
To be honest I couldn’t care less if people are being paid or not, I either enjoy and value the content or I don’t. It’s as simple as that.
Writers working on magazines are being paid to write and that doesn’t devalue the content. This idea that blogging is somehow art and should be above payment is not one that I resonate with at all.
I also don’t care whether bloggers are being paid or not. All I care about is that posts are written well. Good bloggers could write about loo paper for all I care as long as they do it in a witty and informative manner.
I find it surprising that you don’t care whether bloggers are paid or not, especially as this post wasn’t about writing skills, it was all about disclosure. Adverts in magazine are clearly adverts or labeled advertorial. Why write about disclosure if you don’t consider it imporatant.
Because the OFT thinks it’s relatively important for disclosure on blogs and this is an issue that affects bloggers, and I am a blogger. It’s important in that I have to comply, It’s not important in that I really don’t care whether other people are being paid or not (the OFT cares).
I like to think that I’m intelligent enough to make my own mind up about the products and services I wish to consume.
The point of the post was to highlight that what is required of bloggers is a basic bit of disclosure and that it’s nothing to fear or wrap up in crazy paragraphs of legal disclosure, or badges or anythingelse.
On the subject of getting paid for writing, I always link to my friend Victors post on the subject:
http://write-and-wrong.posterous.com/get-paid-dealing-with-the-creative-schmuck-ec
In terms of disclosure, “teamed up with” could mean anything. I’d take it to mean got given the stuff for free but thats one interpretation. Why not just call a spade a spade eh? No idea who says it, hardly read any blogs because I’m an unsociable old sod but if I could spell disingenuous, that’s the word I’d use to describe “teaming up” if it meant getting a product that cost ?199 (I’m assuming the product The Mad House is referring to is the airfryer) for free and the review I read didn’t actually say the product was given to keep. It’s different if it’s a bit of chocolate because you wouldn’t be expected to give that back
And it doesn’t cost 200 quid.
Also agree with some of Liz’s sentiment, well written is well written and I like reading stuff that’s well written. Hopefully anyone that read my 1,500 word review of the Slendatone Abs thought that was well written but then that’s not down to me. As long as the person tells me their well written words are paid for, in cash or kind, I don’t mind. It’s when I find out later, I get cross.
Fwiw though, if bloggers blog sensibly, they shouldn’t have to do owt different post hand picked media IMHO.
Like I said on the bmb blog, no amount of badges or codes of conduct will get the few bad pennies to change their ways because transparency isn’t something they’re interested in. .
That was exactly the point I was trying to make Alex, a simple ‘sponsored post’ is all that is required imo, and you’re right there will always be ‘rule breakers’ but hey, that’s life!
I’d like to think that most bloggers want to do the right thing, and I do believe that is the case.
Things were innocent and exciting when I started using the internet back in ’93. About all you had to worry about was whether the university would catch you having a Doom LAN party in the computer labs
Did you read the astroturfing article on the Guardians Comment is Free the other day?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/feb/23/need-to-protect-internet-from-astroturfing
That’s the next step.
Your dash clock on blogger isn’t set to GMT, I’m never up at 11.40pm nowadays