Ben Stein was axed by the New York Times last year for ethics violations when he appeared in a commercial for a bait and switch credit report scam. The ad claimed that consumers could get a free credit report, but in reality, they had to pay to see the real numbers.
Well, the FTC is now getting into the act and going after similar companies with some catchy commercials intended to emulate those of a popular advertising campaign by a similar bait and switch scam:
AnnualCreditReport.com is the ONLY authorized source to get your free annual credit report under federal law. The Fair Credit Reporting Act guarantees you access to a free credit report from each of the three nationwide reporting agencies — Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion — every twelve months. The Federal Trade Commission has received complaints from consumers who thought they were ordering their free annual credit report, but instead paid hidden fees or agreed to unwanted services. Don’t be fooled by TV ads, email offers, or online search results. Go to the authorized source when you request your free report. Read on...
Ok, so the ad is a little hokey, but the message is clear. I'm all for steering people to better alternatives and pointing out hackery when I can.
The new guidelines declare that bloggers who fail to disclose "material connections" to companies they write about can be fined … wait for it … up to $11,000 per violation! Wow. I asked Julie O'Neill, a former staff attorney for the FTC in the New York regional office and now an attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of law firm Morrison & Foerster, about these new rules.
My first question was whether these rules are fair, rational and enforceable. Julie responded: "I do think that they are rational in the sense that they apply the rules traditionally applied to advertising to new media, but I don't know whether the FTC has completely considered the practical ramifications. For example, the revised guides say that a company that provides a blogger with a free product to review should both require the blogger to disclose that he received it for free and have procedures in place to monitor his postings for compliance."
As you can see from this short excerpt, the FTC has NO F*&king clue what they are doing.
As you know C&L does write a lot of book reviews. Hell, we even host book chats with the author. I happen to get many books sent to my PO BOX and many of them I just don't have time to review or read in a timely fashion so they go up on one of my shelves and I eventually try to get to them. It gets even more ridiculous than I first thought.
The more I read this interview of an FTC staffer by book blogger Edward Champion, the more the stupidity burns.
{}
You can return it. Most book reviewers (political bloggers included) get dozens, if not hundreds of books, per year. The logistics and expense of such a thing makes it impractical. Strict adherence to this edict would essentially kill non tradmed book reviewing. And why?
If, however, you held onto the unit, then Cleland insisted that it could serve as "compensation." You could after all sell the product on the streets.
So stupid. You "could" sell it. If you buy a gun, you "could" shoot someone with it. If you purchase a knife, you "could" stab someone. If you open up a stock trading account, you "could" engage in illegal insider trading. If you buy shoes, you "could" use them to run away from a crime scene. If you get an accounting degree, you "could" use that knowledge to launder drug money. If you take a job at the FTC, you "could" become a blithering idiot.
To be clear, I have no problem with transparency and disclosure, I have a problem with Blogger Ethics rules and laws which don't apply anywhere else in the universe for no rational reason.
WTF, am I supposed to burn a book after C&L reviews it. If I write a TV review on a great, great show called Dexter, will they search my house to see if I got a copy from Showtime? Here it is.
I think Dexter is an excellent show. Go and buy or rent all the seasons because the 4th one just started. Are they f*&king kidding me? The FTC can kiss my Italian ass. And that is that.
UPDATE: I see the FTC is rethinking their position now.
In a conference call for reporters today, Engle aimed to set the record straight after a flurry of news stories (not to mention blogs and tweets) about the FTC's new advertising guidelines that were, as she put it, "all wrong."
"We are not going to be patrolling the blogosphere," she said. "We are not planning on investigating individual bloggers."
On two Fox News shows, Fox host Mike Huckabee directed viewers to "go to balancecutsave.com," urging them to sign a petition telling Congress to "balance the budget," "cut their spending," and "save American families"; however, balancecutsave.com redirects visitors to a web page soliciting donations for Huckabee's political action committee, which financially supports Republican candidates and also pays Huckabee's daughter's salary. Huckabee is the latest Fox News personality to ask viewers to visit PAC websites without disclosing the website's nature or whether they stand to gain financially from viewers' donations
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 172
PLAYS: 6
(Need you ask?)
Every so often I will run across some talk show from the past that points out just how naive we all were as a country, many years ago.
On October 5, 1958 the Open Mind program hosted a discussion on the future of television in politics and how advertising could possibly be used to make or break a candidate or issue. Fifty years ago, remember?
Bear in mind, TV wasn't as all-encompassing as it is today. Stations routinely went off the air at midnight. Color was new. Video tape was new. Most homes had TV's that were, at the most 17" and usually encased in a massive console. There were virtually no live on-the-spot reports and there were lots and lots of talking heads.
Lloyd Whiteburke: “There’s no FTC, no Federal Trade Commission in political advertising. If a product is falsely advertised, as you all know, the Federal Trade Commission will seek an injunction against the advertiser and have that advertising changed and penalize the advertiser. The only person penalized for buying a candidate who is not what he represents himself for is the voter. And he’s got four years to wait to throw him out, throw out this candidate. So it imposes a tremendous sense of responsibility on the advertising fraternity to make darn sure that something isn’t done, that isn’t correct for which the FTC does not have call. And that’s why some of the practitioners do, in the course of their work, say things and do things that are perhaps not exactly right. And we have to watch that and we have to police our own . . . “
Television was still in its infancy. The 1952 Presidential campaign, being the first to utilize Television in a prominent way, was recent history. The Kennedy-Nixon debates were still two years off and cable was only an idea.
I don't think anyone could have imagined what it would all become.
