Last week the Federal Trade Commission threw the blogosphere into a tailspin when it announced its Final Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials. The issue that caused the heartache? The new requirement that bloggers (and other marketers) be upfront and honest about endorsements and testimonials, and note when flogging has been paid for by the producers of any product or service being endorsed.

This US move follows on from similar legislation being enacted across Europe and elsewhere. In the UK, it’s been an offence since May 2008 to use “editorial content in the media to promote a product where a trader has paid for the promotion without making that clear in the content or by images or sounds clearly identifiable by the consumer”.

Now the principle of transparency has stretched across the Atlantic (although, as noted by the FTC, said principle was already in practice, just not always necessarily observed, especially in the “new” media). The FTC notes that its revised Guides:

add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that “material connections” (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other “word-of-mouth” marketers. 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. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims.

You’ll find the actual Guide here. you should download it and study it if you receive any payment (whether in cash or in kind) for waxing lyrical about sponsor products.

Section 255.5 is probably the most important section for marketers, and notes:

When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed. For example, when an endorser who appears in a television commercial is neither represented in the advertisement as an expert nor is known to a significant portion of the viewing public, then the advertiser should clearly and conspicuously disclose either the payment or promise of compensation prior to and in exchange for the endorsement or the fact that the endorser knew or had reason to know or to believe that if the endorsement favored the advertised product some benefit, such as an appearance on television, would be extended to the endorser.

It’s not much to ask — transparency and honesty. It’s been on the ‘Just Do It’ list at WOMMA forever.

Oh yeah — in the interests of full transparency, please note that the FTC is not paying us to mention this.

Related posts:

1. Following FTC eCommerce Guidelines The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)—the US consumer protection agency —offers...

Tags: endorsement, honesty, transparency