What’s true here is that the integrity of such sites is unassailable. No one, least of all me, doubts for a nanosecond that the reviews on sites like DA are honest, thoughtful, precise, and completely professional — despite the fact none of the reviewers gets paid! I sincerely hope there is a revenue stream from advertising, and that it’s sufficient some reward down the line. It would have to be a lot of money before it came close to paying them what they deserve. I appreciate Jane and her colleagues — their efforts have elevated the entire profession. Free books — even hundreds of free books — don’t even make a dent in what the industry, including us readers, owe them.

And that’s actually what I’ve been trying, perhaps clumsily, to say here: Their website is already complying with the changes to the FTC regs. We can debate the need for, efficacy and implementation of those regs, but it’s clear that no one associated with any of the review websites I know of (including this one!) has any concerns.

And a final offer to Jane specifically. Regardless of what Mr. Cleland says, I feel strongly that you’re covered by DA’s existing disclaimers, even in the gray area of tweets, Facebook updates, and comments on other blogs. If the FTC ever does hassle you, I’d be honored to represent you pro bono. (You may well want a better lawyer, but you won’t find a less expensive one!)

I’m seriously trying to read and comprehend all of this and now my eyes are crossing. This is exactly why I never went to law school and decided to stick it out with healthcare. If I understand what I’m reading correctly, my lil’ ol’ blog where I only randomly review books from my own personal stash in which I’ve spent a butt-ton of money on is not affected by these new FTC guidelines. Correct? And the site that I review for (an actual review site in which none of us are paid except with the luxury of reading a book before its release date), where all the reviewers receive ARCs and such is ok, as long as it’s stated as such somewhere on the site in a blanket statement, yes?

I’d better quit while I’m behind. Not only are my fake lawyer credentials getting thwacked, but my real philosopher ones are becoming suspect to boot.

“”"Accordingly, the FTC may find that a blogger violates Section 5 if the blogger (1) posts a positive review that does not represent their honest experience with the product or service; (2) makes misrepresentations about key features of the product or service; or (3) fails to disclose a “material connection” or compensation arrangement related to the review.”"”"

The OR is important here. Any one of those three can constitute a violation.

http://www.bostonbibliophile.com/2009/10/guest-post-ftc-faq-for-book-bloggers.html

I personally do not agree, of course, that book reviews are merely subjective opinions, but I will accept that interpretation if it gets the FTC off our backs.

And to answer Magdalen, I am someone who looks at it as a consumer, and recognizes that these guidelines, while imperfect, are consumer protection driven. A dishonest review of a book may not hurt you, but a dishonest review of a medical device or treatment well may.

I don’t understand what the debate actually is. Is the FTC wrong to try to bring transparency to the business of endorsements? Or are they right to try, but these regulations are overreaching? And if they’re overreaching, is it simply because you might feel your free speech is infringed in a tweet or Facebook status update? Because, honestly, other than that one example, I can’t see how anything changes for you guys.

I accept your & Robin’s point that you’ve lifted the examples straight from the FTC pdf, even if I didn’t find quite the same things you cite. (The most relevant examples I found were these: the blogger who reviews a video game he was sent free by the manufacturer should disclose that he got it free; an employee of an advertiser posts comments on a popular message board in favor of the advertised product without disclosing his/her employment by the advertiser; and the three people who rave about a movie they’ve just seen in what appears to be a spontaneous televised spot should disclose that they were given the tickets free in exchange for being asked their opinions as they exited.)

Even after having read the document, I still don’t see the sky falling. It’s a pretty basic rule: if you got something for free and then you review it, tell people that you got it free. In your author’s liability scenario, the only examples I could find involved an actual advertisement. If Bantam Books wants to blurb a DA review, they have to verify that the facts in the review are accurate. (Oh, and I apologize — I have thought of a fact that could be materially misrepresented in a DA review: that someone actually read the book. So sure, the publisher or author should make reasonable efforts to verify that someone did actually read the book before they blurb the review in an advertisement. My bad.)

But in the effort to be fair and balanced, here’s the worst thing I could find relevant to this discussion. If a publisher is sending ARCs out to, say, 100 bloggers, that publisher has an obligation under the new regs to verify that those bloggers disclose that the ARC was received free if that book is then reviewed. That does burden the publisher with some liability as a result of the responsibility to police the blogosphere. I guess I could argue that both ways. I dunno — maybe that will have a chilling effect and fewer ARCs will go out.

I think this is a healthy debate, and I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind on this topic. But I am scratching my head as to one thing: doesn’t anyone self-identify as a consumer? The negative comments about the promulgated changes all reflect the point of view of the reviewer/blogger, the author, and (to a lesser extent) the publisher. Are none of you consumers? Do you really not see any benefit for yourselves as consumers, or is it that we’re already so cynical that we take all endorsements (expert, celebrity, and faux-fellow consumer) with a huge grain of salt?

The FTC seems to have adopted an existing guideline – on the responsible use of social media – from by the Social Media Business Council’s guidelines that has been around for some time: http://www.socialmedia.org/disclosure/

Specifically those that might interest book bloggers:
http://www.socialmedia.org/disclosure/blogger-relations/
http://www.socialmedia.org/disclosure/compensation-incentives/

Their press release in light of the FTC’s guidelines:
http://www.socialmedia.org/blog/release-ftcs-new-disclosure-regulations-fully-reinforce-smbcs-disclosure-toolkit/

Excerpt: “We’re thrilled to see that the collaborative hard work of Social Media Business Council members received a big nod as the community’s open-source Disclosure Best Practices Toolkit was heavily reinforced in the new FTC regulations.”

I encourage you to read the PDF. It contains a number of examples and specific language about the regulations including contributory liability:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm

Ed Rants blog which contains an interview with Cleland: http://www.edrants.com/

CNET which also contains quotes from Cleland: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10368064-36.html