Azrael the cat
Arcane
From NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/technology/27ftc.html?_r=1&hp
"The Federal Trade Commission said on Thursday that a California marketing company had settled charges that it engaged in deceptive advertising by having its employees write and post positive reviews of clients’ games in the Apple iTunes Store, without disclosing that they were being paid to do so.
The charges were the first to be brought under a new set of guidelines for Internet endorsements that the agency introduced last year. The guidelines have often been described as rules for bloggers, but they also cover anyone writing reviews on Web sites or promoting products through Facebook or Twitter.
They are meant to impose on the Internet the same kind of truth-in-advertising principles that have long existed offline."
Unfortunately, this case only involved direct payment for reviews, not purchased advertising or fringe benefits. However, the principle could easily be extended and it's worth keeping an eye out (or making complaints to the FCC) for suitable test cases. Next time you hear of a gaming 'journalist' getting extensive accomodation/benefits or of a gaming website giving absurdly positive reviews to a game whose publisher advertises heavily on their site, it might be worth sending in a complaint to the FCC - if they pile up over the next year or so, someone might pursue a case given that they finally seem to be taking the gaming industry seriously.
I suspect the 'purchased advertising in return for good reviews' is more likely to be pursued than the accomodation/entertainment style bribes, as the former is only a very thin line away from being a direct bribe.
"The Federal Trade Commission said on Thursday that a California marketing company had settled charges that it engaged in deceptive advertising by having its employees write and post positive reviews of clients’ games in the Apple iTunes Store, without disclosing that they were being paid to do so.
The charges were the first to be brought under a new set of guidelines for Internet endorsements that the agency introduced last year. The guidelines have often been described as rules for bloggers, but they also cover anyone writing reviews on Web sites or promoting products through Facebook or Twitter.
They are meant to impose on the Internet the same kind of truth-in-advertising principles that have long existed offline."
Unfortunately, this case only involved direct payment for reviews, not purchased advertising or fringe benefits. However, the principle could easily be extended and it's worth keeping an eye out (or making complaints to the FCC) for suitable test cases. Next time you hear of a gaming 'journalist' getting extensive accomodation/benefits or of a gaming website giving absurdly positive reviews to a game whose publisher advertises heavily on their site, it might be worth sending in a complaint to the FCC - if they pile up over the next year or so, someone might pursue a case given that they finally seem to be taking the gaming industry seriously.
I suspect the 'purchased advertising in return for good reviews' is more likely to be pursued than the accomodation/entertainment style bribes, as the former is only a very thin line away from being a direct bribe.
in oh so many areas.
