I have been discussing these FTC guidelines (see posts below) with several of the thought-leaders in the social media/word-of-mouth space, and they have been able to cast a little light on the situation.

Bob Pearson of WeissComm suggests that "the FTC is concerned with the growth of sponsored conversations"--he points to http://socialspark.com/ as an example--and says: "In this site, a blogger can literally sign up and be paid a certain amount of money for writing about a product. This means that there could be no product review... just simply someone trying to make money, so they write what they think should be said. The guidelines are clearly against this."

But he acknowledges that "legit blogging may be getting caught in the cross-fire" and eventually arrives at the same place I did: "In principle, disclosure is always good. So why not disclose free anything in print or blogs. Should this not become the best practice?"

The fact is, if these guidelines become actual regulations, this is probably the only way to defend them--both intellectually and legally. They will have to apply to everyone.

Paul Rand , who is president and CEO of word-of-mouth specialist Zocalo Group and also president-elect of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association, was on the NAD Annual Conference panel in New York yesterday with Mary Engle of the FTC and says his initial impression was "the same as yours that bloggers are being looked at differently than journalists.

"When asked about this during the session, Mary commented that consumers knew/know that a journalist is in a 'reviewing' position but that is likely different for many bloggers."

I guess I'd take issue with that, because I consider myself a pretty sophisticated consumer of news and opinion and I don't know which reviewers accept free products and which have policies against. I'm guessing some product reviewers send their free software/games/books, etc., back or donate them to charity or something, while others keep them. (Full disclosure: I've been sent books, for example, and held on to them.)

Similarly, some automotive journalists accept free trips to exotic locales for new product introductions, some travel writers accept free flights and hotel rooms while reviewing destinations. Others have strict rules against accepting these freebies. Do most consumers understand the difference? Does Engle?

The more I think about the new FTC guidelines on blogger disclosure, the more arbitrary and ill-thought out they seem, not so much in their quest for transparency--which I applaud--but in their attempt to single out one class of reporter or media for more stringent standards of disclosure.

Let's consider some of the absurdity inherent in the FTC's position.

If a reporter receives a software product for review, for example, he can publish a review in The Wall Street Journal or USA Today, without disclosing the software company's largesse. But if he then writes about the same product on his blog, he is subject to the FTC's new regulations and can be punished with a fine. So when he's wearing his print hat, he's a trustworthy individual who is taken at his word. As soon as the same person puts on a blogger hat, though, he's a potential charlatan whose writings must be regulated?

How will this work in the real world? Will a book reviewer for The New York Times be free to keep the source of the book he's reviewing secret in the print edition but be forced to reveal it in the online division? If not--because the NYT's legitimacy extends to whatever medium it is publishing in--is the FTC putting itself in a position of conferring legitimacy (and freedom from regulatory oversight) on some publications but not on others? Will the new regulations apply to the Huffington Post (which is a blog, after all) but not to The New York Post?

What worries me most is that the FTC appears to believe that there's an ethical dividing line, and that all bloggers are on one side and all mainstream media on the other. I don't buy that. Mostly, I don't have the FTC's touching faith in the inherent integrity of print and broadcast journalists.

It's hard to imagine that the new rules won't be applied arbitrarily. Which raises the question of their legitimacy, since any law that is applied selectively is surely open to legal challenge.

Any thoughts?

I believe transparency is one of the core values that public relations professionals must subscribe to in order to practice their craft with integrity and effectiveness, so it will come as no surprise that I am broadly supportive of the new Federal Trade Commission rules that will require bloggers and other social media participants to reveal when they have been provided with free product samples in exchange for product reviews.

I note that the Word of Mouth Marketing Association, which is doing great work raising and promoting ethical and professional standards in the fledgling social media arena, was quick to voice its support for the new rules.

But I would take issue with two elements of The New York Times reporting of this story.

First, the Times says, "the government is intent on bringing to bear on the Internet the same sorts of regulations that have governed other forms of media, like television or print."

But unless I am missing something--someone correct me if I am--there is no regulation forcing a mainstream print reporter to indicate he has received a free copy of the book he is reviewing, a free copy of the software he writes about, or a free flight to a factory he later writes about. Nor is there any regulatory requirement that a television reporter acknowledge a free ticket to a movie she reviews or a free stay at a resort she writes about. (Many, if not most, new organizations have their own guidelines, but that's a separate issue.)

So in this respect, bloggers are being held to a higher standard than other media, not the same standard.

Second, the Times says, "for bloggers who review products, this means that the days of an unimpeded flow of giveaways may be over."

I'm not sure this is true. In fact, savvy marketers will welcome disclosure, as will bloggers who value their credibility. The latter will presumably continue to review products, while acknowledging the largesse of companies involved, and as long as their reviews reflect their true opinions, they will retain and perhaps even enhance their credibility. Since credibility is precisely the quality smart marketers hope to receive in return for their products, those bloggers will continue to receive a steady flow of freebies.