| Rob6021 said: Obama's new regulations.. According to this to me it seems that they should have to disclose all swag given. Or sadly does this only apply to 'bloggers.' Sadly i don't see them going after the game industry. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm |
Interesting.
I'd have to read the text of the regulation itself to be certain, but my inclination tells me that it would not apply here.
"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."
If I were the bloggers, I would argue that this does not apply because I am not being flown abroad and put up in a cushy hotel as a reward for reviewing the product; instead, it's a non-negotiable condition that I do so in order to receive a review copy. And as we all know, all-expense paid trips to play games are not a reward!
Even if it did apply, the FTC is usually the only group that can enforce its own regulations. You CAN use FTC violations to enforce a private action in some cases, but the remedy is usually rescission of a contract, which means squat-diddly here. And the FTC is not going to go after Kotaku: they're too small of a fish.
| rocketpig said: Yes, more regulation is needed. That's always the answer. If you think a reviewer or publication may be on the take, don't read their reviews. It's that simple and most of the time, it's not hard to determine the guys who give honest reviews from the guys who pad the scores and reviews. Welcome to the world of advertising, this shit has always happened and will always happen. There's no way to stop it because it's a free market. These publishers could literally be giving the magazines piles of cash for perfect scores and it wouldn't be illegal. There's an implied honesty and fairness in the review industry but that isn't backed by law, nor should it be. |
Actually, there is a way to stop it: regulation. Furthermore, it's NOT a free market: the FTC was created for the purpose of regulating these very activities, and that's what it's been doing for the past 70+ years. In light of some of the abuses of the actual free market that hitherto existed, I applaud this regulation, as should all consumers.
Furthermore, your proposed solution ("If you think a reviewer or publication may be on the take, don't read their reviews") would only be assisted via regulations: the government needn't make this activity illegal, it need only require disclosures of these facts. If the reviews begin with "Note: these are the things we received from the publisher as part of this review" then the consumer is better able to decide whether to give the review, and by extension the reviewer, any credence. Win-win, even by your own standards.
| rocketpig said: Yes, more regulation is needed. That's always the answer. If you think a reviewer or publication may be on the take, don't read their reviews. It's that simple and most of the time, it's not hard to determine the guys who give honest reviews from the guys who pad the scores and reviews. Welcome to the world of advertising, this shit has always happened and will always happen. There's no way to stop it because it's a free market. These publishers could literally be giving the magazines piles of cash for perfect scores and it wouldn't be illegal. There's an implied honesty and fairness in the review industry but that isn't backed by law, nor should it be. |
