It used to be that people relied on experts for their opinions on say, a product or a service either for their own edification or to make intelligent choices. With the advent of all-things-online came the arm chair critic whose opinions suddenly mattered to the horde.
There is something comforting about an amateur spouting off his opinions on his blog (free service, of course) on a new restaurant or a the latest tooth whitening agent. She is, after all, more like the rest of us. This affinity and rawness gave the amateur some semblance of reality, if not integrity with his readers.
But merchants are a smart breed, and they have caught on how to communicate effectively with online media. They have even gone so far as to peddle their goods with the amateurs. Freebies or actual cash are exchanged for a space in the amateur's online territory. Whether these peddled things are actually good or rotten is a good question. The bigger issue here is conflict of interest, which is something of a hex in the legal world.
Considering how the amateur's words online have their weight in metal, any disclosure of financial ties with a merchant would most likely affect his followers' perception.
Enter the US Federal Trade Commission guidelines on the use of endorsements and testimonials for advertising. These guidelines require an endorser or say, a regular blogger, to disclose any payment he may have received from a merchant in exchange for a testimonial/product review. Failure to disclose would result in penalties and a fine up to US$11,000. The objective of the Guidelines is consumer protection, a cause championed by the FTC.
Obviously, civil rightists cry overbreadth and invasion of privacy. The FTC's Calvary is enforcement.
There are no such guidelines locally. We do not have a shortage of our own travel, makeup-up, or foodie bloggers. And we are not without these kinds of arrangements. Our resident civil rightists will of course, rally against this kind of overbreadth. Any good that the agency tasked to do this would be limited by its resources and the infiniteness that is the internet, not to mention how much of a nightmare it will be to enforce. In which case, the all seeing eye is blind. Or with a bad case of cataract.
