All Entries Tagged With: "Editorial"

New FTC Guides For Endorsements: A How To Guide for Bloggers

The FTC has updated its Guides concerning endorsements, which has an effect on bloggers who receive free products from companies or PR firms for review. I have written a full length article on the updates, complete with the pertinent text of the Guides, Examples, and FTC Commentary, followed by suggestions for implementation. That article is located here. This blog post is the short and simple version for those who do not wish to read the long version with all of its detail.

One quick disclaimer: Although I am an attorney, this material is not to be considered formal legal advice or legal representation of any kind. If you have a website that is likely to be scrutinized by the FTC, I recommend that you consult with your attorney.

What is Covered by the Updates?

The process is quite simple. If you receive a free product to review on your blog, or if you post on forums or twitter about a product as part of a word of mouth advertising program, you generally will need to disclose that you received it. If you are paid to post, you must disclose that. There are various factors that apply on a case-by-case basis to determine definitively if you must disclose, but outside of personal blogs that don’t normally do reviews and do not usually work with brands, a blog that reviews products will usually have to disclose a free item received from a brand when it gives that item a positive review. Those disclosures must be “clear and conspicuous.” The guides also include updates to address celebrity and expert endorsements, and consumer testimonials.

How Should a Website Implement the Updates?

(1) Bloggers who receive products for review from companies or intermediaries (e.g. PR firms), or who are paid for their reviews, generally must disclose that relationship when they give a positive review of the product. If a blogger purchases a product on his or her own, there is no disclosure requirement, as there is nothing to disclose. In circumstances where a person reviews a product they received unsolicited on a personal, disclosure likely would not be required, unless perhaps the product was valuable. How valuable is unknown. The FTC will decide such issues on case-by-case basis. See my longer article for more detail on this. Pay to post circumstances would always require disclosure.

(2) Bloggers must provide accurate statements and honest opinions. Stating “I thought product X cured my acne” would be fine if, as a blogger, you really thought that. Stating “Product X cures acne” may be too broad because it falls outside of the realm of personal opinion. Stating that Product X also cures wrinkles when there is no representation from the manufacturer that it does so, would be impermissible. However, stating that “I noticed that, in addition to treating my acne, the product seemed to make my wrinkles appear smaller” should be acceptable, provided it is a true statement.

State in the text of the review that the product was sent by a representative of the company. For example, a review could open with the line, “I received a new body lotion from the ABC company to try for review.”
Provide a disclosure at the end of the review. For example, provide a statement such as: “This review is based on a product sent by a representative of the company.” Such a statement could also add “for more information please see my disclosures page,” with a link to a disclosure page that more fully explains the site’s policies about receiving and reviewing free products. (See Beauty and Fashion Tech’s Disclosure Page)
A paid post could either state that it is paid in the text or, like the example above, could state that “the author received monetary compensation from the manufacturer for reviewing this product.” It could then also provide a link to a disclosure page if desired.

(4) Failure to Comply can result in in fines and liability. Will the FTC be policing the standard everyday blogger? Probably not. However, the Guides are meant to help assure voluntary compliance and the FTC would likely look into any complaints about any given site. In any event, even if enforcement seems unlikely, I suggest that it is in your best interests as a blogger, and in the best interests of the blogosphere as a whole, to comply with the Guides.

A Few Unknowns: It is not clear whether the guides would require disclosure of the use of affiliate links. They do not discuss the matter or explicitly require disclosure of such links, but arguments can be made that the use of affiliate links can make a blogger an endorser of a product. The updates generally are not retroactive, but some questions can arise about material published before December 1, 2009, that remains published or is republished after that date. It is also unclear whether people who are paid to post must disclose the amount that they were paid. The Guides are silent and simply state that the relationship must be disclosed. For a much more complete look at these unknown items, see my full length article.

Links:

The FTC Announcement

The FTC Notice of Adoption of the Revised Guides

Read my full length article: How to Implement the FTC Guides Concerning Endorsements: A Guide for Bloggers

Popularity: 2% [?]

October 07, 2009 | Carleenp | Comments 7

How To Implement The FTC Guides Concerning Endorsements: A Guide For Bloggers

In October 2009, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) updated its Guides concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising. (Read the Press Notice). These Guides provide information and examples to illustrate how the FTC applies Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the use of endorsements and testimonials in advertising. (Read the FTC Notice of Adoption of Revised Guides)(FTC Notice of Adoption).

The updates were accomplished after a comment period and go into effect on December 1, 2009. This article discusses the portions of the updates that specifically apply to bloggers, notes areas of uncertainly, and provides advice on implementing the requirements.

But first, a disclaimer: I am an attorney and have been following this issue for some time. However, I am not providing you with formal legal advice or representation in any manner. My opinions here are personal opinions based on legal knowledge and nothing more. If you have a website that will be heavily impacted by the updates, and you have legal concerns, I advise that you discuss the matter with your own attorney.

The Requirements in a Nutshell

The process under the updates is pretty simple. If you receive a free product to review on your website or blog, or if you post on forums or twitter about such a product as part of a word of mouth advertising campaign, you generally will need to disclose that you received a free product. If you are paid to post, you must disclose that. There are various factors that apply on a case-by-case basis to determine definitively if you must disclose, but outside of personal blogs that do not normally do reviews and do not usually work with brands, a blog that reviews products will usually have to disclose its connection with the company. Those disclosures must be “clear and conspicuous.” Whether the updates apply to disclosure of the use of affiliate links is one of several areas of uncertainly.

The guides also include updates to address celebrity and expert endorsements, and consumer testimonials. This article generally does not discuss those items. Why the Guides were updated and whether they were done so reasonably or fairly, I will leave for others to discuss and debate.

Seems simple enough right? If you are comfortable, you can stop reading here. Or you can go on to see all of the details on what each pertinent Guide and example says, pertinent FTC commentary, and how to implement them. If you want something in between, you can skip to the Putting It Altogether Section near the bottom. In the alternative, you can read my even shorter version published as a post on Beauty and Fashion Tech.

Individual Sections and and Requirements

When looking at each section, only those portions relevant to discussing the updates are provided. For a full version of the FTC commentary on the updates, including the full text of the Guides, visit the FTC Notice of Adoption of the Revised Guides.

Section 255.0 (16 CFR Part 255): Purpose and Definitions

Under Section 255(a), the FTC makes clear that “the Guides do not purport to cover every possible use of endorsements in advertising.” That determination will depend on the specific factual circumstances of each case. The Guides are meant to provide a basis for voluntary compliance by advertisers and endorsers (which includes bloggers in some circumstances). However, practices that are inconsistent with the Guides may result in corrective action by the FTC, including the imposition of fines.

At the heart of the updates is the definition of an endorsement, which was not changed, and a new example that illustrates how that definition will be applied to bloggers.

Section 255(b) provides the definition of an endorsement:

For purposes of this part, an endorsement means any advertising message (including verbal statements, demonstrations, or depictions of the name, signature, likeness or other identifying personal characteristics of an individual or the name or seal of an organization) that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experiences of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser, even if the views expressed by that party are identical to those of the sponsoring advertiser. The party whose opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience the message appears to reflect will be called the endorser and may be an individual, group, or institution.

A new example, Example 8, was added to illustrate when a blogger might be considered to be an endorser:

Example 8: A consumer who regularly purchases a particular brand of dog food decides one day to purchase a new, more expensive brand made by the same manufacturer. She writes in her personal blog that the change in diet has made her dog’s fur noticeably softer and shinier, and that in her opinion, the new food definitely is worth the extra money. This posting would not be deemed an endorsement under the Guides.

Assume that rather than purchase the dog food with her own money, the consumer gets it for free because the store routinely tracks her purchases and its computer has generated a coupon for a free trial bag of this new brand. Again, her posting would not be deemed an endorsement under the Guides.

Assume now that the consumer joins a network marketing program under which she periodically receives various products about which she can write reviews if she wants to do so. If she receives a free bag of the new dog food through this program, her positive review would be considered an endorsement under the Guides.

Additional Information Based on the FTC Commentary: The commentary concerning the updates makes clear that whether a blogger will be considered an endorser will be determined on a case-by-case basis. “[T]he fundamental question is whether, viewed objectively, the relationship between the advertiser and the speaker is such that the speaker’s statement can be considered “sponsored” by the advertiser and therefore an ‘advertising message’” (FTC Notice of Adoption at 8). The FTC provides this advice:

The facts and circumstances that will determine the answer to this question are extremely varied and cannot be fully enumerated here, but would include: whether the speaker is compensated by the advertiser or its agent; whether the product or service in question was provided for free by the advertiser; the terms of any agreement; the length of the relationship; the previous receipt of products or services from the same or similar advertisers, or the likelihood of future receipt of such products or services; and the value of the items or services received. An advertiser’s lack of control over the specific statement made via these new forms of consumer-generated media would not automatically disqualify that statement from being deemed an “endorsement” within the meaning of the Guides. (FTC Notice of Adoption at 8-9).

One of line of commentary of note is this statement: “[P]ostings by a blogger who is paid to speak about an advertiser’s product will be covered by the Guides, regardless of whether the blogger is paid directly by the marketer itself or by a third party on behalf of the marketer.” (FTC Notice of Adoption at 9).

The FTC also provides a few specific examples:

Although other situations between these two ends of the spectrum will depend on the specific facts present, the Commission believes that certain fact patterns are sufficiently clear cut to be addressed here. For example, a blogger could receive merchandise from a marketer with a request to review it, but with no compensation paid other than the value of the product itself. In this situation, whether or not any positive statement the blogger posts would be deemed an “endorsement” within the meaning of the Guides would depend on, among other things, the value of that product, and on whether the blogger routinely receives such requests. If that blogger frequently receives products from manufacturers because he or she is known to have wide readership within a particular demographic group that is the manufacturers’ target market,
the blogger’s statements are likely to be deemed to be “endorsements,” as are postings by participants in network marketing programs. Similarly, consumers who join word of mouth marketing programs that periodically provide them products to review publicly (as opposed to simply giving feedback to the advertiser) will also likely be viewed as giving sponsored messages. (FTC Notice of Adoption at 9-10)

Finally, a footnote mentions that the fact that, although a blogger might be free to not say anything about a product, that fact does not change the view that positive statements should be deemed to be endorsements. (Notice of Adoption at 10, fn 22).

Section 255.1 General considerations (The Honest Opinion Requirement)

Section 255.1(a) requires honest opinions:

Endorsements must reflect the honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experience of the endorser. Furthermore, an endorsement may not convey any express or implied representation that would be deceptive if made directly by the advertiser. [See §§ 255.2(a) and (b) regarding substantiation of representations conveyed by consumer endorsements.]

Under Section 255.1(d),

[a]dvertisers are subject to liability for false or unsubstantiated statements made through endorsements, or for failing to disclose material connections between themselves and their endorsers [see § 255.5]. Endorsers also may be liable for statements made in the course of their endorsements.

New to this section is Example 5 to illustrate when liability might attach:

Example 5: A skin care products advertiser participates in a blog advertising service. The service matches up advertisers with bloggers who will promote the advertiser’s products on their personal blogs. The advertiser requests that a blogger try a new body lotion and write a review of the product on her blog. Although the advertiser does not make any specific claims about the lotion’s ability to cure skin conditions and the blogger does not ask the advertiser whether there is substantiation for the claim, in her review the blogger writes that the lotion cures eczema and recommends the product to her blog readers who suffer from this condition. The advertiser is subject to liability for misleading or unsubstantiated representations made through the blogger’s endorsement. The blogger also is subject to liability for misleading or unsubstantiated representations made in the course of her endorsement. The blogger is also liable if she fails to disclose clearly and conspicuously that she is being paid for her services. [See § 255.5.]

In order to limit its potential liability, the advertiser should ensure that the advertising service provides guidance and training to its bloggers concerning the need to ensure that statements they make are truthful and substantiated. The advertiser should also monitor bloggers who are being paid to promote its products and take steps necessary to halt the continued publication of deceptive representations when they are discovered.

Additional Information Based on the FTC Commentary: The commentary makes clear the intention to place a burden on the advertisers to assure that bloggers are informed of the need to disclose, and places a risk of liability not just on the bloggers who write about a product, but also on the advertisers.

Section 255.5 Disclosure of Material Connections

Section 255.5 is the disclosure requirement:

When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed.

New is Example 7:

Example 7: A college student who has earned a reputation as a video game expert maintains a personal weblog or “blog” where he posts entries about his gaming experiences. Readers of his blog frequently seek his opinions about video game hardware and software. As it has done in the past, the manufacturer of a newly released video game system sends the student a free copy of the system and asks him to write about it on his blog. He tests the new gaming system and writes a favorable review. Because his review is disseminated via a form of consumer-generated media in which his relationship to the advertiser is not inherently obvious, readers are unlikely to know that he has received the video game system free of charge in exchange for his review of the product, and given the value of the video game system, this fact likely would materially affect the credibility they attach to his endorsement. Accordingly, the blogger should clearly and conspicuously disclose that he received the gaming system free of charge.

There is also an example, Example 8, concerning word of mouth marketing for posts to internet forums.

Additional Information based on the FTC Commentary: The commentary makes clear that it views “new media” as the type of situation where often the consumer would not reasonably expect a connection between the endorser and the advertiser. The FTC also expressed its expectation that advertisers provide guidance to bloggers about the disclosure requirements. (See Notice of Adoption at 38-39).

The FTC addressed the question of whether the receipt of a product without any monetary compensation must be disclosed, answering the question generally in the affirmative:

The threshold issue is whether the speaker’s statement qualifies as an “endorsement,” under the Guides. If not, no disclosure need be made. However, if the statement does qualify as an “endorsement” under the construct set forth above for determining when statements in consumer-generated media will be deemed “sponsored” (see Section II.A.2 of this notice), disclosure of the connection between the speaker and the advertiser will likely be warranted regardless of the monetary value of the free product provided by the advertiser. For example, an individual who regularly receives free samples of products for families with young children and discusses those products on his or her blog would likely have to disclose that he or she received for free the items being recommended. Although the monetary value of any particular product might not be exorbitant, knowledge of the blogger’s receipt of a stream of free merchandise could affect the weight or credibility of his or her endorsement – the standard for disclosure in Section 255.5 – if that connection is not reasonably expected by readers of the blog. Similarly, receipt of a single high-priced item could also constitute a material connection between an advertiser and a “sponsored” endorser. (Notice of Adoption at 41).

Putting it All Together: What Does It Mean? What is Still Uncertain?

After all that lengthy overview, the bare bones of the updates simple. There are four main points:

(1) Bloggers who receive products for review from companies or intermediaries (e.g. PR firms), or who are paid for their reviews, generally must disclose that relationship when they give a positive review of the product. If a blogger purchases a product on his or her own, there is no disclosure requirement, as there is nothing to disclose. In circumstances where a person reviews on a personal blog a product that they received unsolicited, disclosure likely would not be required, unless perhaps the product was valuable. How valuable is unknown. The FTC will decide such issues on case-by-case basis. See FTC commentary concerning section 255(b) for more information (the pertinent parts are above in that section of this article). Note that a paid post would always require disclosure. I cannot think of any circumstances when it would not.

(2) Bloggers must provide accurate statements and honest opinions. Stating, “I thought Product X cured my acne,” would be fine if, as a blogger, you really believed that. Stating, “Product X cures acne,” may be too broad, because it falls outside of the realm of personal opinion. Stating that Product X also cures wrinkles when there is no representation from the manufacturer that it does so, would be impermissible. However, stating, “I noticed that in addition to treating may acne, the product seemed to make my wrinkles appear smaller,” should be acceptable, provided that it is a true statement. Be honest and don’t make broad generalizations and you will likely be in compliance with the Guides.

(3) Connections to advertisers must be “fully disclosed,” and those disclosures must be “clear and conspicuous.” The FTC does not set out details about how to disclose, but based on the requirement of “full” disclosure and statements in examples about “clear and conspicuous” disclosures, it is my opinion that the mere existence of a disclosure page on a website is insufficient. The Guides clearly envision specific disclosure, which would require it to be in the material where a product is discussed and reviewed or in a post that has been made in exchange for monetary compensation. A proper disclosure could be accomplished in a couple of ways:

State in the text of the review that the product was sent by a representative of the company. For example, a review could open with the line, “I was sent a new body lotion from the ABC company to try for review.”
Provide a disclosure at the end of the review. For example, provide a statement such as: “This review is based on a products sent by a representative of the company.” Such a statement could also add, “for more please see my disclosures page” with a link to a disclosure page that more fully explains the site’s policies about receiving and reviewing free products. For an example of a disclosure page, see Beauty and Fashion Tech’s Disclosure Page.
A paid post could either state that it is paid in the text or, like the example above, could state: “The author received monetary compensation from the manufacturer for reviewing this product.” It could then also provide a link to a disclosure page if desired.

(4) Failure to Comply can result in in fines and liability. Will the FTC be policing the standard everyday blogger? Probably not. However, the Guides are meant to help assure voluntary compliance, and certainly the FTC would look into any complaints about any given site. In any event, even if enforcement seems impractical or unlikely, I suggest that it is in your best interests as a blogger, and in the best interests of the blogosphere as a whole, to comply with the Guides.

A Few Uncertainties

Not everything was answered by the updates and commentary.

(1) What about Affiliate Links? When the updates where in the comment period, I routinely saw opinions that the updates would also require disclosure of affiliate links. Nowhere do the Guides, examples, or commentary state that the use of affiliate links must be disclosed. However, it isn’t that simple. In a sense, the use of an affiliate link, which can provide monetary compensation, is an “endorsement” of the item linked to. There is also this line in the commentary: “[P]ostings by a blogger who is paid to speak about an advertiser’s product will be covered by the Guides, regardless of whether the blogger is paid directly by the marketer itself or by a third party on behalf of the marketer.” (FTC Notice of Adoption at 9). That line appears to be in relation to Pay to Post services, but could it also be interpreted to mean that bloggers are required to disclose affiliate links? There is no clear answer to the question and I am not going to attempt to provide one here. Instead, I suggest this:

If you have a website that is likely to be scrutinized by the FTC, for example a site that focuses on or sells items of particular concern to consumer advocates (for example, fad diet products or nutritional supplements of questionable efficacy) and that routinely or exclusively receives compensation for reviews, directly sells products under the appearance of being a blog, or makes heavy use of affiliate links, it is in your best interest to disclose anything that might fall under the guides, including affiliate links. If you directly sell products under the appearance of being a blog or have a site that appears to be a personal blog but is actually set up to tout a product and makes heavy use of affiliate links, I suggest that you contact an attorney for advice.
If you want to assure full conformance with the Guides, you may want to disclose affiliate links, even though it is not clear that you are required to do so.
Disclosing the use of affiliate link may build reader confidence in your site and might actually help you in the long run regardless of whether doing so is required by the Guides.

(2) Are the Guides applied retroactively? My opinion is that they are not, but there is some room for disagreement. The FTC Notice of Adoption specifically states an effective date of December 1, 2009. There are various statements from the FTC in other circumstances stating a policy to apply the interpretations that were in effect at the time any issue arose. There are also various legal opinions that interpretations should not be retroactive in other contexts—especially when a monetary penalty for noncompliance may be imposed. However, the Guides merely provide assistance in interpreting existing law. Also, consider an item published before December 1, 2009, that remains on a website after that date. Or, perhaps an old article is republished after that date. Does it then have to make any required disclosures at that time? My gut says “no,” but an argument can be made that it does. Overall, my suggestion is this:

If you have a website that is likely to be scrutinized, it may be in your best interest to update older material to comply with the Guides.
Everyone else probably does not need to worry about retroactivity. But complying retroactively might increase trust among readers, so it could be a good practice on a personal policy basis. Personally, I plan to work through older posts and comply where needed (I had previously tended to informally disclose anyway, making the process not as difficult for me.)

(3) I do Pay to Post. Must I disclose the amount I am paid? The Guides do not answer this question. Instead, they state that you must “fully” disclose your “connection” with the advertiser. Does that include the amount of payment? My guess is that, in most cases, simple disclosure that you were compensated is enough. However, one could envision circumstances where a large amount of compensation would affect a consumer’s viewpoint and must be disclosed. At that point can the blogger state that a “large” amount of compensation was given without stating the amount? Again, there is no definitive answer, and I am not going to attempt to give one at this time. If you receive large sums of money for paid posts or do numerous paid posts that result in a substantial overall income, you may wish to consult with an attorney.

(4) What about negative reviews? Here is an item of interest. The Guides repeatedly refer to positive reviews of products, leading to a strong inference that a negative review of a free product need not provide a disclosure. However, I suggest that giving such a disclosure is a good idea—it can build reader trust if they see that your receipt of a free product does not always lead to a good review.

Popularity: 1% [?]

October 07, 2009 | Carleenp | Comments 6

Ignore the Diet Ads Please! I Do Not Endorse Them!

Update: Glam quickly processed my ad removal request, so the offending ads appear to be gone now. Many thanks to them for acting so quickly!

I am being served a bunch of those awful diet ads today: The ones leading to called “blogs” claiming you can get rid of belly fat by following one simple rule–which is to buy a couple of products from a subscription type service that might be hard to cancel before your card is charged. That free sample? You have to sign up for the subscription to get it. For more on the issues with these and and why I so dislike them, read my previous editorial post on them.

Please do not patronize them. Don’t click them, don’t look at them. Because of reports of questionable activity from these companies, and what I personally believe is deceptive advertising, I don’t endorse them.

I have asked that the ads be removed from my site, but it could take a day or two. Until then, please ignore, ignore, ignore.

Thanks!

Popularity: 1% [?]

July 22, 2009 | Carleenp | Comments 0

Bloggers Responding to Total Beauty

Yesterday, I ran a lengthy piece responding to comments made by the CEO of Total Beauty Media. For those who are interested in the response from other bloggers, here is a list, which I am updating as additional material comes in:

Purely Cosmetics – Blogger Product Review Uproar
Beauty Junkie London – TB Gate: Beauty Blogging Uproar
British Beauty Blogger – Say What, Mr. CEO?
Gloss Menagerie – Total Beauty’s Drama Llama Extravaganza
Casual Lavish – TotalBeauty.com CEO Knocks Down Bloggers
The Nail Phile – Total Beauty Media’s CEO Turns On Us
Beauty School – Brands Should Not Be Working with Bloggers
Beauty in the Bag – Blogola Schmogola
Bionic Beauty – Total Beauty’s Blogger Blunder
Advice Sisters – Bloggers Under Attack
Eye4Style – Should Beauty Brands Work With Bloggers?
Michael Rogers Public Relations – Beauty Brands Should Work With Bloggers
The Stalwart Communications Blog – Memo to Total Beauty Media-make friends, not enemies, online

Tomorrow things will be back to normal here with coverage of cosmetics instead of the business of blogging.

Popularity: 1% [?]

June 25, 2009 | Carleenp | Comments 0

Responding to Total Beauty’s Suggestion That Companies Should Not Work Directly With Bloggers

I woke up this morning to an uproar on Twitter and other sources about an article from Emrah Kovacoglu, CEO of Total Beauty Media, entitled Beauty Brands Should Not Be Working With Bloggers…. In a nutshell, Kovacoglu suggests that companies should work through intermediaries, such as Total Beauty’s Sneak Peak program, to obtain product reviews instead of working with bloggers directly. He further insinuates that bloggers are not responsible or do not abide by professional standards. Considering that a large portion of beauty blogs are members of the Total Beauty Network, and generally rely heavily on company public relations contacts to receive the latest industry news and samples, it is not surprising that Kovacoglu’s comments caused quite an uproar.

Beginning with a discussion of free items that bloggers receive, including some very atypical examples, such as free trips, and moving to pending FTC regulations that would require disclosure of such items, Kovacoglu suggests that industries should be concerned about the ethics of direct relations with bloggers. That discussion then morphs into what appears to be the real reason for his comments–a pitch for the Total Beauty Sneak Peak Program—a program whereby Total Beauty acts as an intermediary and sends products to bloggers for review. My observations have been that typically the products come from advertisers in Total Beauty’s vertical ad network.

The upshot is that suddenly Kovacoglu appears to be willing to insult his network publishers and foster misconceptions about items and compensation that bloggers receive in order to pitch something for the sole purpose of fostering advertiser relations and increasing Total Beauty’s pocket book.

The bolded sentence alone should raise questions about the validity of Kovacoglu’s comments. Regardless, I would like to specifically address a few items. He states:

Professional mass-media journalists are bound to these standards: objectivity, accuracy, truthfulness, fairness, public accountability, and limitation of harm. They’re bound to presentation standards such as clarity, correct spelling, and formal dialect. But most bloggers are not classically trained professional journalists; they are individuals who had the guts to start talking publicly about an area of passion that had.

*** Bloggers must stay true to their readers. It’s what will keep and grow the reader base — and it’s what drew brands to work with them in the first place.

The fact of the matter is that most beauty bloggers, particularly those who work directly with companies and public relations representatives, do abide by high professional standards. Many are professional writers and are well educated. Outside of that, all generally have a passion for their topic and are very knowledgeable about it. Interestingly, when I have heard similar concerns using terms such as “accountability”, it has been in the context of concerns that bloggers do not feel bound to advertisers, and hence, will often tell the truth. Of course bloggers seek to be true to their reader base. It is only those who rely on advertising dollars to the extent that it affects their publishing who tend to turn such a proposition into a negative. Consider the print magazine. It traditionally places advertisers first by recommending and promoting their products. To truthfully state that something might not live up to its claims would risk losing large advertising accounts. That blogs can be free of this, even while running ads, is a positive, not a negative. Brands should be willing to risk the occasional negative review for the greater and more personal exposure that they get from working directly with bloggers and by forming strong professional, and direct, relationships.

Kovacoglu also states:

One of the things we encourage our bloggers and brands to do is work through Total Beauty for product reviews via our Sneak Peek program. The reason? We have developed a community of vetted bloggers who are impactful, truthful, and not compensated for their posts/reviews — and we continue to monitor that community. We guarantee to get your products in the hands of the right bloggers, and that they will use your product as recommended, post about it on their blog, and review it on TotalBeauty.com. What we don’t guarantee is whether it will be a positive or negative review. That fate falls upon the performance of your products.

And on the flip side, why do bloggers work through us? We can ensure a buffer between their blog and brands, so that they are not penalized by a negative review, if that is what they truly feel. I’ve had many bloggers complain to me (three in just the last week alone!) that they sometimes receive products from brands they just don’t like, but they fear if they don’t review it (or review it negatively), they’ll never hear from that brand again. We at Total Beauty prevent that from ever happening.

My observations of the Total Beauty Network is that as a vertical ad network, it will happily accept most blogs who desire to join the network. To the extent there is vetting, it isn’t extensive and it provides nothing more than what any public relations person can do on their own by perusing any given blog. In any event, by working directly with a blogger, a company can more likely be assured that the blogger is getting a product that they want to review and will feel favorably about. Personally, I do not accept products that I think I won’t like. When I find negatives in a product, I also usually still have good things to say. If the event I hate something, I often forgo the review or if I don’t, I communicate my problems to the company and allow them to respond. I don’t need or want a buffer, particularly not at the expense of my relationships with companies that I write about.

The Bottom Line: I was a member of the Total Beauty sneak peak program and withdrew some time ago after feeling pressured to write reviews of products that I was not interested in and in a time frame where I had not yet completely tested the items. The result was that I often gave those products a short and quick review because of lack of time. I also tired of seeing numerous blogs all posting about the same sneak peek items in the same time frame. A company in the program could receive a huge number of reviews, but I’m not sure that flooding the blogs in a short time frame is really the best way to promote a product.

I do not plan to work through any other such intermediaries in the future. Certainly companies could chose to forgo direct relations with bloggers in favor of such programs, but I suggest that what is really in their best interest is forming direct lasting relationships that will result in bloggers covering items that actually interest them and cause more meaningful feedback and reviews.

I also must express my extreme disappointment with Mr. Kovacoglu. One of my fellow Beauty Bloggers, Amber Katz of Beauty Blogging Junkie, stated that she felt his comments “threw us under the bus.” I understand that Total Beauty is an ad network, and as such is in the business of pleasing advertisers, but it needs to please its publishers as well. Insinuations that bloggers are an irresponsible lot who should not be directly dealt with is not the way to go about keeping publishers.

And that “blogola” Mr. Kovacoglu speaks of? Usually it is nothing more than free products for the purpose of review—something necessary to the reviewing process. A very small minority of beauty bloggers have received luxurious swag or trips, and when they did, they have usually disclosed them. As much as many of us would love to get true swag, we generally don’t. Kovacoglu’s suggestions to the contrary are reminiscent of a New York Times article last year that also rubbed may bloggers the wrong way. I am disappointed that he would promote those misconceptions.

Oh, and by the way, the only free trip I was ever offered, came from Total Beauty itself (I did not take it because it required joining their ad network and I chose to join a different network for ads).

Popularity: 2% [?]

June 24, 2009 | Carleenp | Comments 19

Fitness Friday: Why You Should Ignore Those Acia Berry Diet Ads

I recently saw one of those acai berry/total cleanse diet ads pop up on my site from an ad service. Needless to say, I immediately took steps to have it blocked. Why? Because the acai berry diets that have been widely advertised have been reported as fraudulent and misleading.

Here is how they work: The ads note something along the lines of “I lost 40 lbs of belly fat in one month by following one simple rule” and usually include some logos for news sources, Oprah, and Rachel Ray, indicating that they have endorsed the information. If you click the ad, you will be taken to a site that looks like a blog telling you that, how by buying a few products, you too can quickly loose enormous amounts of weight. There are a fairly good number of these “blogs” floating around out there, all with the same format and all selling products.

Despite the ad’s inferences or claims, they are not endorsed by Rachel Ray and Oprah: Instead, these ads are capitalizing on various unrelated mentions of acai berries or juice on their programs. But be sure to be clear on this: Oprah and Rachel Ray do not endorse the diet products and methods in the weight loss ads. Read here for Oprah’s announcement on the matter, and here for Rachel Ray’s announcement.

Next is this problem: These “blogs” will proclaim that you can try the method free. Simply order a free trial and cancel if it doesn’t work. But these are subscription based trials. You provide a credit card number, and if you do not cancel properly, you will be charged. For some, canceling has proven to be difficult. There have been reports of the cancellation phone numbers not working or cancellation requests not being honored. To learn more about this read the Better Business Bureau’s (BBB) Warning, or see this CNN article.

Finally, there is no concrete evidence that these programs work: Think about it. If they did, the stuff would be on every drugstore shelf and Oprah and Rachel Ray really would be talking about them and endorsing them. The fact of the matter is that there is no magic fruit or pill for weight loss. Acai juice has some anti-oxidant properties and I think it tastes good as well, but it isn’t going to make you lose your belly fat in a matter of weeks, and a crushed up version in a pill isn’t quite the same as drinking a good juice. You could eat the bike in the picture that I used too, and you would get some great antioxidants and such—but you wouldn’t magically burn off 10 pounds.

I have taken steps to try to avoid having these ads appear on Beauty and fashion Tech and Girl Gloss. However, because I am under contract with third party ad servers, some might slip by. If you see any such ads on my sites, please know that I do not endorse them in any manner whatsoever. There are also other similar ads for products such as teeth whitening and wrinkle removing out there that, like the acai ads, lead to “blogs” with free trials of products. I also do not endorse those ads, but lack information on their business practices. I suggest treating them with skepticism.

(Added June 11, 2009) How to report an ad: I have made, and continue to make attempts to block these ads. I have asked that one be removed from Glam’s server (which they did). I also have blocked ones that show up through Google. The rub is that there are many different links, so they sneak past the blocks that way. I ask any reader that sees one of the ads on my site not to click it. Instead, right click it to get a pull up menu and select “copy link location.” Then please email that link to me at beautyandfashiontech@gmail.com. I can then go to google and block the ad. Please also note that some acai ads are legitimate. For example, there is nothing particularly wrong with a company seeking to sell acai juice. It is the fake blog diet and colon clease ads that are of most concern.

On a side note, why a picture of a veggie bike and not some acai berries? Well, I went to purchase a licensed photo of some berries and found them terribly overpriced. I guess a lot of people are making money from acai!

Popularity: 3% [?]

April 03, 2009 | Carleenp | Comments 12

Beauty and Fashion Tech Best of 2008

Below are my top 20 (plus one extra) products of 2008. These come from reviews I did during the year, so while many were also released in 2008, some are older products that I simply tried for the first time during the year. These are in no particular order, I like them all pretty much equally. Well…. actually the Sally Hansen Natural Beauty Line probably really is number one! You might also be interested in the Best of 2007 list. All links here are to my original reviews.

1. The Entire Sally Hansen Natural Beauty Line. Read Part One here, and Part Two here. Sally Hansen put together an affordable line full of wonderful items, including an incredible foundation. I think it is the best overall drugstore line out there.

2. Tracy Reese for Sally Hansen Salon Nail Polish: Sally Hansen Salon Nail Lacquer is my favorite of all brands and the Tracy Reese Fall 2008 Collection is full of gorgeous shades. It can be hard to find, but well worth seeking out!

3. Beauty Fix: This subscription service provides a great way to sample exceptional products and an equally exceptional value.

4. DHC Q10 Powder: A silky smooth finishing powder with anti-aging properties. DHC is already one of my favorites for skincare. Now I am a fan of DHC makeup too.

5. Dior Five Colour Eye Shadow Palette in Earth Tones: Rich tones with full pigment, in good fall and winter shades, make this my absolute favorite palette of the year.

6. Bliss Triple Oxygen Instant Energizing Mask: A unique foaming mask that brightens up dull skin within minutes. The effects don’t last super long, but it is quite refreshing and makes for a nice start to the day.

7. Stila Talking Smoky Eye Palette: I find the talking part to be unnecessary, but otherwise this palette can’t be beat for creating the perfect smoky eye.

8. The Miche Handbag: Perfect for those who want numerous looks on a budget. This handbag comes with changeable shells and looks much more expensive than it really it.

9. Jane be Pure Liquid Mineral Foundation: A wonderful foundation that is essentially a tinted moisturizer with a bit more coverage. It is very affordable as well!

10. The Braun Silk Epil Expressive Epilator: This epilator is not like those of the past. Yes, it still stings and such, but it is not nearly as painful as those of the old epilady days, and it works wonderfully. I think it beats waxing. Just don’t expect a pain free experience–it is still an epilator after all.

11. Anastasia’s Five Piece Brow Kit: This handy little kit from Anastasia includes a great set of tweezers and the basics for creating a perfect brow.

12. The New Science of Perfect Skin by Daniel Yarosh: A wonderful book that covers all aspects of skin care and that separates myth and hype from reality.

13. The Ped Egg: Absolutely the best way to remove calluses from your feet. It is easy, painless, clean, and cheap! For those who commented about wishing that it had a handle, it now is available with one. I saw that in the store just last week!

14. DIY Mineral Makeup Kits from Bramble and Berry: Making my own mineral eye shadow was a bit messy, but also a heck of a lot of fun!

15. MAC Volcanic Ash Exfoliator: I love this rich exfoliator. It is messy though, so use it only in the shower! I believe it was also limited edition, so it might be getting hard to find.

16. Nars The Multiple Multi-Purpose Stick: Use it as blush, highlighter, or on the lips. Available in several great shades, including the ever popular orgasm.

17. Milani’s new mascaras: Milani came out with a full set of new mascaras this year and each provided great value at an affordable price.

18. DDF Fade Gel 4: This product contains actives that can treat melasma and acne at the same time. I love it! It is also available in a non-hydroquinone version.

19. It is gone now (Except maybe you can find some items on ebay) but the Fafi and MAC Collection was fabulous!

20. Ten Years Thinner by Christine Lydon M.D.: I tried this diet and exercise program and was pretty happy with it. The book is affordable, and the exercises need no special equipment. The meal plan isn’t too bad either.

Plus one that should have been on the 2007 list!

PCA Skin PHaze 13 Melasma Treatment: This one almost fell between the cracks. It was reviewed on 12/31/2007, after I had written the best of 2007 list. It is the best over the counter melasma and hyperpigmentation treatment that I have used to date (the DDF product on this list is the second best). I love the hydroquinone version, but there is one without that ingredient available as well.

Interested in lip products? Take a look at the best of 2008 list on Girl Gloss!