It actually is not a bad idea to have some regulations on disclosing freebies for review, to avoid misleading the public. This kind of thing has run rampant in the computer industry, particularly video games. In reality, this kind of practice has been going on since the beginning of mass media.

It can’t hurt to have reviewers reveal if they’ve been given a product for review, but it is odd that this hasn’t been a big deal until DFHs started doing it. Or is that the business reporter’s bias showing?

Book ‘em!

That’s the problem with ‘assumptions’.

However, as Marcy Wheeler is now nationally recognized as a journalist, the ‘place’ where she works, in large part,and that is Firedoglake, must, now, be recognized and treated just like the NY Times, at least as far as ‘book reviews’ go.

Beyond that, the Times is simply left in the dust. (Even though the Times quotes Marcy Wheeler, they haven’t her ‘rigor’, energy or consummate ‘output’.)

You can’t assume your readers know that. Some blogs done by former journalists are making clear that they’ve been sent copies of books for review. It doesn’t hurt to do so. One newspaper I know requires reviewers to add the books to a collection that is then donated to a library or other worthy cause. But some reviewers at other places create huge personal libraries. When it comes to electronics or expense goods, though, many papers require that items be returned. And honestly, most newspaper reviewers I know are happy to slam items, free or not. If you have a blogger of unknown credentials writing fawning reviews without disclosing the fact that he or she is, in effect, being paid with a $130 item, that’s a problem that ought to be addressed.

Gee, if the WTC’s found time for the rabid woolies of the blogs, does that mean they’ve cleaned up the supermarket product placement bribes?

You know, the “fees” supermarkets and managers extort extract from food(-like substance) manufacturers for the privilege of getting their products on the shelf. Especially the eye level shelves and the end of the aisle spots.

And I guess the FTC’s found time to shut down the whole scam where Big Pharma writes phony articles extolling their latest crap drug precisely in order to mislead consumers. And purchases docs to sign these ghost-written journal articles. And – in knowing collusion with Elsevier – even pays to create whole phony “scientific” journals precisely in order to mislead consumers.

I wonder how many of the FTC staff/commissioners who came down with the wooly blog bug are Bushie holdovers?

And how many of them are on the take from the very corporatists progressive blogs confront?

“wooly bloggers” ?? “rabid lambs” ??

lemme guess, childhood summers on the farm and those golden days with a lamb named Rosebud ?

But if a health insurance vulture or coal corporation sets up a organization to spread its propoganda that is somehow different?

When the NYT and the WaPo start adding that to their book review columns, we’ll do it too.

Unless you’re claiming they pay for them? Now that’s news.

Morning, Kirk;

Nice can-o-worms you’ve opened there, Dr. Murphy.

;~D

Now, let’s listen to the roaring silence which ensues …

Glenn Reynolds does it all of the time. Look at all of the passive-aggresive product endorsements he does, then he links to them at Amazon and gets a kickback every time someone buys one.

Heh, indeedy.

It’s a well-known fact that sheep are dim and that sheepdogs therefore have to speak very slowly to them. It’s a well-known fact that sheepdogs are ignorant and sheep therefore have to carefully explain the simplest things to them.

The NY Times actually buys the books they review …?

Well, if that is true, then I must ask, “Who could have imagined?”

Not widdle ole me, that’s for sure.

And Jane, how correct you are, that would really be “news”.

Maybe you’ve ’scooped’ the Times?

Your point is well taken. Behind the concern for truth in advertising is a belief we are all idiots. Who cares if a blogger gets a free whatever to review? We may be encouraged to go to the store, see it and if we like it, buy it. Why is that the government’s business? The thing with doctors getting goodies to prescribe medicine is different. We go to doctors at a decided disadvantage. We think they know something and we trust them. They violate that trust when what they prescribe is based on factors other than our medical condition.

We cannot live risk free lives and we cannot legislate away human carelessness. There used to be matches you could strike anywhere. I guess a few hundred kids whose parents didn’t properly control the matches got burned. Now no one can have strike anywhere matches. Because of the lady who burned herself with McDonald’s coffee, Wendy’s no longer serves hot chocolate. The powder has to be mixed with boiling water and it is considered too hot. The government is paternalistic where it doesn’t matter and oblivious where it does.

Sorta like Merck creating a fake journal to promote its products
http://blog.bioethics.net/2009…..w-journal/

Yeah when are they gonna regulate astroturf campaigns?

Or, as Kirk says, Big Pharma datamining so they’ll know what doctors are writing the most prescriptions for their most expensive products.

Because what we REALLY need to protect the public from is baby carriers being reviewed by people who don’t acknowledge they got them free. It’s an epidemic I hear.

Looking at the Business Week website, there are an awful lot of product reviews, and nary a mention of whether they were purchased by BW or given to BW for review.

If you dig around and look at their ethics policy, way down at the bottom it says essentially “you can’t keep anything you’ve received to review — that would violate the ‘no gifts’ policy.” But they don’t apparently have any problem with accepting free items for review, and they certainly don’t identify the products that were provided free of charge for their reviewers to consider.

I knew the entire universe was corrupt when it became obvious the local giveaway which always presented rave reviews of local restaurants did so only on condition the critic and date be provided a free meal. From there, it was only a small step to Pfizer slipping banknotes under the door of a Stanford lab which determined their new drug was oh so very smashing and cured everything forever amen.

Good morning, DW – with’s Jane’s post and other major blogs looking at this, I’m expecting the FTC’s gonna get schooled on this…

Maybe colleges should disclose that the professors received free text books to review before they select their course material.

I’m a true supporter of universal ‘education’, Kirk, and look forward to the lessons which, hopefully, will soon commence.

It’s possible the “trained journalist” who wrote the BusinessWeek article doesn’t know what he’s talking about …

Possible?

Precisely: and Elsevier’s very deliberate decision to take money from Merck to create these instruments intended and designed to mislead American consumers and their docs.

I should probably explain the Book Salon system — almost all books are chosen before we ever see them, and then we work to determine an appropriate reviewer who will have knowledge of the subject matter to write about it. Then the publisher sends the copy to the reviewer. So the fact that the reviewer got a “free copy” in no way influences its choice for Book Salon, nor is the reviewer required to write positively about it.

Occasionally someone comes to us and suggests a book and offers to host, but it’s usually because they know the author and think the book would be of interest to our audience. But almost always, we choose the book first and the reviewer comes afterwards. It’s pretty SOP for most newspapers.

It’s not a bug — it’s a feature.

Would that the FTC were as cute [or alert] as those Border collies.

The internet v the newspapers

As a consumer looking for reviews, I want to know if the product has been given for a test and returned, or if it’s being kept by the reviewer. Honestly, I would give more credence to a review that didn’t keep the product.

Well if the FTC is going to start doing this then who knows where it will lead. Will every album track that a radio station plays have to be announced with…we didn’t actually buy this album.,..the company sent it to us? Or when they give tickets away will they have to say…”we got these from the promoter…along with a hundred for our management and their friends….which we are re-selling.”

Will restaurant reviewers have to announce that they received free meals? Or only review those who advertise with their paper? Or will there have to be some sort of statistical measure published showing the relationship between “stars” and paid ads? Will reviewers of films and plays have to tell that they received free tickets (how many and who went…since that might indicate bias)? Will reporters have to indicate whether their “sources” gave them a free meals, beer, etc. Or whether they have a relationship with that source? Did they vote for them? Against them? Or their boss?

It’s interesting that even in the payola and plugola cases with radio the only responsibility was to let the MANAGEMENT know that a “gift” was made to the programmer. It was then up to the management to deal with the issue.

I’m all in favor of some of this, actually. But some of it would be silly. My old college radio station received thousands of records yearly. In such cases the number of donations actually makes the likelihood of airplay bias far less. Of course, there was always the risk that someone (a Program Director or Music Director) might be received a dozen additional CD’s and selling them..then misreporting airplay levels for that band. And I’ve know some managers of bands who were DJ’s that played their stable of bands, did interviews ands promoted their shows on the air like it was their own personal PR vehicle…all without letting people know that these were acts they were running.

I’m sure that Christy receives hundreds of books. The choices she makes to review and which ones are given high marks are NOT because someone gave her the book. And College Professors get dozens of promo books to review…for free. That actually reduces the role of ONE publisher giving away a free one, while the others must be bought out of pocket. That said, profs should not sell books. I personally put my surplus books in the reserve book room where students who can’t afford the text can access it.

I’m ambivalent about the use of giveaways as promo items by non-profits for donations. It’s pretty clear, though, that the gift is given for a bit of a plug.

Does business week say what happens to the “reviewed” products after they have been reviewed? Are they given to someone else in the staff? Is there a bit of a scratch your back system on this?

or that mom and pop-owned stores and drive-thrus don’t get the same ‘kickback’ prices as other stores from coke and especially pepsi?
i know a drive=-thru owner who can buy it cheaper from a discount store than the price he gets from the vendors.

or how bout the coupons and special prices you can get if you give your personal info, for a special ‘club’ card, then everything you purchase is tracked? is the discount you get considered to be a ‘user’s fee’? must be.

=======
–
i don’t see anything wrong with it as long as it is disclosed. keep the smoke out of the room. that way when you are reading a review or an ‘article’ about an item, you know up front that part at least.

are they gonna start checking to see if celebrities actually use the products they are schlepping? that’ll be interesting.

my second half was addressed to subject of the post……

I’ve worked in publishing, both traditional hardcopy and online, for around 20 years. I’ve reviewed books, magazines, and even model airplane kits. In my copy, I’ve always thanked publishers/manufacturers for providing review samples. But I’ve done so to encourage these businesses to keep a small publication on their reviewer lists, not because I thought my readers were unaware of the source of the products.

Reviews are a form of promotion–but that works both ways. Reviews attract readership to small specialist publications and help to fill out the content when you can handle only a limited number of feature articles in a given publication cycle (how the FDL folks do as much as they do is beyond me). Readership attracts marketers. In the first days of my first online piublication, absence of review materials meant that I actually had to buy reviewable products myself or borrow them from friends.

The key to understanding the nature of published reviews is to remember that the publisher’s/manufacturer’s interest is second to that of the publication. Unlike advertising, reviews are an editorial function and any benefit to the supplier is incidental, if significant. The supplier provides its product with no guarantee that it will be reviewed–most aren’t, in my experience, either because of the work involved, because the product is not interesting, or because the product does not fit in with the editor’s needs for a given issue. The supplier also takes a chance on a negative review. When you have limited time and space, the tendency is, of course, to review the products that you find worthwhile, so reviews tend to be positive. But giving positive reviews to products that are going to disappoint your readers is how you lose readers and get cut from the reviewer list by your editor.

A paid advertisement masquerading as a review is, indeed, deceptive. But I suspect most editors don’t publish such things for the price of the goods alone, not when advertising rates could apply. Any publication that did this would lose credibility pretty quickly. Why would you take the trouble to rewrite a marketeer’s copy? If you did, how would you source it? under your own byline? under the marketeer’s byline and your banner? Either way, rewriting the marketeer’s material would be more work than writing a real review. It would be more than a book or magazine is worth.

So I agree with Ms. Hamsher: no special consumer warning should be necessary. Customary publishing practices and existing consumer-protection regulations should be enough.

From their ethics page:

You must use review copies of books, video games, and the like only for editorial purposes — or else, as practicable, forward them to a person designated by the editor-in-chief for donation to charity. You may not sell such materials for any reason.

You may accept the use of a review or test model of a new product — cars, computers, software, and any other products, including subscription services — for only as long as your reporting needs require. In most cases, this means only a few days — and not for an extended period.

I have a confession to make. We take free products here at FDL, and quote-unquote “review” them–and we don’t disclose it. We never have. They’re called books. We write about them on Book Salon every Saturday and Sunday, as every book reviewer in every newspaper in the country does. We assumed our readers kind of knew that

You don’t have to explain to us Jane. I’d be insulted if FDL didn’t get review copies. I mean shit, print publications tend to get a buttload of review books. Some of them tend to have nothing to do with the content of the publication. e.g. Artsy-fartsy magazine gets Jim Morrison biography. And for those publications on a shoestring budget, the Strand bookstore is a blessing!

Do they disclose how much money they have previously received for advertisements from the subject of a review?

I once heard a saying: if you get a review copy and the book deserves a bad review. don’t review it all.

Yeah, we do.

And some of my college are able to sell those (often unsolicited) review copies to book buyers and make enough to take their SO out for a nice meal. I did it once, and felt filthy about it.

I give unsolicited review copies to graduate students. I need another copy of anybody’s elementary statistics text on my shelf just slightly more than I need anything written by the Creation Science Institute. Grad students, on the other hand are building their personal libraries. They can use them.

When I choose a textbook, I factor price into the selection. There are no perfect textbooks, every one of them says something I disagree with. So, from among those that I have minimal disagreement with, I rank by price.

BC

In my opinion, STM publishing plus BigPharma is toxic. Med school plus Big Pharma dollars can also be pretty toxic.

I am not sure that free review copies actually affects course adoption. Maybe freebee ancillaries, syllabi and baseball caps./s
That is just my observation though.

Is the FTC going to do anything about the money Bill Kristol took from Enron, or the money George Will took from Conrad Black, or that sewer of conflict of interest known as CNBC?

I wouldn’t say you needed to note that you’ve received a copy of anything for review. However, if a blogger–or any reviewer–then keeps that item for personal use, then yes, you should note that. As the Business Week ethics policy notes, items can’t be kept by individuals though I don’t know what BW tells its reviewers to do with their stuff other than not keep it. I know for a fact that the NYT has a large annual charity sale with donated review items, as do other places I’ve worked. As far as an unknown blogger receiving a $130 item, yes, that person should say she got it for free as opposed to buying it. Absolutely. FTC regulation, however, is stupid. It can’t be enforced and it would most likely to used to hammer bloggers.

And let me also say that I write reviews over at epinions.com, where in recent years, people who previously had no experience writing are beginning to get free items. That’s if the companies have liked their work, according to some who are writing on the forums. Most of those epinions writers believe they should note that the items were free because they feel they’re writing for a consumer site; price is an issue in some cases, but mostly because they simply feel they need to be extra honest and upfront. They aren’t constantly comparing themselves to newspapers or speculating about which policy is fairest; they simply believe it’s the way to go.

Thank goodness, now women’s magazines will reveal details about the donated clothing, jewelry, and cosmetics which fill their pages. No?

Are you kidding? Most of my profs WROTE the book they require for the class! What’s this “for free evaluation copy” stuff? I’ve heard that they get paid more for the book sales than they do for actually teaching the class!

I once heard a saying: if you get a review copy and the book deserves a bad review. don’t review it all.

I’ve never worked for a company that would allow this to happen. Quite the contrary. Most reviewers I know, especially the older ones, are quite happy to tear apart a product they didn’t care for. Younger ones are sometimes a little bug-eyed and flattered to be on the mailing list.

As far as many women’s magazines, well, yes, there’s virtually no distinction between advertising and “news” copy at many of them.

Vermont Acts to Make Drug Makers’ Gifts Public

Perhaps the ftc should go after movie and tv producers for including products prominently in their shows. And yes, like editoress says, why not go after advance copies of books, films and tv shows?

Is this another example of the failing newspaper industry attempting to reign in bloggers by concern trolling about free items that end up receiving a (positive) review?

oh, like this?

http://themoment.blogs.nytimes…..ready/?hpw

I actually heard that from an academic.
Some fields are like small towns I guess.