Full Disclosure

There’s been a bit of an explosion in the blog world because of some statements made by Richard Cleland of the Bureau of Consumer Protection about potential fines over issues of disclosure and compensation. It’s worrisome because it’s another example of the divide between traditional media and new media, and the difficulties navigating this world where profit may or may not be a part of the equation.

For example, we advertise on The Rumpus, mostly to help pay our sole paid employee. We also try to raise money in other ways, but the FTC isn’t as concerned about that. They’re concerned about potential conflicts between advertisers and reviews of those advertisers’ products. The reason for the current worry online has to do with a lack of clarity on what’s considered compensation.

The following is an exchange between Edward Champion and Richard Cleland. See if you can figure out why some of us are disturbed.

But what’s the difference between an individual employed at a newspaper assigned to cover a beat and an individual blogger covering a beat of her own volition?

“We are distinguishing between who receives the compensation and who does the review,” said Cleland. “In the case where the newspaper receives the book and it allows the reviewer to review it, it’s still the property of the newspaper. Most of the newspapers have very strict rules about that and on what happens to those products.”

In the case of books, Cleland saw no problem with a blogger receiving a book, provided there wasn’t a linked advertisement to buy the book and that the blogger did not keep the book after he had finished reviewing it. Keeping the book would, from Cleland’s standpoint, count as “compensation” and require a disclosure.

But couldn’t the same thing be said of a newspaper critic?

Cleland insisted that when a publisher sends a book to a blogger, there is the expectation of a good review. I informed him that this was not always the case and observed that some bloggers often receive 20 to 50 books a week. In such cases, the publisher hopes for a review, good or bad. Cleland didn’t see it that way.

“If a blogger received enough books,” said Cleland, “he could open up a used bookstore.”

Cleland said that a disclosure was necessary when it came to an individual blogger, particularly one who is laboring for free. A paid reviewer was in the clear because money was transferred from an institution to the reviewer, and the reviewer was obligated to dispense with the product. I wondered if Cleland was aware of how many paid reviewers held onto their swag.

“I expect that when I read my local newspaper, I may expect that the reviewer got paid,” said Cleland. “His job is to be paid to do reviews. Your economic model is the advertising on the side.”

From Cleland’s standpoint, because the reviewer is an individual, the product becomes “compensation.”

“If there’s an expectation that you’re going to write a positive review,” said Cleland, “then there should be a disclosure.”

I’m speaking for myself here, as the Poetry Editor, but I doubt there would be any objection from the other editors–when we receive books, we make no promises that a review will even happen, much less that one will be positive. You send your books and you take your chances. And if Cleland thinks that the books we receive are some sort of compensation for the work we do here at The Rumpus, he’s dead wrong.

Now Cleland has since clarified (in a sense) and claims that bloggers won’t be subject to the $11,000 fine mentioned in the Washington Post, but I’m still nervous, because at essence we’re dealing with the good will of an official when it comes to potential penalties. Maybe we’re overreacting, but better to scream and shout and get the guidelines cleaned up before someone gets popped with a fine than to worry about it when you’re spending money on legal fees or having to shut down your site.