| « Stumble Sunday, well Saturday in Hawaii … | Have your drinking habits changed in Jap … » |
Disclosure: Site-Wide or per Post?
-
Nick
LetsJapan brought up the issue of disclosure on a recent JapanSoc thread. I removed one of his comments, but at his request, I am reposting it here with site-specific references removed. The issue is whether a site-wide disclosure policy about on-site advertising is sufficient, or if each sponsored post requires its own disclosure. I was reluctant to post something that has already caused one of our members much grief, so I request that discussion is focused on the general topic of disclosure. Okay?
At *******, ****** are “recommended” in articles on the site. The reader is directed use a link to a ********* that is included in the article. [Example page removed] A commission from ******* will be paid to the ******* owner.
A noticeable disclaimer – full disclosure – within the post, is not present. There is no indication that ******** will receive payment from a completed **********.
Thus, the “articles” are paid ads. The ******** is the sponsor of the article. ********** is receiving money to endorse a product.If there is any doubt that an article could be mistaken for an advertisement, an indication of “advertisement” is necessary. The writer discloses any conflict of interest. It’s the reason you see the words “advertisement” or “promotion” or “paid ad” in content on websites, newspapers, and magazines. If a product is being endorsed, and the writer will be earning money from a sale of the product, without a disclaimer ( e.g. “advertisement”, the article is deceptive.
What is the real reason a disclaimer is not present in the “articles” on the site, or any other similar “pay-per-post” site? It is because by indicating the article is an advertisement, the reader might experience doubt about the veracity of the information (e.g. the writer receives money, so that’s why this is a positive “review”, and not utilize the link that would generate income for the article writer.
http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing-advertising/internet-marketing/3874875-1.html
http://www.nojobformom.com/2008/05/15/make-money-blogging-with-pay-per-post/
http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/10/29/payperpost-is-now-officially-absurd/
Get Soc'ing at JapanSoc.com - #1 for Japan blogs, news and people!
Comments
Comments are closed.
Deas 10:58 pm on January 24, 2009 | #
I think on most sites a single disclosure page or prominent permanent notice will suffice, but JapanSoc is a user-driven aggregation system of sorts. As such, I’d actually be ok with individual notices on posts here. The trouble is that some folks are more wary than others when it comes to this stuff. I don’t want to jump on people for failing to be as observant as I might be. But I also don’t want to promote (as a story) a paid ad, either. I’ll float it out there that I like the idea of individual notices, when they are easily doable, but I think it should always come back to the “reader/buyer beware” pattern. Ultimately, whether you’re warned in the Soc’d item or not, you choose how you interact with any paid content you come across.
Nick 11:15 pm on January 24, 2009 | #
Actually, I hadn’t even thought about it in relation to JapanSoc. This is just a general blogging issue. From my experience with PayPerPost, most bloggers would prefer to disclose sponsored reviews, but advertisers usually request the blogger not disclose that it’s a paid post. How’s a blogger supposed to make money? Readers want disclosure, advertisers don’t. The blogger is stuck in the middle torn between ethics and money. In that respect, site-wide disclosure is somewhat of a compromise.
Hmmm… do you think I could charge for sponsored submissions on JapanSoc? We could sell votes!
ShaneS 4:30 am on January 25, 2009 | #
It’s a little bit more complicated than that I think and not limited to pay-per-post. How about affiliate advertising?
Let’s use Amazon as an example. Experienced web-surfers know that if someone recommends a product from Amazon that if they click through and make a purchase a commission will be paid but those with less experience may not. What type of disclosure is warranted there? Most people don’t use any and assume that people understand this.
When it comes to other products and services doesn’t the same apply? If I’m searching for a hotel or other product I generally look around at more than one source before I make a purchase so if I make a decision to purchase and someone makes a buck without telling me they are doing so I’m not sure why I should care? That’s a bit oversimplified and I know that people will do almost anything to make a buck including posting positive reviews about products/services simply to further that cause.
Ethical bloggers/webmasters will not recommend a product, service, etc. that they wouldn’t use themselves and isn’t there some responsibility on the part of the consumer to determine whether they can “trust” who they are purchasing from/through?
Can this issue be covered in a terms of service link in the footer or should a well worded line at the bottom of post/article be included. Something linking to a policy statement about how they decide what to review etc. like this:
“This review was made in accordance with my review policy (link here) , if you click through and make a reservation/buy a product you will be helping to support this blog/website”
I guess the question becomes how much transparency is necessary? What responsibility does the consumer have in terms of doing research before making a purchase? I must admit that I lean towards what Deas said “I think it should always come back to the “reader/buyer beware” pattern.”.
I’m interested to read what others think about this issue and how they practice it on their own blog.
Mark-LJ 11:28 am on January 25, 2009 | #
There is no problem with an article recommending products. On a website, if there is a text or display ad for the same product, or within the article, or the article writer tells the reader to click the link within the article to begin a transaction directly related to the content of the article (of which the writer will receive a fee upon purchase) the link or ad must be labeled “advertisement”.
Whether it is an affiliate ad or an ad that has been paid-for outright, the difference between paid content and opinion needs to be noted.
Ethically, it’s a simple concept. Here’s an example:
Someone recommends a new product. The next day you go to the store the person recommends, and buy the product. On your way out, you spy in the store’s stockroom, the person who recommended the product. The person is stacking up boxes of the product you bought. Feel deceived?
As I stated above, ethical media dedicated to reader-trust and journalistic standards, will clearly separate ads from editorial content, and will require writers to disclose any conflict of interest. That’s why you see the words “advertisement” or “promotion” or “paid ad” in content on websites, newspapers, and magazines.
It’s why newscasters and newsmagazines(e.g. CNN, Newsweek) when reporting on issues about their parent companies, will state the connection within the report. Writers in legitimate, principled magazines also state conflict of interest (e.g.” I co-authored the book I’m referring to.” )
If a product is being endorsed, and the writer will be earning money from a sale of the product, without a noticeable disclaimer, the article is deceptive.
Such deception shows no respect for the reader. In the long run, deceitful content only serves to cause a loss of readers. The website owner will eventually receive negative feedback.
And, as I wrote previously, there is a single reason a site hides the fact that money will be earned if a reader completes a transaction from a link within the article: loss of income for the site owner.
Given all the facts, readers are indeed smart enough to decide whether the “recommendation” is worthwhile. Told that the writer will earn money from the transaction, the reader would have every right to doubt the truthfulness of the “recommendation”.
DBR 3:22 pm on January 25, 2009 | #
Here’s two thoughts that I’d like to put out there
1) readers need to be credited with more intelligence
2) The wheel has already been invented here.
1)I actually think that any company paying for anything other than an obvious ad, in other words anything that comes close to content are simply wasting their money. I know many people are new to the internet but they are not new to media and advertising. It has been a long time since the old Soap Opera days and I think that people have long been aware/wary of any media outlet which does a piece on a product and then has ads about it – as soon as that ad is seen, that content should not be trusted – and won’t be by anyone with a modicum of intelligence. Whatsmore, if that site or newspaper etc… continually does this, ethical readers will be lost AND if the rest of the readers find that there is very little that actually interests them and all that ever happens is that they get advertised to – those readers will be lost also.
The ONLY way to successfully advertise, long term via the web or any other media is to put a clear, informative ad on a site which has a good product which is the main reason for people coming to that site or paper so that the casual audience for that ad is large. People get a sniff of pay-for-comment and the audience will falter. Of course, if you just hide the affiliation and do it well enough for your audience to be fooled (like many “current affairs” shows do lol) then that’s a way to make a lot of cash BUT this brings me to my second point:
2)The ethics of pay-for-comment are not something which needs to be worked out, it was worked out long ago in the non-internet media world: it’s unethical. Not the same thing as illegal so anyone who wants to do it can go right ahead and hold up the “but it’s legal” sign as much as they like but it’s still unethical and that’s why moves are being made to make it illegal.
Conclusion: Ads on a site which make readers aware of a product (hopefully one you believe in and think will be relevant to them but that’s pretty tough and another issue) are perfectly legitimate. Writing about advertisers’ products in a favorable way, let alone using the words they’ve given you, and calling it content is at best useless to the advertiser and detrimental to reader’s loyalty and at worst fraud.
Just to make my own disclosure: The only monetizing I do on my blog is having an Amazon affiliate number but the books that might be clicked through are only if I’ve a) reviewed them – and I certainly review without fear of favor lol or b) on my Shelfari widget which is, by definition, going to be a book I own and am reading myself. I am actually considering taking the number off stuff because I feel a bit icky about it anyway because I can’t say straight out that my blog is unmonetized. In fact I’m going to go do that now – not that I was making a bunch of money from it but, since most of my audience are family and friends or people whose life I’m trying to make a little easier with the odd bit of advice, I’ve never felt right about it.
Ken Y-N 11:32 pm on January 25, 2009 | #
Mark LJ, you say:
* Comment removed. I asked in the first post not to get into specifics. [Nick] *
Nick 12:11 am on January 26, 2009 | #
Oh great, way to talk “generally” Ken. Do I have to fill your comment with asterisks now, just like I did Mark’s?
Ken Y-N 8:09 am on January 26, 2009 | #
Nick, oops, I didn’t realise we were supposed to be talking generally, so feel free to delete or censor the above post! But, I did find it more than a bit annoying to be lectured … I’d better stop now or you’ll have to asterisk this post out too!
Mark-LJ 10:25 am on January 26, 2009 | #
I was wondering how soon someone would attack my own site in an effort to deflect from the issue of disclosure.
ShaneS 10:48 am on January 26, 2009 | #
Mark, I think that the discussion is a good one and offers a lot of value to those of us who want to ethically monetize our sites. It certainly got me thinking and for that I thank you.
Not to put words in Ken’s mouth, I think that his question goes to creditability and could be phrased this way: Do you practice what you preach? Also, keep in mind that you cast the first stone here so it would be great to see an example of what you mean on your site. Do you have a terms of service or disclaimer? I don’t and would love to see a great example that could be edited and used on my own site.
Setting aside personal attacks and time spent analyzing each others sites, I would appreciate some thoughts on my question re Amazon and book recommendations? Disclaimer required or no? What crosses the line?
Also, I want to understand the in’s and outs of when no-follow tags are appropriate. I wouldn’t want to lose my new found PR4 with foolish mistakes.
To add a little levity to the discussion I proposed that we should all just start putting disclaimers on every opinion/recommendation! I loved this restaurant, museum, etc. but you may not…I am not responsible if you get food poisoning, trip over something on the way to that temple and break your arm, or if a car runs over you on the way to that exhibit
But back to the issue at hand though: I would love a discussion as follows with good resource links (I think others may be interested too):
Sample of a good disclaimer and/or terms of service
Better understanding of no-follow so as to not run afoul of Google
Discussion of when a disclaimers is appropriate or not (or put another way, what crosses the line between a sincere recommendation and “paid content” – isn’t all affiliate related content paid?)
Discussion of whether a disclaimer etc, should me made on a site wide or per post basis.
Ken Y-N 11:23 am on January 26, 2009 | #
Shane, yes, “practice what you preach” or “he without sin cast the first stone” was my point, although I must admit I did have, and I apologise for it, a cheap shot at LetsJapan towards the end of my comment.
I hope all of us would agree that PayPerPost-type posts are bad form in an established blog, even with disclosure, so let’s put that to one side.
When it comes to affiliates, though, it’s a finer line. For instance, last week I wrote about how I have started advertising Mellow Monk teas, and I think it was obvious enough that it was an advertisement, but does Mark find that degree of disclosure acceptable?
However, in another recent post on showing foreigners Japan I stuck a link to StrapYa for kotatsu – I would agree that that is a bit underhand.
But, if I wrote an article on the tools of the trade that I use, with links to an electronic dictionary or software or a notebook computer, is that OK?
Is writing about a (relatively) useless but high-commission item but with an ADVERTISEMENT disclaimer more “honest” than writing about a low-commission but genuinely-used item with no direct disclosure?
Mark-LJ 11:43 am on January 26, 2009 | #
Shane
>>Do you practice what you preach?
Yes.
> Do you have a terms of service or disclaimer?
There is a disclaimer about opinions being those of the respective authors. And there is a notice about sources of photos.
>>Amazon and book recommendations? Disclaimer required or no?
If you look at the book review sections in the print media, you’ll sometimes see ads for the same books that are being reviewed. The reviewer may or may not recommend a book. Regardless, the ads are clearly ads. Ads are indicated either inherently, or with “advertisement” printed above them. There is a clear (and documented) separation between editorial and sales departments of publications.
The issue is when the author of the article on a website, _in the content of the article_, instructs the reader, in one way or another, to “click here to get this product/service”, from which the author will receive a payment on the transaction.
When ads are _disguised in editorial content_, ethically, it needs to be disclosed .
Look at any major news website (Washington Post). I see large display ads in the content of the stories. Those ads, I assume, automatically appear irrespective of the content. Regardless, you’ll see the word “advertisement” in small text above the ad. Why? To avoid any possible misunderstanding by the reader that there is a connection of the ad to the editorial content. This is well- established, ethical journalism, regardless of type of media.
Image ads, from any affiliate provider, can inherently be understood by the reader as advertising. Some of those affilates ad providers serve ads automatically, and there is the word “advertisement” included with the ads.
Inherently, an image ad from Amazon is clearly an ad. Text ads from Amazon – well, they look like ads.
Put ads anywhere you desire. If there is the chance an ad can mistaken for content, label the ad as described previously.
The point throughout this debate is about _disguised advertising in “recommendations_”. Where the writer includes a link in the _content of the story_, and does not reveal the potential for income when the link is clicked.
You have to wonder: what is so “bad” about putting the words “advertisement” or “paid ad” right there with the ad? Why would a writer want to hide the fact about the ads in the content of the story? The answer is: money. The writer will not provide the complete information. If the word “advertisement” appeared in the article, the reader could determine the motivation of the writer.
Ken Y-N
>>your site is one of the most ad-plastered sites I know,
Yes. I love ads! Give me more ads, I say.
>> “The blinking ads are at the bottom of the page.”, yet they start immediately after that text.
I hope you are joking about this.
—–
* Comment removed. I asked in the first post not to get into specifics. [Nick] *
Mark-LJ 12:19 pm on January 26, 2009 | #
>>last week I wrote about how I have started advertising Mellow Monk teas, and I think it was obvious enough that it was an advertisement, but does Mark find that degree of disclosure acceptable?
We should never assume readers know. Do you like sumo? A two week tournament concluded January 25, in Tokyo. But if you had read the sports section of the Daily Yomiuri the morning of January 25, you would not have known when the tournament began, was going to end, or where it was being held. That information was not in the story, because the writer assumed the reader knew. (Omission is common in the DY, which also happens to favor hidden advertising in its self-promotion, and ads disguised as news stories. But that’s another topic for another day. )
Regarding you tea sponsor story: Did you recommend the product, and include a link to the product in the content of your article and from which you will _profit on a link click/purchase_? If yes, your story is being sponsored by the tea company. (No profit from the click, not an ad, But still smells fishy, I think.)
Recommend the product, with an ad link clearly identified as an ad? Makes a big difference in perception by the reader. Now the reader can determine the motivation.
It’s about trust with your readers. Why create a fuzzy connection between paid content and editorial content?
Did you only acknowledge a new sponsor (e.g.” we welcome the tea company as our a new sponsor” ). Iffy. Sounds like an ad to me. I mean, why is it even necessary to write a “welcome to our new sponsor” statement on a blog or website?
Put it in the context of radio. The DJ says “We welcome ABC company as a new sponsor of this program”. What are your thoughts? Was that sentence part of the advertising deal? To me, it’s an ad.
In any context, when a product is _endorsed_, and the writer receives a payment (e.g “paid endorsement” ) ethically it needs to be noted right there in the content.
>Is writing about a (relatively) useless but high-commission item but with an ADVERTISEMENT disclaimer more “honest” than writing about a low-commission but genuinely-used item with no direct disclosure?
When a person is paid to endorse a product, the written or spoken content is an advertisement. No reader-trust is built by concealing the connection.
Ken Y-N 12:37 pm on January 26, 2009 | #
Mark-LJ, I am glad that you decided not to be interviewed due to personal ethics regarding the use or abuse of advertising – I once turned down a very well-paying advert offer from ****** as I do not think their goods and services are ones I wish to be associated with.
I’m all for more ethics in blogging, but I’m not all for ramming it down people’s thoats.
**Lots of rewriting later**
Ahh, it’s difficult to continue to comment without dragging this thread down to an even more personal level. I’ll stop posting in this one.
Mark-LJ 12:57 pm on January 26, 2009 | #
Ken Y-N ->>I once turned down a very well-paying advert offer from ****** as I do not think their goods and services are ones I wish to be associated with.
And you certainly have that right. By the way, I think that ****** does offer “sexy” and “non sexy” versions of its ads.
Nick 1:34 pm on January 26, 2009 | #
Right, I’ve removed anything that I felt got to specific. It was not the intention of this thread to put any site under the spotlight (any Japan-based site anyway). It has been a good discussion and raised good arguments on both sides. To save myself from further editing, I’m closing the comment form – not something I like to do, but this thread has served its purpose. Your understanding is appreciated.