Print

[ethercat]

Scientology front groups, in particular, narconon, have created a twisted web of "supporters" in the form of blogs, illusory research sites, and testimonial sites, for what I see as two intertwined purposes - to direct the visitor to self-supporting "verification" and to game the search engines to further the first purpose above.  (See Narconon - even scientology's front groups have front groups for more info.)  This is undeniably done for financial gain.

The FTC has just put in some new guidelines regarding disclosures of financial or material interests, which became effective in December 2009.  This is a quote from http://www2.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm:

The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that “material connections” (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other “word-of-mouth” marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims.

Here are a few more links, though I am sure there are many, many more to be found with a search.  The revised guidelines have the blogoshpere in an uproar.
http://commonlaw.findlaw.com/2009/10/bloggers-and-paid-reviews-new-ftc-guide-to-endorsements.html
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/ftc-bloggers/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100503620.html

This one gives me a bit of concern, however: http://blog.clickz.com/091016-123954.html

As iterated throughout his lengthy letter, Rothenberg and others fear that the FTC will now be on the hunt for bloggers reviewing and endorsing products, which he argues will squelch social media.

"In terms of bloggers and other endorsers...I don't think that there is any reason for concern," said Cleland, stressing, "We have explained on a number of occasions that we do not have civil penalty authority." In other words, he told me, the FTC is not planning an enforcement sweep against bloggers. Also, he confirmed, the FTC has no authority to fine anybody (despite countless erroneous reports to the contrary).

I have been reading the 81 page document here: http://ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005endorsementguidesfnnotice.pdf and I think it applies to narconon and its numerous supporting sites.  What do you think?  Can we get open disclosure on narconon's twisted web of sites so that people needing a drug rehab facility stand a chance of finding a legitimate one?  Is there anything else the new guidelines might help us accomplish?

[Lorelei]

Excellent information.

The downside here, I think, is that it will more likely effect your average blogger who just happens to like [insert product or service or film or whatever here], and not Scientologists or apologists trying to game Google / Bing / Yahoo search engines with fraudulent endorsements.

The Scientologists will continue to blithely ignore the law when it fails to suit their purposes. That's going to be a big stumbling block. Either that, or they will start screeching about religious discrimination or some other bullpoop once they aren't allowed to dishonestly game search engines with faux blogs and mandatory "success stories" and other such crap in order to trick more unsuspecting people into the clutches of one of their front groups.

The average blogger who may wish to comply with laws will feel stifled, and there is possible a First Amendment violation there. It comes down to proof: how do those who wish to enforce the law or report violations of the law deal with dishonest blog-based endorsements by shills while still allowing people--who DO NOT benefit in any way directly or indirectly (via promoting their pet religion / cult / business interest)--to continue expressing their opinions about products, services, etc.?

[ethercat]

Excellent information.

The downside here, I think, is that it will more likely effect your average blogger who just happens to like [insert product or service or film or whatever here], and not Scientologists or apologists trying to game Google / Bing / Yahoo search engines with fraudulent endorsements.

Well, there's a lot of discussion out there on that, but unless the product (or whatever) has been given to them, or they have received compensation for their post about it, they aren't covered under the guidelines.  If they have received some sort of compensation, they are supposed to disclose that, which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing.  It kind of reminds me of the "payola" in the old radio days, which I guess you are familiar with.

The Scientologists will continue to blithely ignore the law when it fails to suit their purposes. That's going to be a big stumbling block. Either that, or they will start screeching about religious discrimination or some other bullpoop once they aren't allowed to dishonestly game search engines with faux blogs and mandatory "success stories" and other such crap in order to trick more unsuspecting people into the clutches of one of their front groups.

The average blogger who may wish to comply with laws will feel stifled, and there is possible a First Amendment violation there. It comes down to proof: how do those who wish to enforce the law or report violations of the law deal with dishonest blog-based endorsements by shills while still allowing people--who DO NOT benefit in any way directly or indirectly (via promoting their pet religion / cult / business interest)--to continue expressing their opinions about products, services, etc.?

The scientologists are going to screech about religious discrimination regardless, because that's all they've got.  There can be no denying that the narconon bloggers stand to benefit from their endorsements if you look at the way the scam works.

If the average bloggers don't benefit in any way, they'll be free to express whatever opinion they want.  Even if they do benefit, all the guidelines require is for them to say so on the page or site. 

Of course, if the psychs ever do actually pay us, like the scientologists think they do, we might have to disclose that in our posts.   

According to two FTC sources I've seen, they cannot enforce it as a law, they can only recommend them as guidelines (as they are called).  In the link from the previous post, FTC Responds to IAB Letter on Blogger Guidelines (IAB being the Interactive Advertising Bureau) and on this one I've found since I posted the last one, FTC Staff Responds to Questions from WOMMA Members (WOMMA being Word of Mouth Marketing Association), the FTC does not have the power to enforce the guidelines.

On the WOMMA page, Charles Harwood states:

We do not bring law enforcement actions based on, or to enforce, the Guides. The Guides are not binding law. They are intended to be educational – to inform advertisers and others how the Commission will view the use of endorsements as it enforces the prohibition in Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act against deceptive and unfair practices.

We assume that the targets of our law enforcement actions will come to our attention by the same means as always, including the staff’s own viewing of ads and our monitoring of current events and advertising trends, consumer complaints, competitor complaints, and referrals from self-regulatory bodies.

So it won't be a matter of whether the scientologists ignore the guidelines or not, but their ignoring of them will be considered if and when they are brought up for deceptive and unfair practices.  (I like to think there will be a when, not an if.)

The First Amendment concerns are addressed on the WOMMA site as well, if you want to see what has been said about them.

[Lorelei]

Yup; I know the basics about the payola scandal. Putting it in that frame makes sense.

I wonder if the obfuscation of the various Scieno front groups will make this harder to squelch.