FTC to Bloggers - No More Free Ride

Hey, guys and dolls. I betcha didn't know that bloggers are getting fat and rich from sponsor freebies and kickbacks. And with all the financial sturm und drang out there, there's no more effective way of shoring up the economy than to clamp down on this shameless blogger profligacy.

I jest, of course. But to hear the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) describe it, you'd think the blogger gravy train was right up there with, I don't know, creating fictitious investment opportunities, or selling criminally deceptive mortgages to unsuspecting (and mostly minority) home buyers. The FTC recently issued disclosure guidelines for bloggers: if you receive something free, and then write about it, you need to disclose that "material connection."

To be fair, I really don't think the FTC is going after people like me, but rather bloggers who enter into certain questionable sponsorship relationships, receiving actual cash payments to promote particular products. (See this recent article in the New York Times for some perspective on the complexity of the sponsorship issue.) Quite a few media outlets have decried this move by the FTC, calling it "unnecessary and unenforceable" (Silicon Valley Insider) and a "mad power grab" (Slate).

Full disclosure, dear reader: I get free stuff. It's mostly theater tickets, but I do also get some books and CDs, some of which I then review on my blog. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Although I'm not paid for blogging, I do consider my self a critic, and critics have received free merchandise since the invention of professional criticism. I'd like to think that getting a free seat for a show wouldn't influence my judgment. My tickets to Tin Pan Alley Rag, Vanities, and Kristina were all free, and that certainly didn't stop me from writing rather negative reviews for all three. 

Starting in December, bloggers must disclose any financial consideration or free goods and services that they receive in connection with any reviews that they write. Fines for not doing so can reach as high as $11,000 per incident. So, yes, I will indeed comply with the new FTC guidelines, indicating at the end of any review for which I received a free ticket that I did indeed attend gratis. But, for me, I think the FTC has bigger fish to fry.

But, let me put it to you, dear reader. Would you second-guess the validity of a review if you knew that the reviewer had received a free ticket? Would you think of the write-up as somehow biased? If the answer is yes, then do you think about the free tickets that professional critics receive when they review shows? Do you honestly think that Ben Brantley and John Simon are pulling any punches because they nabbed a freebie? Somehow, I don't think so.

I do have to say that I sometimes worry if certain press agents will stop arranging free tickets for me if they get the sense that my reviews are always negative. I think that insecurity is a function of the fact that, as a blogger, I'm not very high in the critical pecking order. Also, as I get to know more people in the industry, and as show creators contact me after reading my reviews, I have run into some awkward moments in writing unflattering reviews for shows created by people with whom I'm, if not friends, then at least friendly. And now that I'm in my seventh year of teaching at the Boston Conservatory, more of my former students are starting to appear in the shows I'm reviewing. That hasn't presented any difficult situations as yet, but there's certainly the possibility.

But I think the larger and more difficult question is this: is complete objectivity even possible in a task that is, almost by definition, subjective? Or is it simply a theoretically worthy but, for practical purposes, unattainable goal?

Comments

[Esther]

Of course I know you and respect your judgment and know that you would never write a positive review simply because you got a free ticket. None of the bloggers I know would do that. But I know you.

What about the unscrupulous people out there (and there are some!) who would gladly write glowing blog posts about Bye-Bye Birdie every week if they were compensated? Wow, Nolan Gerard Funk is a heartthrob, Gina Gershon sure can dance!

How is Joe or Jane theatregoer supposed to know the difference between someone who truly loves Bye Bye Birdie and someone who's getting paid to love it?

I think there is difference between a hypothetical theatre blogger and Ben Brantley.

Ben gets his tickets from his employer, The New York Times. The Times expects a fair and impartial review, one that adheres to their standards. OTOH, our hypo theatre blogger gets his/her tickets from the producers or the theatre company. They are sure as heck expecting a positive review.

Ben can tear apart or praise show after show and as long as his employer is satisfied, he still gets his tickets. OTOH, if our hypo theatre blogger repeatedly tears apart shows, he/she has no such insulation, no one to run interference for him/her. And I'm not sure the producers or theatre companies would be quite as forthcoming after a string of poor reviews.

(Now, I honestly don't know how the Times gets its tickets, whether they pay for them or not.)

I agree, I don't think the FTC is going after you! But there are bloggers who get tons of free stuff from companies and have large followings, for example, the "mommy bloggers." And yeah, I would want to know whether that new brand of paper towels really is super absorbent or whether they're, in essence, getting paid to say so.

As more people turn to blogs seeking information on which brand of paper towels to buy or which shows to see, I'd like to know that if you praise a play or musical it's because you really loved it.

Blogs started out as instruments of personal expression but as they get co-opted and enter into relationships with companies the line is blurred. I'd like to know which blogs are truly someone's personal viewpoint and which ones are masking as a personal journal but really are part of an orchestrated advertising or public relations campaign.

Again, I'm not directing any criticism at your or my fellow theatre bloggers. But I think these are things to consider. And for the record, I don't take anything for free. I pay for all my tickets - sometimes full price!

[Jeff Poulos]

I think you make some good points.

Free tickets for critics is the norm in our industry. I am sure you as well as your peers in media will be able to convey the fact that you received a ticket and not cash compensation as you write your reviews. Reviewing a CD or other product that you receive is different than receiving gifts.

Also, I hope that you will continue to write informed and intelligent reviews, as you have been. If that is the case, the good shows will get good reviews and the bad ones, well, you know... I feel that as long as you continue to do so, you will be invited to review. If you ALWAYS write negative reviews and your voice begins to sound bitter, jaded or negative (as one blogger in town has seemingly carved out a reputation for), then you might need to consider why you are writing. Where is the joy in it, what would service are you providing?

Another point I find interesting that you raise, and I'd be curious how you address it, is when you are reviewing a production that includes a student or former student of yours. If you have a relationship, do you disclose that in the review? Surely some teachers develop close relationships with some students, and in our profession, that becomes an issue when the professor is also a critic.

One final thought. I receive free tickets a lot. The times that this colors my experience are usually when I did not enjoy the production. I am grateful I didn't pay for it, and more often than I probably should admit, I've heard myself say (or think), "I think I would have disliked that more if I paid for it." I'm not writing about the play, so that sentiment won't be manifested publicly, but I wonder if criticism is ever colored by this same situation.

Regardless, I enjoy your commentary and look forward to its continuation.

[Encore Entertainment]

Does this apply to non Americans?

[JoJo Ginn]

We have been talking about this new law often in my social media class. I think it's interesting that the government is enforcing what people have come to expect from bloggers, transparency. For the most part we don't pretend to be journalists but are expected to give our opinions on things.
I personally don't care if you get free tickets to shows. You are a critic, if I read your blog and saw that you never had anything bad to say I would think something was fishy anyways.

On the other hand if your opinion meant the success or failure of a show and you got a brand new car from the cast of Shrek and gave them a stellar review i might not trust you even if it was your honest opinion despite the new car. But if you gave them a bad review, i would trust you because your opinion was not swayed.

I don't think this changes much for the blog world. It just gives people one more way to decide if they trust us or not.

JoJo Ginn

[winer]

I used to review plays for the local "alternative weekly" and I didn't think twice about free tickets. That never seemed like a gift to me; it just seemed like one of the customs in the theater writing business. What was harder -and what eventually contributed to my quitting that gig- was writing about friends and their shows. I can't say I was always able to maintain objectivity even though I tried. That was just me though; I honestly was not as good a critic as you. The key, in my opinion, Is not being without bias, but being honest about what those biases are and how they affect your viewpoint.

[ccaggiano]

Winer: Many thanks for the kind words.

I actually have run into the whole friends thing. I got press tickets to a local Boston production of a show of which I am very fond. There were three people in the show whom I consider friends, and I wound up not really liking the show. So I decided not to write the review. I'm not really sure why, in retrospect. I actually liked their individual performances, although I thought the show was poorly directed. Very poorly directed.

Now that I see this decision in print, I sort of question my choice not to write the review. But at the time, it was very awkward for me, and I had a lot of better things to do with my time. I did feel guilty about getting free tickets to the show and then not writing it up. But it did help me decide to avoid reviewing local, semi-professional productions, and stick with the pros. Not out of any disrespect to local Boston theaters, many of which are quite good. It's just that the odds of running into old friends and students is simply too great.

[ccaggiano]

I would imagine not, but who knows. When you're talking about the uncharted terrain of the Internet, I'm not sure that legal precedent has been established. Although, it is my understanding that the new rules aren't legal per se, but rather regulations.

Bottom line: I guess I'm not really sure.

[J]

My concern as a producer or press agent (or whoever else is giving you the freebies) is what additional impact is it having on my sales? I don't know your site visit numbers - it doesn't matter - but is that $100 ticket I just comped you going to get 15 or 20 people to by a $100 ticket for themselves? If yes, it's worth it.

It's a risk that these producers have to take, but with more and more people blogging, more and more people are going to call themselves critics. And with more bloggers, playing critics, they're going to look for the same freebies you're currently getting.

(Please know I'm not criticizing you for calling yourself a critic - besides being a professor and writing some really thought-provoking blogs I don't know what your prior/additional/current/future employment history is.)

Tides are obviously changing. With newspapers and magazines folding or going digital the mainstream media of even 10 years ago is quite different. But I wonder how someone deems one blog worthy above another. Unique visitors? Number of reviews? Amount of friends in the industry?

And as a member of a ticket-buying, theater-going public, if I see a quote by Chris Caggiano from everythingmusicals.com on a board under the marquee is that going to influence my decision positively (because of the quote) or negatively (because the quote came from a website I've never heard of)?

[Aaron]

Esther, I wrote about this a bit more on my site, too (spinning off of Chris's original--and terrific--post here), but I don't think there's anything to really worry about from the shills out there who have a horse in this race (i.e., financial motivations). The reason for this: blogs are all about trust.

For instance, I trust Chris's site (and therefore link to it) because he has a real knowledge of musical theater that I *trust* if I'm considering seeing a show, especially a new one. (I'm curious to see what he thinks of Memphis.) Esther, I also trust yours--because I know where your reviews are coming from, and I appreciate your views. (Same for Broadway & Me, S.O.B., &c., regardless of whether you pay for tickets or get comped.)

However, I *wouldn't* be trusting you if I took your recommendations and realized that had an entirely different perspective. After a while, that might turn into a trust issue, if I thought you were just blatantly making things up (as opposed to having a different opinion--after all, I didn't think all that much of Superior Donuts, but a lot of people loved it). If I really thought your ethics were shot, I'd stop reading/linking your site.

Now, the reason why I say that we have nothing to worry about from shills is because if anybody is silly enough to buy into marketing that quotes unheard of websites (or NYTimes.com reader comments), or if they trust completely a site that nobody links to (or that's on Facebook), then they deserve whatever's coming to them. The people who have been doing this long enough to earn trust are the people who most likely can't be bought--and as I said above, if they were, the "market" would pretty quickly correct itself by knocking them out.

In any case, I'm all for accountability, but only if *everyone* is being held to the same standards--bloggers, freelancers, mainstream press, &c.

[Aaron]

Oh that's frustrating. My entire comment just disappeared when I tried to post.

Long story short then, we don't need legislation (or guidelines) to protect us. The market correct itself and a shill is quickly exposed as a shill. I trust Chris because of his body of work; the same goes for you, Esther. I don't trust Theater is Easy as much because they're all about advertising and I don't know the ethics of their staff--but I might grow into that.

Bloggers require trust in order to operate, and shills will quickly expose themselves by dint of anyone who takes their recommendation and has a miserable time.