So,
Do They Violate FTC Guidelines?
No.
3 Likes
##Does Answering A Headline Ending In A Question Mark With âNoâ Make Any Difference To The Preponderance Of Such Headlines?
[quote=âcodinghorror, post:100, topic:51967, full:trueâ]
If people see visible ads on the page, they assume you are making money from their visit. Affiliate links are hardly a stretch at that point.[/quote]
BB ads are marked âAdvertisementâ or âSponsored Postâ. It is very much a stretch to assume that readers would know that links in posts that are not marked as ads or sponsored, and that seem to be merely personal recommendations, are paid links. I didnât know the extent to which BB uses affiliate links, and I still donât. (Iâm not even sure that posting multiple Amazon Associate IDs on a single website is allowed by Amazon.)
Letâs play âAffiliate Link Bingo!â Well, maybe itâs more like âPaid? Or Unpaid Link?â Which links on this recent BB post are affiliate links?
Do you think the average person can tell? Hell, I mouse overed the links to see the URLs and Iâm still not sure - I donât know the affiliate link format for every vendor. And BBers seem to be using personal Amazon Associates IDs rather than one for the site, which threw me off and initially made me think Coryâs link to The Encyclopedia of Early Earth wasnât an affiliate link.
Anyway, the point is that it is utterly unclear which links are paid and which are not. There is no clear and conspicuous disclosure, as required by FTC disclosure guidelines. There isnât even any meaningful disclosure - the generic disclosure hidden in the privacy policy is not specific, and doesnât say which. The average reader certainly doesnât know which are which, or even that some of them are paid links.
I actually wrote my headline with the answer âYesâ in mind. Iâm a contrarian that way.
I think Iâve provided extensive, clear, on point citations of the FTC Endorsement Guidelines and related FAQ to prove it. I donât see you any contrary argument or evidence by you, other than your unavailing assertion that your own site has no disclosures. Same goes for miasmâs devastating disproof, consisting entirely of the word âno.â
On what basis do you claim that the undisclosed paid endorsements on BB do meet the FTC guidelines?
I think you should take your grievance to the FTC. You got an official BB response.
3 Likes
Ahhh but saying that they donât meet the guidelines is not the same as saying that they donât fall within the boundaries of the guidelines.
Like I said before, even within the recommendations of the FTC, they suggest a âbest practiceâ but then also go on to define a basic (I called it) âpracticeâ.
Are you suggesting that boingboing practice isnât represented as such in the guidelines you linked to or have you perhaps lost a little perspective on this matter?
/devastating
1 Like
I guess it all comes down to âShould I trust this guy Mark, from the internetâ?
3 Likes
I sure hope you have put this level of effort into telling Amazon.
otherwise this would seem like just, i dunno, attention seeking behaviour?
1 Like
That sounds like a dodge to me, CH. You canât actually show that BBâs undisclosed paid endorsements meet FTC Disclosure Guidelines. And, yes, they are paid endorsements.
Endorsement + Payment = Paid Endorsement
Robâs argument was not so much that BBâs undisclosed affiliate links actually meet the Guidelines, but âSquirrel!â He dismissed the Guidelines as
And he noted that the guidelines arenât enforced, as if that means BB shouldnât follow them. Rob also tried to claim clear and conspicuous disclosure (as called for in the guidelines) is a bad thing, saying
What Rob failed to do is convincingly dispute that this applies fully to Boing Boing:
Hiding disclosure of affiliate links in obscure places is exactly what Boing Boing is currently doing. The âdisclosure,â such as it is, is buried in the Privacy Policy.
1 Like
It was a dare. How can you not see that?
Robâs argument was that he is done.
Turn the lights off on your way out.
1 Like
Well I wouldnât call it a dare. I thought there were some nice, thoughtful, reasoned responses here. Both from BB officially and from others in the community.
But what else is to be done if that does not suffice?
2 Likes
Why would you say that? Are you hoping to get BB banned from the Affiliate Program???
The Amazon Associates Program Operating Agreement says this:
[quote=âAmazon Associates Program Operating Agreementâ]10. Identifying Yourself as an Associate
You will not issue any press release or make any other public communication with respect to this Operating Agreement, your use of the Content, or your participation in the Program. You will not misrepresent or embellish the relationship between us and you (including by xpressing or implying that we support, sponsor, endorse, or contribute to any charity or other cause), or express or imply any relationship or affiliation between us and you or any other person or entity except as expressly permitted by this Operating Agreement. You must, however, clearly state the following on your site: â[Insert your name] is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to [insert the applicable site name (amazon.com, amazonsupply.com, or myhabit.com)].â
[/quote]
Where is this disclosure on Boing Boing? I donât even see it buried in the PRIVACY POLICY next to the global mention of affiliate links. It would seem unlikely that Boing Boing is an exception to this Amazon legal policy.
Additionally, the very specific disclosure required would seem to be needed for each Amazon Associate account used on BB, and by the ID in the Amazon Affiliate links it seems that various BBers are using their own accounts rather than sharing a single account through Boing Boing.
No. I am hoping you find an audience worthy of your well documented and clearly actionable complaint!
3 Likes
The part about the FTC. Totally a dare. And a worthy one! Youâre dealing with serious business here, look out!!
1 Like
As a long-time BB reader, but very infrequent commenter, I must foolishly admit to not realizing that BB mostly posts affiliate links. Somehow Iâve missed the various times and places that this has been disclosed. Take that for what you will.
[edit to remove a short paragraph on a separate topic and a quick edit of the remaining.]
4 Likes
Not a stretch for you, and maybe not a stretch for your web-savvy audience, but perhaps a stretch for general audiences, especially those form countries with less developed e-commerce sites and traditions, where affiliates are less understood.
Plus thereâs the problem that even if people understand something about affiliate linking, they are very unclear about exactly how the program works and about howâas you just had to clarifyâall purchases resulting from the visit via the affiliate link will generate revenue. Yes, this means that if you follow the lube link but then end up buying a Fleshlight, a strap-on, and a ball gag, BB will not only get the credit for those purchase but will be told that people bought these products. I think some readers would very much think this is a stretch, especially from a privacy-espousing site like BB that frequently notes that even âanonymizedâ data and meta-data can tell us a lot about people.
In generalâand I think that this is a point Cory has made on numerous occasionsâ this is in part because of information asymmetries where people are unaware of just how much information theyâre sharing or what corporations may be using it for. Seeing a paid banner ad is something that people analogize to seeing an ad on TV or in their newspaper, and is conceptualized as a one-way transfer of information from the advertiser to the audience. I donât think these sorts of ads prime people to expect that clicking an unmarked link will subject them to scrutiny on what they buy, or that their buying habits will be passed back (anonymized or not) to the blog owners.
The real answer is that you should take your complaints to Amazon, and inform them youâll also be lodging a complaint with the FTC if nothing is done.
2 Likes
This is pretty weak tea, miasm. Way back in post #2 you, with hubristic hypocrisy, said this:
[quote=âmiasm, post:2, topic:51967â]
Youâve omitted a very specific paragraph in the guidelines you linked to which, to my mind, elucidates a bit of a grey area into which this type of affiliate linking falls.
[/quote][emphasis added]
You then cited the FTCâs Endorsement Guidelines FAQ example that matches what BB is doing pretty much exactly, conveniently omitting the final paragraph, the one that contradicts your claim:
The part you disingenuously omitted describes what Boing Boing is doing exactly (in Boing Boingâs case the disclosure is buried in the PRIVACY POLICY) and specifically says such a disclosure âisnât good enoughâ.
Your attempt to make some sort of penumbral argument, that maybe, just maybe, Boing Boingâs disclosures, which are specifically ânot good enoughâ by the FTCâs very clear example, are some how still within some sort of fuzzy shade of the boundaries of the guidelines is beyond unpersuasive.
The FTC Guidelines FAQ example matches Boing Boingâs situation on all fours, and clearly calls out Boing Boingâs method of hiding disclosure as not âgood enoughâ.
And Boing Boingâs game of hide the disclosure is even more extreme than the example of what not to do. In the FTC scenario the not good enough disclosure is buried, but still in a valid category, such as âABOUT USâ or âGENERAL INFO.â Boing Boingâs disclosure is misfiled under "PRIVACY POLICYâ, where nobody is going to think to look for information on which outbound links on BB are paid advertisements or endorsements, or even know that there is anything to need to look up.
Add me as another anecdotal data point of a long time reader who, except when it was stated in the post itself, missed noticing that the links in articles recommending products were affiliates.
1 Like
