It seems the overall trend in social media tends towards transparency when it comes to disclosure of interests and relationships. If you’re being sponsored by, have been sent something for free by or have a “conflict-of-interest” relationship with a company, then you disclose it in your blog/podcast content.
But what is the policy when it comes to affiliate links? Linking to recommended products & services in exchange for a commission is a potentially lucrative way for bloggers and podcasters to monetize their efforts. But is the affiliate relationship always clear? How explicit do you need to be when mentioning or linking to an affiliate partner in your content?
Is it necessary to break the flow of content in your blog or podcast and give a disclaimer every time you stand to profit? Or is it sufficient to have an understood respect and integrity in the relationship with your audience that you will never knowingly lead them astray and…yes…you will make money from time to time. I admit that when it comes to affiliate offers, I often default to this position.
Brian, an attorney and avid marketer, made a stir on Copyblogger this morning when he posted his view of a recent FTC declaration regarding word-of-mouth marketing (WOMM). The conversation merits reviewing if you do any sort of affiliate marketing.
Here are the basics:
- From the Washington Post:
The Federal Trade Commission yesterday said that companies engaging in word-of-mouth marketing, in which people are compensated to promote products to their peers, must disclose those relationships.
The FTC said it would investigate cases where there is a relationship between the endorser of a product and the seller that is not disclosed and could affect the endorsement. The FTC staff said it would go after violators on a case-by-case basis.
- This is not new law. This is the FTC bringing to our attention that some current word-of-mouth marketing practices could be construed as deceptive and illegal.
- It’s not clear whether this includes affiliate marketing. It’s not specifically mentioned. But they do point to situations where there is: 1. recommendation 2. compensation 3. lack of disclosure
I’m of the opinion that transparency is needed in in social media, but it’s too bad if the actions that are required to cover our behinds get in the way of the user experience either in the form of confusing copy such as overly
intrusive disclaimers all over the place.
Does Donald Trump stop in the middle of The Apprentice to state that Domino’s Pizza has paid to be in tonight’s episode? To some degree that would destroy the flow of the entertainment. Ideally a nice balance is struck that relies on a relationship of trust that has been previously established, but try explaining that to the FTC.
Granted, if you receive something for free or are paid a sponsorship in exchange for a mentioning a product in your content, it definitely needs to be disclosed. And at all times respect the relationship with your audience or risk becoming what Seth Godin calls a promiscuous sneezer. Exploit them and you lose their trust.
How do you handle this on your podcast? Is a statement in your site’s Terms of Service sufficient? I’d like to get the opinion of Paul Colligan on this. He’s done a lot of podcasting and affiliate marketing. Maybe Colette Vogel, an attorney who is very active in podcasting, can chime in as well.
UPDATE: Colette Vogel gives her views here. Paul Colligan gives his thoughts here.
December 14th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Jason, Aloha from Hawaii. Good post, and thanks for raising the issues here. I’ve commented on my blog – http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/colette-vogele.
December 15th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
I have to agree with the Donald Trump analogy. We see product placement all of the time in media. Apple or Dell computers placed in the background. Paula, Randy, and Simon all drink from Coca Cola branded cups even though it’s most likely water inside.
These are all misleading in a way. Why should we be held to a different standard so that we must interrupt our content?
That said, I make it a point to disclose my relationship to links on my site. I value my podcast listeners too much to deceive them and I only put up links that I think will provide a value to them and products that I use myself.
My 2 cents. Uh Jason, I bought your book. Do we have to provide disclosure or is that only if I post on your publisher’s blog ;)
January 8th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Nice site actually. Gone to my favourites. Thanks for creation.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Affiliate lifestyle
In this site give us the brief explanation about
Affiliate Marketing Disclosure Now Required of Podcasters by Law?, which is very useful for affiliate marketing.
More information about (Affiliate Marketing) See here
October 6th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Great topic and post. I would have to agree with both you and the previous commenter that breaking the flow of content to announce a relationship that the audience probably already knew about or at least understands is in place (nothing is free, right) would take away from the experience.
I think that having an affiliations page or mentioning something in your terms of service (as you suggested) about the relationships you have should be sufficient.
I agree with you that it would probably be difficult to provide these details in a podcast or video. Maybe with a video you could just have a piece of text in your credits. In your podcast you could easily refer them to your affiliations page for more details about our sponsors or recommended partners.
What does everyone else think. This is a great topic. I’ll keep an eye on this post to see what others think.
December 7th, 2008 at 2:25 am
Affiliate marketing is not word of mouth, rather it is partnered marketing. The affiliate in no way represents nor takes responsibility for the product or service he is referring.
This assumes, of course, that he is not preselling, which is not a good practice anyway, and only necessary in the absence of quality ad copy on the vendor page.
Disclosure is not required, as you suggested, but is an ethical gesture.
Ron