Comments on: Numberscruncher: No More Blogging for Dollars? http://popdose.com/numberscruncher-no-more-blogging-for-dollars/ your daily dose of pop culture Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:18:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: annieloguehttp://popdose.com/numberscruncher-no-more-blogging-for-dollars/comment-page-1/#comment-51308 annielogue Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:48:39 +0000 http://popdose.com/?p=31634#comment-51308 Conde Nast Traveler writers won't take comps, but they always mention the BMW! A lot of other travel writers do take the free trips, though, and they don't disclose. Of course, the magazines and newspapers are complicit because they won't cover expenses. Conde Nast Traveler writers won't take comps, but they always mention the BMW! A lot of other travel writers do take the free trips, though, and they don't disclose. Of course, the magazines and newspapers are complicit because they won't cover expenses.

]]> By: annieloguehttp://popdose.com/numberscruncher-no-more-blogging-for-dollars/comment-page-1/#comment-39843 annielogue Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:48:39 +0000 http://popdose.com/?p=31634#comment-39843 Conde Nast Traveler writers won't take comps, but they always mention the BMW! A lot of other travel writers do take the free trips, though, and they don't disclose. Of course, the magazines and newspapers are complicit because they won't cover expenses. Conde Nast Traveler writers won't take comps, but they always mention the BMW! A lot of other travel writers do take the free trips, though, and they don't disclose. Of course, the magazines and newspapers are complicit because they won't cover expenses.

]]> By: annieloguehttp://popdose.com/numberscruncher-no-more-blogging-for-dollars/comment-page-1/#comment-38516 annielogue Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:48:39 +0000 http://popdose.com/?p=31634#comment-38516 Conde Nast Traveler writers won't take comps, but they always mention the BMW! A lot of other travel writers do take the free trips, though, and they don't disclose. Of course, the magazines and newspapers are complicit because they won't cover expenses. Conde Nast Traveler writers won't take comps, but they always mention the BMW! A lot of other travel writers do take the free trips, though, and they don't disclose. Of course, the magazines and newspapers are complicit because they won't cover expenses.

]]> By: adornohttp://popdose.com/numberscruncher-no-more-blogging-for-dollars/comment-page-1/#comment-38509 adorno Wed, 14 Oct 2009 07:45:08 +0000 http://popdose.com/?p=31634#comment-38509 Actually, the good travel writers have a sweet deal. They get invited on all-expenses paid trips, including airfare, hotel, meals and transportation. Actually, the good travel writers have a sweet deal. They get invited on all-expenses paid trips, including airfare, hotel, meals and transportation.

]]> By: jefitohttp://popdose.com/numberscruncher-no-more-blogging-for-dollars/comment-page-1/#comment-38499 jefito Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:00:16 +0000 http://popdose.com/?p=31634#comment-38499 Exactly. I don't think anyone here needs to worry about putting any disclaimers on their work. Exactly. I don't think anyone here needs to worry about putting any disclaimers on their work.

]]> By: DwDunphyhttp://popdose.com/numberscruncher-no-more-blogging-for-dollars/comment-page-1/#comment-38498 DwDunphy Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:51:40 +0000 http://popdose.com/?p=31634#comment-38498 It's less about receiving the product to review in an honest manner, more about receiving stuff and promoting them on your website in the guise of a glowing endorsement - in the case of the latter, you're just a conduit for advertising, not a legitimate reviewer. The FTC is trying to weed out the real reporting from the fake-out artists getting stuff for a little web endorsement. It's less about receiving the product to review in an honest manner, more about receiving stuff and promoting them on your website in the guise of a glowing endorsement – in the case of the latter, you're just a conduit for advertising, not a legitimate reviewer. The FTC is trying to weed out the real reporting from the fake-out artists getting stuff for a little web endorsement.

]]> By: kshanehttp://popdose.com/numberscruncher-no-more-blogging-for-dollars/comment-page-1/#comment-38497 kshane Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:38:38 +0000 http://popdose.com/?p=31634#comment-38497 If I'm understanding this correctly, it seems that a simple disclaimer as part of a review, e.g. "I received this cd free of charge from XYZ Records" should give the consumer the information that they need to know. I have no problem including such a disclaimer in my reviews. I have never sold anything that I didn't pay for, though I know it's a common practice. If I'm understanding this correctly, it seems that a simple disclaimer as part of a review, e.g. “I received this cd free of charge from XYZ Records” should give the consumer the information that they need to know. I have no problem including such a disclaimer in my reviews. I have never sold anything that I didn't pay for, though I know it's a common practice.

]]> By: DwDunphyhttp://popdose.com/numberscruncher-no-more-blogging-for-dollars/comment-page-1/#comment-38495 DwDunphy Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:05:44 +0000 http://popdose.com/?p=31634#comment-38495 As always, it's about truth in advertising. If you're a reviewer, then you have to be honest in your statements about the product you're reviewing. That might mean you're going to say negative things about items, which might turn off potential parties willing to send you stuff but que sera sera. A reviewer cannot be beholden to the providers or else he/she is just a shill.<br><br>So I'm all for this FTC ruling. If you're using your space to be an objective commentator, you have nothing to fear. If, on the other hand, you're using your word-power to sell product, you should have a level of oversight above you stating clearly you're being compensated for your forum. As always, it's about truth in advertising. If you're a reviewer, then you have to be honest in your statements about the product you're reviewing. That might mean you're going to say negative things about items, which might turn off potential parties willing to send you stuff but que sera sera. A reviewer cannot be beholden to the providers or else he/she is just a shill.

So I'm all for this FTC ruling. If you're using your space to be an objective commentator, you have nothing to fear. If, on the other hand, you're using your word-power to sell product, you should have a level of oversight above you stating clearly you're being compensated for your forum.

]]>