The Following Positive Review Is Brought To You By The Brand Being Reviewed

No one would confuse an amateur review of a Nikon D5000 on a site like Associated Content or Epinions with a more thorough overview of digital cameras from Consumer Reports magazine. But starting December 1, the Federal Trade Commission will care whether the writers received their review products for free – or whether they were paid to write a positive review.

This branding issue cuts both ways: The photographer who reviewed the D5000 wants to be respected as an authority on photography products. So if it's later learned he received a product he praised, his personal brand integrity takes a hit. Likewise, there’s a limit to the kinds of promotion that most consumers will accept from a brand, and blatant payola usually crosses the line.

As the New York Times reports, the new guidelines concern fashion and beauty blogs in particular, since those sites often receive free product from brands they write about. But in Hollywood, conflicts of interest are nothing new. Film Threat magazine revealed in 2000 that Ain’t It Cool News founder Harry Knowles, one of the few critics to adore the 1998 film Godzilla, had been flown by the studio to the premiere.

And in 2001, an embarrassed Sony had to admit that critic David Manning, who praised many of the studio’s films, was actually invented by Sony, who used blurbs from his fictitious Connecticut paper on posters for films like Vertical Limit and Hollow Man.

The Times reports that most bloggers they talked to aren't worried about the new disclosure guidelines. Some actually welcome any rules that will eliminate the “cloggers” who simply pimp themselves out for swag.

Therefore, in full disclosure, I have not received any free cameras, beauty products, or movie tickets for writing this blog post.