---

Back in March 2013 (where was I?) those pesky fellows at the FTC created a new PDF outlining the use of Social Media tactics and links etc for those of us who review. Basically, not only do we have to increase the font of our fine print for disclosures (as in those who have them at the bottom of their posts) this does not suffice the requirements for the FTC. And having a button somewhere on your site to your disclosure aka policy doesn't work either. You must be upfront (meaning at the top of your post) and state where you received the item from to distinguish if you were compensated for the post in any way (coupons, virtual points redeemable for something in the future, galleys, ARCs) and it must be "clear and conspicuous" before we get to "distracting" hyperlinks or gimmicks.

Most importantly, it wants that source to be stated BEFORE any links to "buy here" are able to be clicked. The FTC also specifically stated that NO SCROLLING should be required when a viewer is looking at your reviewed product, your readers must be able to see within that screen that you have received that item for free. They also went into affiliate marketing and how to handle those links *bangs head on desk*, but since I do not do that I didn't read too much about that quagmire.

Many book bloggers like myself already state fairly close to/underneath the book's image and information where the review book came from. So the true revelations in 2013 Guidelines aren't too bad - until you get to the way you tweet, facebook, Google Plus about the books you have read and reviewed. *bangs head on desk*

These social media posts/tweets which state anything positive in nature about an item you have received for free must also include in the beginning of that status update/tweet the 'Ad' or 'Sponsor' notation. That twitter follower of yours MUST understand before they click your link that you are marketing an item that you have been compensated for in some way, either via the ARC, galley, or perhaps an exclusive spot on a review list.*bangs head on desk*

As I discussed this on facebook, most bloggers were perturbed *as am I*, but then again most also felt that the FTC wouldn't target THEM in particular, we're the little guy, etc and so why should I care so much? It's not like the book bloggers are similar to the product review bloggers such as Mommy Bloggers, who seem to get free makeup, toys, strollers, kitchenware etc. Why go after book bloggers?

I care because these are Rules. There is a social etiquette being put in place, and as much as I despise the government getting in the way of our personal blogging, if one person feels compelled to follow the law, I feel others should, too. Those who break the rules get an unfair advantage, so to speak. That's my current opinion, and as a blogger I'm entitled to it. But then again, I wonder, is this FTC Dot Com Guideline thing an actual LAW? Yes, it states that it is, and that it covers virtually every sector in the economy. If we fail to follow the guidelines, the FTC will find ways to enforce it: "the Commission might bring an enforcement action alleging an unfair or deceptive practice in violation of the FTC Act".

But it also went into how this applies to endorsing a product... which means positive reviews.. so if it's a somewhat critical negative review, then I guess that means we can ignore all these little rules..
Which opens up a whole other can of worms into what star rating would officially mean somewhat not positive, bwahahaha!!
"Three stars is good!"
"No way, that's a low rating in my opinion!"
"That means it was just okay, so is that good or bad?
*bangs head on desk*"
"What about 3.5 stars?"
*bangs head on desk*

Ouch.

And what about the flurry of BEST OF 2013 posts we will see at the end of the year? Doesn't that IMPLY in itself a positive reaction to a book? And what if one of those books on the list was a review title? All our tweets and FB posts have to say "AD: Best of 2013 at BBR!"  or even snazzier: "Sponsored: Best of 2013 at BBR!" *bangs head on desk*

Another tricky question, for those sites who are virtual tour companies, blogging for books type campaigns or review sites such as HNS or even Kirkus Reviews etc.: Shouldn't those companies also be showing the word AD everywhere when they repeat a positive line from a review? Why is the FTC targeting the specific blogger, and not starting at the top and making the publicity companies comply first? Why does the little person have to be the one to do everything? But the Canadian bloggers were thrilled to not have to be subject to the FTC regulations. Canada is looking better and better every day! Je m'appelle Marie, et vous?

*gets ice pack and Excedrin.*

Edit to add: I was not compensated for this review of the Guidelines in any way. Do comments on my blog count as compensation?

Edit to add: I am not a lawyer and this is merely a raving lunatic editorial/opinion post .


Edit to Add: Again this is all interpretation. Would love a specific guide on what the FTC means to address towards book blogging. You can carry on as you will. =)

---

This post was created on 5/15/2013.
I am adding the following on 5/31/2013 for continuity's sake:
But truly, all of this discussion was done in snarky fun. The bottom line is we all need to have a sense of ethics, and agree that endorsing products and books regardless of what title you give to yourself, you need to state your source. That was the response I got from the FTC, and that was the talk of the BEA 2013 as well. Everything stated above is true, but the hypothetical situations were of course Over The Top Examples where I was using my intelligence to point out how some things can get a little out of hand and to the extreme. (Case in point, how this post went viral and those who don't know my snarky character created pandemonium on twitter before investigating the context of the post).

I recently wrote an article about blogging and reviewing, and the merits of the three star review versus the five star review. Also discussed was whether bloggers should be told how to review, as in which review should go live if it is indeed a negative review.

I got so much attention on this post! Thank you so much for your comments, and I wanted to take this chance to express to all of you how happy I am to hear that everyone prefers honesty in their reviews, regardless of what that rating of the book is.

Along with honesty that is to be expected in the blogosphere, as bloggers we appreciate and EXPECT respect. We write these articles to get those comments, to have a discussion on our blog, to feel the love from fellow readers. We do NOT expect to be copied verbatim on to someone else's blog so that other person can benefit from the blog hits and then garner a discussion on their own site. If my content is getting taken 'fairly' for someone else's site, why should I bother posting anything?

This happened to my "To Review or Not To Review; That is The Question" post. Fellow blogger, yet a lawyer, so he knows the law -- took my post, and even the title of the blog post, and reposted my thoughts on his site. 

YES.. he linked back to my original post. So it is not plagiarism. As he was very quick to point out in response to my comment requesting permission or a heads up:

Marie - Do you understand Fair Use?

My use of an excerpt from your site is clearly within the Fair Use provisions of U.S. Copyright Law.

-- 
Passive Guy

I feel slighted and abused in the way this unethical lawyer behaves. As a blogger one expects that their words would belong to themselves. I would not mind if my reviews were posted anywhere with a link back, but this was clearly a discussion post, meant to gather readers in one spot (on MY blog) which he did not ask me for permission to use.

He is moderating comments on his blog, so feel free to leave your thoughts here. On MY blog.

Be careful out there folks, it's a slippery cliff we are heading towards.

Of late, I have seen so much discussion as to whether or not to review a book. I'm referring to the book bloggers who receive Advance Review Copies, and not the leisurely lucky readers who get to read from their own libraries and could pick and choose at whim which book to read. I believe those readers review some of those titles, but not all of them. Depends on their mood and if they want to talk about the book.

I am thinking of the specific situation where the Author/Publisher/Publicist contacts you to see if you would be interested in reviewing the book and you say yes. Halfway through the book, you are beginning to worry about the author's feelings because you know you could not rate this book higher than three stars (of a standard five).

What to do?

Do you bother finishing the book? Do you tell yourself at the halfway mark you've given it enough of your time and it's time to move on? Do you contact the author/publicist?

What if you do finish the book, and decide maybe it is a 3 star book, technically meaning 'average' or 'it was ok'? For some reason, the golden (hidden) rule has been this magic 3 star mark. I have been a part of a tour group that specifically said if it does not get a 3 star review, please don't post that review. Keep that news to yourself, they ask. So what if something really was a 2.5 star for you, and you end making it 3 stars so you could actually 'be allowed' to post the review?

What happens to that week that I spent my time reading that book? All that time that I devoted to reading this book because I was gathering content for my blog. And if it was truly a 2.5 star book, that means I am not allowed to share my thoughts on the book. I am not talking about a rip-apart stomp down on the author, simply a critical review which explains the good things and the bad things of the dynamic of the book which I spent every minute of my spare time reading for that past week so that I could compose a thorough and honest review. Throwing all those half star points/stars out the window, what it boils down to is the question of what we should be allowed to post on our personal sites. If I want to talk about a book, in a professional manner regardless if I LIKE the book, shouldn't we be allowed to do so, even if we are reviewing for a publicist/publisher/virtual tour company?

Isn't this where we get to the point of why Amazon has a reputation that you cannot trust, because all the reviews for such-and-such a book all were rated with high marks? You believe ALL those reviews and therefore spend your own cash on a book and turns out you picked a book that was not at all like you expected. Wouldn't you have appreciated it if you had seen the reviews from everyone, which included the ones that didn't gush about it? (Now the FTC Guidelines are starting to trickle down to ethically minded bloggers and are notating in their reviews if they have received a review copy, but I guarantee you that family members will not be so up front).

I will say there are a few marketing/publishing companies that I have come across that specifically tell us if you don't like a book, that's ok! Their first priority is to garner the buzz for the book and everything will go towards building the author's brand. Those are the type of marketers I don't mind endorsing.

One of the publishers I currently review for specifically states this while pitching a book to me: "And let me assure you that I have no expectation for your reviews--if you don't like the book you received, feel free to review it negatively." I have no qualms about reviewing for this publisher because they are not going to censor my thoughts on the titles they offer for review, and yes, I still get offered future titles from them.

I understand the mantra if you have nothing nice to say don't say it at all. But we are talking about reviewing books that you were asked to review. Your compensation for your time, since most book bloggers do not get any form of compensation other than an Advance Reader's Copy (ARC), is the content for your blog. Many bloggers feel they review books as a service to their readers/followers/fellow bloggers. If there is something critical that needs to be pointed out about a book, why should I hold that back?

What's the point of reviewing if we are all going to crank out positive reviews for the rest of our lives? If you come to the blog of Burton Book Review absolutely KNOWING beforehand that EVERY SINGLE book you'll find here will get a good review, will you bother coming back? Or would you prefer a balanced review system, here and elsewhere? The point of reviewing a book is to give an honest review, not simply a positive review. Otherwise, aren't we all robots cranking out 'good' reviews?

In case you are wondering, yes, there was one time where I sent a book back to the publicist since I absolutely knew without a doubt that I could not stand the book. I made it to almost a halfway mark - taking me days to get there - and quite frankly I did not want to spend another minute of my life with it. The next reviewer loved it. Case in point, we are all different. If I am asked specifically to post a review on Amazon I will do so upon request, but I do not post all of my blogged reviews there. As book bloggers, we follow other bloggers knowing what to expect from that blogger: an honest review. When I might hate a book, others will love and gush about it. I am okay with it. What I'm not okay with is being told to only post reviews of titles that would receive at least three stars from me.

Fellow book bloggers, I am curious to know your thoughts on this. Do you only post positive reviews? Do you worry about offending an author while writing a critical review? Does that somehow unconsciously effect  how that review is worded?

How do you feel about being told what you can or cannot post?