Should “commercial activities” over blogs be regulated?
Recently, I opened up a round of discussion in Plurk to the question above and I am thankful for the generous feedbacks from those who participated. There were many points raised - although conflicting. As we know, there are no regulatory bodies in Singapore to oversee the rise of Web 2.0 companies. The blogging scene has become a free-for-all to some companies.
My other purpose is to raise some discussion of how to better the credibilities of bloggers and Web 2.0 companies. In such a small scene, the undesirable conducts are easily amplified and bring other legitimate companies down on their knees. Bloggers are no different, as per social networks and interest groups.
The first set of questions were;
1. Is there even a need for regulatory bodies?
2. Should product reviews have a set of guidelines?
3. If what we deemed as unethical business conducts in the real world adopts Web 2.0 approach, does going online mean it is any less unethical?
Some hidden interests of individuals I discovered during the past month tells me that we do indeed need a regulatory body. While I am not prepared to expose them openly, internet users and bloggers are unknowingly being misled through sophisticated networks which tell them nothing much about the hidden benefits. Opinions do change, when we know how a certain individual is promoting a certain service to us happened to be a shareholder compared to the opinions of another authentic customer without any vested interests.
Secondly, what legal redress can internet users seek when they realized they have been “duped” or “treated unfairly” online? When Associated Press issued legal demands to Rogers Cadenhead for the quoting of their news, Media Bloggers Association stepped in to help defend and mediate the clash. In stark comparison, this is precisely what’s lacking in Singapore.
The bloggers also came up with some counterpoints, all of which I agreed with;
A. How can bloggers, or readers at large, know of any vested interests of the promoter?
B. Regulating social media is counter-productive.
C. Sponsored product reviews may hurt Google Pagerank, and cause bloggers/promoters to hide their interests intentionally.
D. Some companies strictly enforce “positive-only” reviews.
There are a lot more considerations but I thought the above were the key essentials. As I had described to the participants, product reviews are only a part of the equation. There are also signups to social networking sites where personal data are being harvested and even sold on the basis of “the community”.
MDA once replied that they will be regulating the internet scene with a “light touch”. If there’s any regulatory bodies to govern such commercial activities, I believe that is the way to go. Despite the display of disclaimers, the lack of enforcement tells us that a disclaimer is just as good as a piece of well-written collateral. It serves no other purpose, because even in the event that a disclaimer had been breached, no formal sanctions will be brought forward against the offenders. In the real world, you would have been hauled into courtrooms for frauds or misleading advertising alike.
Some bloggers however, welcome some degree of regulation.
i. A set of protocols will be a good start.
ii. Bloggers and companies is to decide if they should hide their intentions and vested interests, and sacrifice their credibilities.
iii. Elsewhere out of Plurk, involve the major legal bodies, media associations, advertising and marketing boards to set ethical standards in the Web 2.0 realm.
The short discussion was only the tip of the iceberg. And it barely begun…
4 Comments on “Should “commercial activities” over blogs be regulated?”
Sure, a set guidelines can be crafted but does this set rules apply only to local products or internationally?
Bloggers have to take responsibility to review a product. For me, I’ll include a disclaimer and write honestly about that product. If it’s no good, then it’s no good. Readers are not blind and they know if you are talking sense or just review for the sake of money.
[Reply to this comment]
Hi Buny, thanks for sharing your thoughts. But still, that doesn’t stops people from giving it a run. Moreover, we are looking at mobs running down critics.
Hiya Ed
Interesting question. I can see you’re totally unafraid of walking in the twilighty grey area between light and dark. =p
I’ll give you a bit of a back-story from a traditional media point of view. I’ve been the editor of 3 magazines (2 in Singapore and 1 in Australia) and there is certainly always a pressure to “support the advertisers with editorial”. I think any press editor will tell you that that’s the case and I guess it will apply to TV and radio too. How far different magazines go with this “support” is a very tricky tightrope and centres around 1. The publisher’s policies and 2. The editor’s skill, experience and ethics.
If you take a look at the traditional media you read, you’ll see it happening all the time and in a number of different ways. Mens Health, for example, runs reviews, new product announcements and more for their advertiser’s products. Even Straits Times does it… and that’s further complicated by the fact that Straits Times itself has its fingers in all kinds of pies. So when the Abba show came to town, our national newspaper spent months stirring up Abbamania, interviewing Abba fans and generally giving us hype. Why? They sponsored the show and they had a vested interest in it succeeding. We don’t blink when Mediacorp announces that it is the “official partner” of a movie or event, but what does that mean? It means coverage/promotion/advertorial.
It would be easy to say that advertorial and product placement was dishonest… but here’s where the real grey kicks in… it’s often not. Quite often the people you deal with commercially are in your audience’s zone of interest (that’s why they are dealing with you), so they’re valid subject matter, and quite often they’re your quickest/easiest/best source of material. For example I worked in Australia for a health and lifestyle magazine. When I needed to do a gym photo shoot of course I contacted the gym that advertised with us. Why would I not when I had contacts within the company, they were a good gym and we had an established relationship? Notice how Straits Times uses Planet Fitness for theirs? Same thing.
In Singapore I’ve been editor of an entertainment magazine. If one of our advertisers was having an opening, a special event or whatever and they invited us then of course we would go, and we would splash photos from it on our “Seen Out” pages. I’ve been editor of a home renovation magazine here, and each month obviously we’re looking for renovated homes to shoot and feature. Our best source? All the interior designers who advertise with us of course… because we’re already in a conversation, already exchanging information.
Are these things bad? I don’t know, they’re just grey. In traditional media it is all usually linked to advertising or vested interest. A potential advertiser will take a series of ads if a salesperson can sweeten the deal with the offer of some editorial coverage. Or the publisher has an interest in some event or venture succeeding. In the self-publishing/blogging world it’s probably more to do with freebies. Is there a difference?
I think reputation and credibility ultimately self-regulate this practice. Editors are accutely aware that they need to find the legitimate/authentic positive angle. You can’t lie or fluff. You can’t say a movie is fantastic if it sucks. You can’t say a venue is romantic/happening/classy and the food is to die for if it’s a dump. But that’s not to say that an interview with the star of a film, or a talk with the chef of a restaurant about his plans or how he got started isn’t going to be interesting to your readers. If you lose your credibility then your audience will move on fast. Self publishing is the same I think. There are ways to pamper your commercial interests without sacrificing credibility and smart writers will find that “middle path”.
The problem with regulation is probably that:
1. It’s regulation, and we’re all living with far too much of that already. The net offers some freedom and creative space. Do we really need the nanny that’s looking over our behaviour everywhere else looking over it there too?
2. The issue at hand is incredibly grey. Where is the line drawn between “sponsored” and “unsponsored”?
3. It’s totally unenforcable
I think as in all media, you should consume with a grain of salt. Believe what you want to believe, trust what you want to trust, build your own network of reliable, credible information and if you step outside of that network step very carefully.
=) Marc
[Reply to this comment]
Hi Marc, thanks for the valuable insights.
To what I can remember, Singapore Press Holdings declare most of their sponsorships openly. I am not against vested interest, if anyone thinks along that route. I am more akeen (or disturbed if you’d like) looking at individuals who hides their vested interests.
When it comes to ethics, there is really no two ways about it. Especially in a realm of internet publicity where there are little rules now, more and more companies are taking advantage of the lack of rules.
The other thing is, I am also looking at bloggers with shareholdings in the companies that they are promoting on “personal grounds”. If done openly, I wouldn’t mind. But if intentionally hidden (for whatever purposes), consumers have reasons to doubt the ethical front. The scope is a lot bigger than just sponsored post. In fact, I can easily pin names and their respective companies up here.
For a matter of fact, some bloggers feel since they are not professional editors or journalists, they can do away with the ethics. I’m afraid, in my opinion, that is opening doorways to allow companies to continue misleading consumers. Freedom is not to be abused.