Some mornings, I should stay in my pajamas. That’s because I contribute to the High Country News GOAT blog. And thanks to a recent anonymous White House source (“bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed”), I now know there’s a dress code for blogging.
But I wear the same outfit as I do when writing for the mainstream media — sneakers, blue-jeans, T-shirt — and the work seems pretty much the same.
The Federal Trade Commission sees a difference, though. The FTC has issued new rules about bloggers and product endorsements. If a blogger is getting paid to promote a product, the blogger must disclose that. And the payment doesn’t have to be in cash — it can be free merchandise.
So if I write here that “Fresh- ground Eight O’Clock Coffee is a tasty way to imbibe an addictive stimulant,” I would not have to disclose whether I was getting bribed. But if I were swilling free coffee and plugged it on the blog, I’d have to confess.
The free merchandise, according to the FTC, can also be something as normal as a review copy of a book. This is a bizarre construction of “payment.”
When I read a book review, on paper or online, I assume the reviewer got a free review copy. And if the reviewer is shilling the book (“Touching and sensitive hard-boiled detective story by the next Tolstoy . . . “), most of us can spot that without help from the FTC.
Further, I see some First Amendment problems here. What part of “no laws” don’t they understand?
Then again, there is an American talent for sneaking commerce into other zones.
Back in the 1950s, there was the “payola” scandal. Some disk jockeys played certain songs, not because they had a good beat or plaintive lyrics, but because the DJs were getting paid to promote those tunes. Or they had a financial interest in the song.
Then there’s “product placement.” It’s been around for a while. From 1965 to 1974, there was a TV drama called “The F.B.I.” The good guys drove Fords; the bad guys drove other makes. Guess what? The show was sponsored by Ford.
Now it’s seeping into TV news with a paid placement of a McDonald’s coffee cup on a Denver morning show; Joanne Ostrow wrote a fine article about the trend in last Sunday’s Post.
For the record, I’ve yet to encounter a company that wants me associated with its products, though I did get a freebie I liked, a T-shirt with a big marijuana leaf and the message “Make sense, not war.”
One of my daughters wore it to school on “Drug Awareness Day,” which got her a trip to the office and me a phone call from the principal. I told him she would be in trouble when she got home — for wearing my shirt without permission. He said he didn’t like my attitude, and I told him the feeling was mutual.
Back to coffee. We drink Eight O’Clock, not because of bribery, but because it’s the cheapest brand of whole-bean stuff. But why do whole beans cost so much more per pound than the ground stuff in a can?
During the Civil War, Union soldiers were issued ground coffee at first, but the suppliers added cheaper stuff like sawdust, corn meal and roasted chicory. So the army switched to whole beans that couldn’t be adulterated.
I certainly hope that’s not why ground coffee is cheaper. But it does show why we need a Federal Trade Commission — one that pays attention to real problems, not whether bloggers are failing to disclose that they got review copies of books.
Ed Quillen (ekquillen@gmail.com) of Salida is a freelance writer and history buff, and a frequent contributor to The Post.
