Tuesday, October 06, 2009

FTC requires full disclosure

The Federal Trade Commission adopted a new rule requiring bloggers to disclose any products or services they've used that have been provided without charge by the manufacturers. One news story described it as a form of payola - touting products because there's money on offer.

I can state unequivocally that there have been no paid product endorsements here on CycleDog, not that I'm opposed to it, mind you, but because no one has offered me money. (Except for the Brazilian supermodel who wanted me to father her child, but that doesn't count. Come to think of it, she couldn't count any higher than ten, either.)

This brings up an interesting question, however, one that the FTC may have over looked. I've noticed that some of the glossy magazines, not necessarily just cycling magazines, will have a product review on one page and a full page advertisement for said product on the facing page. This is not payola, of course, it's merely a coincidence. Yep, sheer chance.

So let's be perfectly clear. I have never accepted money from Adidas, Bianchi, Campagnolo, Dahon, Eisentraut, Fuji, Giant, Holdsworth, Italvega, Jamis, KHS, Lynskey, Masi, Novara, Orbea, Pinarello, Quintana Roo , Raleigh, Shimano, Tommasini, Univega, Van Dessel, Waterford, etc. However, it they want to throw some my way, I won't complain. Not me. But they should realize that by mentioning their names in such an influential blog as CycleDog, I'm guaranteeing them a place in the New World Order once all the CycleDog followers take over the world.

It's what we live for. And once we're in power, the FTC will have to kowtow to me! Well, us...uh...somebody.



Blogger Steve A said...

I notice SRAM and Huffy are both conspicuously absent from the list of companies that you have never accepted money from. One high end and one low end?

What's more, I notice that cYcLe dOg and paYOLa have not one, not two, but THREE letters in common. Eerie...

10:06 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home