Mind, I'm not opposed to making the freebie bloggers fess up, just thoroughly cynical as regards this kind of small scale "dishonestly won't be tolerated" cr*p. It's tolerated just fine if you are GE or Merrill or Coca Cola spewing legally vetted cr*p on the air or through spokepersons on talk shows or by proxy on social networking sites. There's a way to do things, mommyblogger, and your biggest crime (besides selling out for trinkets) is your low and crass lack of sophistication.

Simple, the people writing the stories are downstairs in the newsroom.

The people who sell the ads are upstairs in offices.

The people who put the ads on the air are in master control.

None of these people talk to each other (master control gives us time cues but that's about it).

Also, occasionally the sales office will sell something within the show, for example we have McDonald's mugs on the set in front of the anchors. You'll know if something has been sold because a lower third font will appear at the end of the show featuring a "promotional consideration brought to you by..." disclaimer. We put the mugs on the set, then we run a health block story about how McDonald's fries will kill your heart. They paid us to put mugs on a desk, not to gloss over their foibles.

It's really easy to play the conspiracy game but the truth is the people who do the news hate ads just as much as you the viewer, but we have to live with them. No choice.

And PS we also hate running stupid hollywood fluff stories, and if they weren't so popular we could leave them out!

@MollyAuden: I guess it just depends on what kind of consumer you are. I tend to think the way I mentioned above, where if it costs more it better perform like the price would be justified. If it doesn't then I will be more likely disatisfied with something.

I could see your point being the case, that when things have a higher price there is a perceived notion of luxury tied to the item. My great uncle used to own and run a matress store, and sometimes an affluent customer wouldn't buy a paticular matress because they thought it was cheaply made due to the price. He learned this and took the price tags off of the matresses and used his judgement as to what price to offer the customer. He made the matresses so he knew what value they really had. It may not be the most "fair" thing but he ran the business for a really long time, and now his sons own it.

I think by December 1st there will be those who self police and give transparency to whether or not the item(s) reviewed are indeed freebies or paid for by the company.

Then there will be those who take it upon themselves to police these reviewers. Funny how shame can still be effective.

But like anything new there will always be a gold rush with a very few at the top with most of the gold and fewer and fewer individuals eaking a living (or not). I saw it happen with tech review sites. Sure there are plenty of them and some dedicated to just one area, but you can tell first hand those who are in the pockets of the companies they review and those who are more critical.`

Our policy is to review without regard to price, largely because it's a pretty price-consistent field (trade books) and our professional audience doesn't buy based on individual price variations. I'd have to think about it if I ran into a serious outlier, though.

I would also agree that that's just human, and disclosure pretty much solves the problem in reviewing so that readers are informed and aware.

The larger point is that while they took it to extremes, most publishing companies def. do cater to their advertisers one way or another.

Look at all the all the "buy this hot product" spreads in any beauty mag. It's all unlabeled advertorial.

Because now what is on any blog is up for suspicion. The new regulation is something at least. Marketing departments know no lows.

This is pretty standard. Most journalists I know wouldn't work for an organization that didn't do this.

And isn't that how Consumer Reports does their stuff anyway? They purchase it all-no freebies?

Disclosure is key. I think reviewing things fairly that you get for free is tough anyway because when you pay money for something (and how much you pay for it) has weight on the value you think it has. If you pay a lot for something and it doesn't work as well as you expect for that price, it will effect your opinion of it. But if you get it for free it is easy to say that it's awesome because hey, you didn't pay for it so the value for you is really good.

A big part of reviews for me is if the reviewer thinks that the product is worth the price they paid.

I actually use to have a "Mommy Blogger" that I use to enjoy reading. She was funny and had alot of stories that even I, as a man, could relate to. Then she got more popular, then got a book deal. The stories stopped and the blog get a husband bashing attitude.
I stopped reading.

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): I loved the freebie table. I got a ton of books that way. Also, lots of awesome DVDs.

@AthronofEryndor: If you knew the kind of things I got extra, you'd know there was no influence there. I got a baseball hat one time, a PR book about the game (which got tossed) and all sorts of things that got thrown into the freebies pile. Just cause you give me a baseball hat doesn't mean your game sucks less.

The social norm of reciprocity has been demonstrated to operate in a variety of conditions, often below the explicit awareness of the individual. The same can be said for ingratiation. I'm not calling you out as a bad or unethical person, I'm just saying you are human, like we all are.

And that's sort of the problem, we need disclosure because it needs to be up to the consumer, not the writer, to judge if their evaluation may have been compromised.

Just how much give and take there is between sales and editorial can vary, but I have had sales reps actually review/edit my stories at one company in order to make sure I was covering the topic in a way that would highlight a key advertiser.

Both also post when they do a donation purge and where the stuff's been donated.

I don't think small quantities of consumables are out of line for Mommy Bloggers. There is a line somewhere between reasonable samples for review and bribery.

Bloggers with media backgrounds are typically fairly upfront about items received for review (and often draw the line at a certain point on freebies and junkets), but bloggers without that knowledge are sometimes upfront, but sometimes very unethical ... and there's no one to warn them, stop them, or even out them for being unethical.

Say, did I ever mention how much I think that [www.teslamotors.com] is going to revolutionize the auto industry. Who would have thunk a few years ago that we could have an electric vehicle that would be considered a sports car, and now they are coming out with more moderately priced vehicles for the more average consumer. Wow, what a great company!

Ok, In all seriousness, no donations from Tesla Motors were received as a condition of this post, but if they would like to hand me the keys to a Roadster, I would become a very big supporter of theirs, and I would even do something drastic and life altering, like changing my Consumerist avatar to the Tesla Logo. I would even b willing to drive up to NJ to take SteveDave for a ride in his labcoat. Think of the publicity Tesla! ;-)

When you're getting consumables -- food, diapers, formula, clothing -- that's actually saving you money, and you're not a food critic or a fashion writer, but a parent ... that's a little more troubling, both because you're receiving a real monetary benefit from the company and because you're not known as a reviewer of the product type in question.

All I ask is for people to be honest with their reviews. For example, I tell people about Invisible Shield all the time. Yes, I get a discount for using them and promoting them...but only do so because I believe in the product. I write the things I find annoying as well, but I always make sure that people know that I have a marketing relationship with them.

But I also tell them that I wouldn't recommend it if I didn't use it myself.

Mommy-bloggers are the most conceited entitled group I've ever seen. I was working at a friend of mine's craft shop in WV when he took his wife on a vacation. Twice in that period I had "bloggers" try to blackmail me into free/discounted items in exchange for not giving me a bad review. Then in another gig I had someone actually tell me they worked for the consumerist while trying to get an undeserved refund.

Oh please, econobiker. I've worked as an editor for magazines I bet you and almost everyone here has read, and that's just bullsh!t. Even in this economy, the monthly magazine I work for works really hard to make sure that doesn't happen. And, you know, I bet you can't provide any examples. C'mon, just one.

I'm not saying it never happens. During the first Reagan recession, I walked out of a job interview when the editor told me they did favor companies that advertised. That was a quarter of a century ago and I haven't encountered it since. It's that rare: It exists almost entirely in your mind.

And I'm not sure what your point is. That bloggers should be able to get away with product placement? Are the new rules that two wrongs make a right, or are you rejecting the notion that ethics are rules all media, new and old, should follow?

I have read quite a few 'mommy' blogs, and the minute they start in with the giveaways and talking about products for no reason, I stop reading and clicking, and move on to another blog.

No, I don't want to enter your contest or giveaway. That is not the reason I read your blog in the first place.

FWIW, the editorial/advertising relationship is pretty variable from industry to industry and periodical to periodical; in ours, we don't know who runs ads at the time we're producing the editorial content, for instance.

I used to do video game and media reviews, and I would get a lot of stuff coming to my cubicle. I never let it sway my reviews, but I could tell that some companies would pile on the swag just to try.

And this is different from old line media journalism reporter junkets how?

Were/are reporters not supposed to accept items due to their company's policies? But it was ok that the owners of the brands/products would spend money on advertising in the newspaper, magazine, tv spots versus actually funneling product directly to the article writer?

Ever see a magazine with an article promoting some class or type of product that then had a full page advert on the opposite page for a company selling that same product?

Interesting.