« Markets in everything, philosophers' edition | Main | Nicholas Tabarrok, Guest Blogger »
In case you were wondering: free review copies
The regulators have spoken and they require disclosure. I would guess that about one fifth of the books reviewed here are advance review copies which I did not pay for. They were sent to me for free, by demons who wish to addict me. If am reviewing a book before its publication date, it is almost certainly an advance review copy, sent to me for free.
If I am reviewing a book past its release date, it is only rarely a free review copy. Very often I visit the free public library and walk away with ten or twelve books in my arms. Just this week I ordered two new books for $40 a piece and I would not have bought them otherwise, but for my desire to please MR readers with my timely reviews (which are forthcoming).
I hardly ever receive works of fiction. I am never sent toys or given free trips to Disneyland.
It is reported:
For bloggers, the FTC stopped short of specifying how they must disclose conflicts of interest. Rich Cleland, assistant director of the FTC's advertising practices division, said the disclosure must be ''clear and conspicuous,'' no matter what form it will take.
Beware! You have been warned in a clear and conspicuous manner that the demons control me and I do not in turn control the demons.
Addendum: You might wish to read Tyrone on free will. The real scandal is that we (possibly) live in a frozen four-dimensional space-time block and that the content of my reviews has been fully determined by the initial conditions of the universe.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 5, 2009 at 09:05 PM in Books, Law | Permalink
Comments
If I review this website, do I have to disclose that you sent me the electrons?
Posted by: Bill at Oct 5, 2009 9:07:29 PM
You should not be too critical of the FTC on this. "Unsolicited" endorsements are very powerful, and removing paid for endorsements, or employee endorsements, is a worthwhile exercise.
I don't know if you can get around having friends, though, do a review, but if you review, you should at least have used the product.
My wife, a reference libarian, recounts a presentation by Frommer on picking out places to stay. One of the Frommer children (who works with the dad) visited this place in Hawaii which received raves as the best B&B. The Frommer child couldn't understand how this place received so many reviews, but found out that the owner had her neighbors write reviews, getting her the highest rating in Hawaii for B&B. We should have to treat everything as caveat emptor. Sometimes rules help markets so that you can rely on information.
Posted by: Bill at Oct 5, 2009 9:12:43 PM
Bill -I have often wondered why small businesses don't hype themselves with on-line reviews. Given that opening yahoo and gmail accounts is free, it would be very easy to hype a B&B, a restaurant, whatever.
Posted by: liberalarts at Oct 5, 2009 9:20:47 PM
The initial conditions at the time of the Big Bang are responsible for the content of this comment.
Posted by: Franklin Harris at Oct 5, 2009 9:35:59 PM
What makes no sense about the new guidelines is that the FTC has admitted they likely won't be going after individual bloggers but instead after the advertisers themselves. Well how is that going to work? The blogger is the one in the position to make the disclosure.
Are companies going to be putting up notices on their websites that say "I know this is going to shock you, but we often give versions of our products for free to influential people. If you see someone mention it, we may have facilitated that."?
In other words, how could Harper Collins be held responsible for Tyler failing to disclose that they gave him the book?
Posted by: Ryan HolidAY at Oct 5, 2009 9:43:22 PM
At last, Tyler Cowen comes clean. Consorting with advance review copies! Socialist library cards! Holographic deterministic cosmologies! The scandal is out! (As are the exclamation points!
Posted by: Scott at Oct 5, 2009 9:46:29 PM
my in-laws give me a present each year on fathers' day. then i go and have sexual relations with their daughter. what should i have disclosed, to whom?
Posted by: babar at Oct 5, 2009 9:52:37 PM
I've read several books based on your reviews, but I'm pretty sure every one of them was from the library.
Posted by: Hillary at Oct 5, 2009 10:01:52 PM
oops, left out part of my post:
my in-laws give me a present each year on fathers' day. then i go and have sexual relations with their daughter. on occasion, this has conceived a child and caused the continuation of their genetic line and mine. what should i have disclosed, to whom?
Posted by: babar at Oct 5, 2009 10:04:55 PM
TC, the addendum is your best joke ever.
Posted by: ao at Oct 5, 2009 10:16:00 PM
What is the quid pro quo? More free books? I don't see the potential for conflict of interest unless the publishers are sending cash in between the pages or something.
Posted by: Paul N at Oct 5, 2009 10:16:48 PM
If those are demons, maybe I need to whack the angel off my other shoulder to make room for more of my own.
Anyway, if the content of your reviews has been fully determined, then so would be my complete lack of inclination to be scandalized. I'd apologize for disappointing, but...
Posted by: Kat at Oct 5, 2009 10:27:39 PM
Libraries aren't free; someone has to pay for the building and the books and the reference librarian salaries. But they're usually a very good investment by whomever pays the bill.
Full disclosure: I'm a librarian (university, not public) and while this may have been an inscrutable decree of God from before the creation of the world, I think it at least equally possible that human will was involved at some point.
Posted by: Tony Zbaraschuk at Oct 5, 2009 10:48:35 PM
Bill -I have often wondered why small businesses don't hype themselves with on-line reviews. Given that opening yahoo and gmail accounts is free, it would be very easy to hype a B&B, a restaurant, whatever.
The majority of reviews of locksmiths around here and everywhere else I've looked are clearly produced by bots or a person with very cheap time. It's bad enough that I wouldn't use a locksmith that has more than one or two reviews.
Posted by: Careless at Oct 5, 2009 10:49:21 PM
unless you posit something supernatural, it's gotta be determined (even if it's not predictable and there's some randomness in coin tosses at the quantum level, that just means things are determined by the initial state of the universe and lots of coin tosses you can't control (i'm willing to be there's no true randomness, but it doesn't change anything regardless).
Posted by: dj superflat at Oct 5, 2009 11:25:07 PM
Will your next time slice also have to disclose?
In posting this comment I acknowledge I get considerable psychic rewards, good book recommendations, a free education in economics and philosophy, and a facebook message from a former boss as compensation for my occasionally commenting and often encouraging my friends to read the commercial textbook-promoting outfit known as Marginal Revolution. Note that my results are not typical and other users with less free time to read every post or more distracted by the word 'immigration' will receive fewer benefits.
Posted by: DK at Oct 5, 2009 11:56:22 PM
I think it an important form of disclosure. Your readers have a right to far warning at times when your review may be influenced by a predisposition towards justifying your purchasing decisions.
Posted by: sleepy_commentator at Oct 6, 2009 2:18:32 AM
Well, isn't there an obvious difference between the preferences you reveal if you
(a) spend money on a product (presumably, after some process of comparing multiple products and in response to some realistic need) and then reveal the posterior judgment that this decision seems wise
versus
(b) someone sends you a product, for free, that you may or may not have ever wanted (and even if you may have wanted, you haven't put in the effort to truly compare...) and because you were in a good mood you say it was OK?
To the casual reader, who doesn't know which category your review fell under, isn't there a problem of assigning confidence? What am I missing in your expression of surprise?!
Posted by: Anonymous at Oct 6, 2009 5:16:33 AM
Disclosure: I have received money and services from the Federal government. Despite this, I still think it needs to be radically reduced in size and power.
Posted by: Laserlight at Oct 6, 2009 10:41:42 AM
You'd think the FTC has bigger fish to fry than worrying about blogger endorsements for books, cameras, and the like.
Posted by: Paul Johnson at Oct 6, 2009 1:49:56 PM
I would like to see Tyler AND Tyrone review Disneyland.
Posted by: anon at Oct 6, 2009 2:36:21 PM
Tyler, I could send you my adanced reader copies of Fiction books I get, but something tells me you're just not that into young adult fiction. Twilight excluded.
Posted by: Kate Treadway at Oct 6, 2009 5:59:58 PM
I believe they have.
Posted by: Lord at Oct 6, 2009 8:08:33 PM
While I'm normally very libertarian, let me play devil's advocate here. There are economist and law/econ blogs that post content authored by individuals who also happen to work for consulting firms that have taken on business to further specific firms' interests. It's possible that the authors of those posts are working on such consulting lobbying or litigation projects. Why is it not reasonable to say that those people should have to disclose that they are not merely disinterested academics, but that they are working to help someone play a certain angle? Yes, they absolutely can exercise their right to make money by helping someone obtain/protect rents. But why should they get to influence public opinion in a particular manner for a particular client by pretending to be disinterested academics? Are we also in favor of repealing statutes prohibiting false and misleading advertising (e.g. Lanham Act)?
Posted by: anon at Oct 7, 2009 11:47:01 AM
That disclosure is not good enough.
Or maybe it is. We'll let you know.
Or maybe we won't. You'll never know,
Unless we let you know, when we let you know.
Regards,
The Feds.
Posted by: guy in the veal calf office at Oct 12, 2009 10:07:50 PM
