Did recent post on FTG violate FTC rules?
 

So FTG has a post today about hertz that really reads like sponsered content - even sponsered is hidden in the URL - though not clear in the body

http://www.frugaltravelguy.com/2014/...neverlost.html

Unsurprisingly, comments were disabled :rolleyes:

And they have a tweet about it that reads:

Never ever ever (ever) get lost again with @Hertz NeverLost bit.ly/1riMNy9

Interestingly, the tweet never mentions it's sponsered ad content. I'm not a blogger, but I thought the FTC ruled that tweets like this (linking to ad and sponsered copy) need to be disclosed IN the tweet... And their in article disclosure may not have passed the mustard either

http://www.mediapost.com/publication...res-hasht.html

Can any bloggers/experts who know more about required disclosures chime in?

uh, then how do things like robb report not disclose?

also the entire existence of guerilla and viral marketing, especially via social media.

there were some great posts elsewhere on FT talking about how much paid media exists.

http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/fil...isclosures.pdf

Example 14 is pretty clear and probably applies in this case. Good luck getting it enforced, though. Example 21 is a great reminder to not bury the sponsorship disclosure at the end of the post.

Regardless of any law broken (and it appears that one is not because of the "brought to you by Hertz" disclaimer), this is just plain sleazy and disrespectful to your readers. On the page:

• Sponsored content
• Header banner
• Top banner
• Side banners
• Mid-content banners
• Right column banners
• Bottom right ad

With this, the only actual user generated content is the list of related posts. I've never seen anything quite like this.

That might've been automated, too. ;)

The author is listed as "Brought to you by Hertz" which is probably a legitimate alternative to putting "Sponsored" in the title. Never mind that the text is much smaller.

As for turning the comments off, I've been approached before about true sponsored posts, where I wouldn't get to write any of the content. It would just be handed to me and I'd publish it as-is. In those cases, it was made clear that the comments would need to be turned off. (FWIW, I didn't accept these offers.)

True, but the tweet did not identify it as sponsored content, which I'm pretty sure is an FTC no-no