Loved the newsletter. One small clarification on the FTC point: you note that “it was pretty obvious to a lot of people following along that Citius was almost certainly being compensated.” That’s actually the key threshold the FTC uses.
Under the FTC’s Endorsement Guides, disclosure is required only when a material connection is not reasonably expected by the audience and could affect how they evaluate an endorsement (16 C.F.R. § 255.5). The FTC’s analysis is context- and audience-dependent, not a blanket requirement to disclose on every piece of content.
There seems to be a big mix of both. Based on people's reactions, there were clearly a lot of people who did not think it was obvious. And it almost certainly would not be obvious to people who see the content but don't follow the sport much.
I just wanted to acknowledge that as someone who does follow things closely and knows how the industry works, I was not surprised. And there are plenty of others in the same camp. But it was also not clear what was and wasn't sponsored.
If they're at a meet, hosting an officially-affiliated show, I'm going to assume they're probably being paid. But am I sure? No. (Especially since I learned that some people do live podcasts at expos for free.) And when they post about the meet on social media or write an article about it, it would be understandable to assume that's not sponsored if it's not specified. A partnership could mean getting big news first, not getting paid to promote that news. And people happening upon the content wouldn't necessarily know about the partnership at all.
"Reasonably expected" is a very subjective term, but based on the reaction last week, there were many avid fans who were quite surprised. Based on the reading I've done about how the FTC's policies have been applied in the past, they would apply to Citius' work with GST, too. People have been fined for far less. But if anyone with legal (or other relevant) expertise wants to refute that, I'm all ears.
I am not among the people who are most outraged by this, because I already considered Citius to be more PR than journalism, and I know how the industry works. But I am trying to understand the outrage. I think it's an industry-wide problem that probably wouldn't have upset people quite as much if there wasn't so much money involved.
Another great newsletter. Thanks for everything you have shared this year.
Loved the newsletter. One small clarification on the FTC point: you note that “it was pretty obvious to a lot of people following along that Citius was almost certainly being compensated.” That’s actually the key threshold the FTC uses.
Under the FTC’s Endorsement Guides, disclosure is required only when a material connection is not reasonably expected by the audience and could affect how they evaluate an endorsement (16 C.F.R. § 255.5). The FTC’s analysis is context- and audience-dependent, not a blanket requirement to disclose on every piece of content.
There seems to be a big mix of both. Based on people's reactions, there were clearly a lot of people who did not think it was obvious. And it almost certainly would not be obvious to people who see the content but don't follow the sport much.
I just wanted to acknowledge that as someone who does follow things closely and knows how the industry works, I was not surprised. And there are plenty of others in the same camp. But it was also not clear what was and wasn't sponsored.
If they're at a meet, hosting an officially-affiliated show, I'm going to assume they're probably being paid. But am I sure? No. (Especially since I learned that some people do live podcasts at expos for free.) And when they post about the meet on social media or write an article about it, it would be understandable to assume that's not sponsored if it's not specified. A partnership could mean getting big news first, not getting paid to promote that news. And people happening upon the content wouldn't necessarily know about the partnership at all.
"Reasonably expected" is a very subjective term, but based on the reaction last week, there were many avid fans who were quite surprised. Based on the reading I've done about how the FTC's policies have been applied in the past, they would apply to Citius' work with GST, too. People have been fined for far less. But if anyone with legal (or other relevant) expertise wants to refute that, I'm all ears.
I am not among the people who are most outraged by this, because I already considered Citius to be more PR than journalism, and I know how the industry works. But I am trying to understand the outrage. I think it's an industry-wide problem that probably wouldn't have upset people quite as much if there wasn't so much money involved.