A Moab Kind Of Weekend

22 Responses to “A Moab Kind Of Weekend”

1. Mike Miller October 5th, 2009 10:30 am

   all hail the majesty of “petrotainment”! really, what would the outdoors be without a motor and some gasoline? it’d be awful!

   very depressing lou.

2. Dave October 5th, 2009 12:04 pm

   Hi Mike, I hope you are one of the few that bike to Moab whenever you visit (or bike to CO if you live you moab:) , b/c otherwise you’re using a bit of petro yourself. #justsayin

3. Tuck October 5th, 2009 12:13 pm

   Dave, very funny. I’m sure Mr. Miller’s never been in a plane in his life.

4. Dave Field October 5th, 2009 12:15 pm

   Looks like a nice weeknd with a balance of muscle power and rumble bee fun.

5. shoveler October 5th, 2009 12:47 pm

   Looks like pretty reasonable fun to me, especially the drive up to Dead Horse which is truly one of the cool things to do when you go Moab.

6. Matt Bunn October 5th, 2009 1:26 pm

   Lou,
   Thanks for the update. I was worried we were not going to see Rumble Bee in action this summer. Thanks for not disappointing! Right now is a great time to visit Moab, you are correct on the endless opportunities for all recreation levels. From great hikes to insane bikes, truck, dirt bike and the new Ranger toys, Moab has it all.

7. Michael October 5th, 2009 2:44 pm

   Lou, I saw that the FCC just passed a disclosure law for bloggers to reveal freebies or payments from companies whose products are reviewed. Your positions always seem well thought out and I enjoy reading your perspective on things and I was wondering what you thought about the new regulation.

8. Lou October 5th, 2009 3:07 pm

   Hi Michael, I’ll have to look into that. I hope it doesn’t require me having to hire an attorney to figure it out. Meanwhile, I’m always happy to share that we’d never accept cash for a blog, but we do end up with some of the gear we review, much of which we eventually return but some which we keep and use long-term. Since our general policy is to most often review stuff we like, I’ve never been too concerned about the ethics of all this, but I guess now I’ll have to make sure we’re legal. Typical government meddling, if you want my opinion. Sigh.

   All that said, it looks like they might be talking about “endorsements” rather than more in-depth reviews. So we’ll see if there is any hair splitting involved in this.

   Wow, I wonder how many bloggers will comply with this? It’ll probably punish the medium to larger sized blogs, and ignore the smaller ones. Again, typical government stuff that I have an amazing amount of free time to deal with. :angel:

9. Colin in CA October 5th, 2009 4:49 pm

   Michael,

   You have a link for that new FCC rule? I’m curious as to how it applies.

10. Clyde October 5th, 2009 5:04 pm

    FTC not FCC. They will target the advertisers, not the bloggers, and only if the “review” is totally bogus.

11. Mark W October 5th, 2009 5:43 pm

    Nice Jeep the Rumble Bee is. Please don’t roll that buggy!

12. Mike Miller October 5th, 2009 11:29 pm

    Dave,

    Let’s say you have a friend. One night you decide to punch your friend in the face.

    Does that mean you should punch your friend in the face a second time?

    #justsaying

    #IusetwitterhashmarksasmuchaspossibletogivetheimpressionthatI’mcoolandtrendy

13. Colin in CA October 6th, 2009 12:54 am

    Clyde,

    This NYT article implies things other than what you just stated: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/business/media/06adco.html

    The new rules don’t seem to require much, other than simple disclosure to readers. I’ll look up the rule itself when I have the time.

14. Lou October 6th, 2009 7:06 am

    Sounds like Mike is still depressed. Ah, the power of blogging. :angel:

15. Clyde October 6th, 2009 10:42 am

    The rules only apply to amateur bloggers. Safe to say that Lou qualifies as a professional gear reviewer, as do I.

    http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/ftc-bloggers/

    From another article:
    “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…..
    To placate such fears, Cleland said the FTC will more likely go after an advertiser instead of a blogger for violations. The exception would be a blogger who runs a “substantial” operation that violates FTC rules and already received a warning, he said.”

    I suspect the IRS will also be paying rapt attention to who is disclosing “free” gear.

16. dave downing October 6th, 2009 11:58 am

    Mike. You shouldn’t use hash tags all the time. I know I certainly don’t, it gets obnoxious.

    Regarding your question. You shouldn’t punch your friend a second time, but they will probably punch you in the face at least once.

17. Michael October 6th, 2009 12:40 pm

    Colin in CA-The NYT article is how I heard about it. I haven’t read the actual rule

18. Cory October 6th, 2009 1:37 pm

    More on (moron) the FTC ruling:
    http://tinyurl.com/yazl33o

19. Lou October 6th, 2009 3:27 pm

    Cory and all, PLEASE use tinyurl.com for web addresses that are more than a few characters.

20. Lou October 6th, 2009 3:44 pm

    This whole thing appears to be patently ridiculous. I mean, how will they EVER enforce it to the degree where it has any benefit? They have to create a whole office building full of web surfers just to read 1/2 the stuff that’s published every 6 hours on the web!

    Blog credibility should be the result of the blogger’s reputation and track record, not some government harassment that can easily be avoided or just plain ignored.

    At any rate, we’ll research this and make sure we comply as it sounds like they’re going to be gunning for folks to make examples of.

    Just so typical. Sigh.

21. Colin in CA October 6th, 2009 7:07 pm

    Thanks for the clarification Clyde and Cory. It sounds like all somebody like Lou (or Clyde) would have to do is say something like, “This product was provided to WildSnow.com by Company X for testing purposes. WildSnow.com received no monetary compensation to endorse this product, although we are allowed to keep it for testing purposes and further personal use. Company X’s advertisements on WildSnow.com are funded independently of this review and whether this review is positive or negative has no bearing on Company X’s advertisements.” (Although I suppose if a product was lackluster you just wouldn’t bother writing a review of it.)

    Would you even need to put that on every review? I would think that you could just put it at the bottom of your homepage unless the text is situational depending on the specific product.

22. Colin in CA October 6th, 2009 7:09 pm

    Nevermind… just read Clyde’s link and had only read the other one. Disregard that ^^^.

Got something to say?

Name (required)

Email Address (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Speak your mind

Anti-Spam Quiz: What substance do we ski on?

Due to comment spam we moderate most comments. Please do not submit your comment twice -- it will appear shortly after we approve it. Once you've had one comment published, your comments will be pre-approved and appear immediately if you're using the same computer and not blocking browser cookies. NOTE however that ALL comments with one or more links in the text will be held for moderation no matter what, again for spam prevention.