Sooo how does this impact sites like Panbo or magazines like Practical Sailor where vendors ship their products to be tested without charging
PS or Panbo for the product. Would that not be considered "payment"? Perhaps PS ships some of the equipment
back after testing but then some manufacturers don't want it back. Could that create a "bias" to review more products by companies that let you keep the goods..? I don't know, just asking an honest question?
Do you think PS just chucks this stuff in the dumpster when they are done? Probably not, someone on the staff probably has that piece of equipment
on their boat and is getting use out of it somewhere. Payment for support? Hopefully not.... I don't see it that way but if the FTC does I do have an issue with that because PS brings good value... Where do you draw the line?
How about the "turn my stomach" rave reviews
in sailing rags when the customer is an advertiser? What about the automobile magazines? They are the worst at being "industry whores" and giving a product a rave review, with a wink and a nod, perhaps in return for continued revenue.
Why not go after companies already making unsubstantiated claims or the ones who intentionally mislead customers such as Dr. LED..? It seems we can't enforce the rules we already have in place if someone like Dr. LED can mislead thousands of boaters into believing all his Polarstar LED lights
are USCG certified when in fact only ONE BULB in ONE FIXTURE is... but I digress..
Yep lets add more BS because we can't even enforce the in-place rules we already ignore...