Open The Dialogue

As we reported on Monday, the Federal Trade Commission updated their compliance guidelines for the FTC Act, the first such update in 29 years.  While the changes do affect a few outdated rules the main goal of the document was to cleanly define what bloggers can and can’t do online.  The guidelines state:

The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that “material connections” (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other “word-of-mouth” marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service.

The need for these rules is clear and somewhat past due. As marketing becomes more conversation oriented, we need to protect consumers from unfair and unethical claims.  It is why we believe in transparency and the Blog with Integrity movement. Unfortunately I’m hesitant to embrace the guidelines as fully as blogs like Mashable have done. Specifically, I’m having trouble with three big issues:

1. Scope- The term blogger is being used very loosely here.  Under these guidelines blogs, Twitter, even Facebook fan pages could be under the discretion of the FTC. While I understand the need to tackle many web properties at once (since updates are infrequent), I don’t know if the best way to lump everyone in together.  Considering that anything that is considered a “material connection” could be scrutinized, how is everyone supposed to comply? How many people even know about these guidelines in the first place? And where do rating sites like Amazon or Yelp fit into all of this?
2. A Double Standard? –  Why are bloggers being singled out? As Jeff Jarvis points out, “The FTC also concedes that it treats critics at publications differently – less stringently – than bloggers.” Most bloggers don’t consider themselves journalists and don’t make their living reviewing things like some journalists do, but why compound the point and have two sets of rules. It just doesn’t make sense.
3. Enforcement- Eleven thousand dollars is a lot of money to most people and makes it seem like the FTC might be the “new” RIAA. Some fines will be covered by brands, but considering that these fines will be judged on a “case by case” basis, it is hard to guess where the first strike will land. Will a Twitter mention receive the same discretion as a blog post? Will the little guy get hit with large fines as much as the big fish?   With the FTC ‘s Richard Cleland telling book blogs to return books after reviews, how much will people need to disclose to avoid a potential fine? As much as this guy?

I think that the new guidelines are clearly a step in the right direction. With some additional edits and clarifications, this document could protect many consumers without hurting the online conversation.  However considering that this is the first update in almost 30 years, I think that the FTC should re-evaluate how their perception on how social media works.  Who knows maybe at the next update in 2038, we will see some real progress!

What do you think of the recent guidelines? Will it change how you blog?

Photo Courtsey of Robyn Gallagher.

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday I had the opportunity to listen-in on a webinar being presented by WOMMA about Ethics and Endorsements on today’s web.  Specifically, discussion surrounding best practices for disclosure (summary of reactions).  With the FTC’s regulations pending, the panel kicked-off WOMMA’s efforts to create an industry-wide set of standards and defenitions for marketers and communication professionals when it comes to disclosing brand involvement, affiliation, compensation, etc.

It was a solid panel and discussion presented by several big voices – John Bell, Jory Des Jardin, Sean Corcoran, Tom Collinger and Anthony DiResta.  Most of the discussion surrounded how different parties would approach disclosure – mainly marketers & brands vs. publishers.  Each panelist was able to offer unique perspective in relation to their background – especially POV from Mr. Collinger & DiResta, who spoke about the actual definitions and legal fortitude of disclosure.  Building legal language standards and definite explicit points of view for disclosure can help clarify confusion – especially for the consumer who, often, don’t have the history and background about a relationship a marketer or publisher has when they first click on that link.

John Bell was able to kick-off the panel with several practical points of advice for brands and influencers to work with whenever entering into a relationship where editorial opinion could be affected:

• Create terms of engagement for both parties – being clear and explicit about the terms of the program, make them public as well.
• Official agreement promising true opinion – to protect both the publisher, brand and most importantly, the reader.
• Disclosure execution – explicit explanations per post and on the greater property (i.e. blog, Twitter, etc.)
• Stick to your guns – show your readers that these set of ethics permeate throughout by adding notes in bio sections and aligning with organizations like Blog With Integrity or WOMMA

Jory and BlogHer’s standards for disclosure represented the best tactical examples on the panel but I think the true publisher voice was missing.  What about the people writing these posts and running these blogs?  Their perspective would’ve added valuable context to this discussion.  Certainly, how an author wants to and does handle affiliation on their property is a necessary piece to include when discussing relationships between brands and those whom they’re trying to influence (both the publisher and the publisher’s audience).

Since the webinar and sitting down to write this post I’ve had several healthy discussions with people who are both close and far from this subject.  With signs pointing towards sponsored conversations, how does that affect the value of engagement?  My colleague Laura and I would argue that outright sponsorship, even with proper disclosure, devalues a brand’s participation ROI.  In theory, an influencer’s audience is engaged for reasons that a sponsored conversation can’t support.  I’m most likely reading someone else’s blog because I value their opinion or perspective.  When I find out that they’re being paid to express such – credibility is lost (regardless of negative or positive opinion).

A full summary will eventually be live on WOMMA’s Ethics Review blog but, in the meantime, how do you feel about disclosure?  What are your standards?