Marketing Roadmaps

Blog with Integrity

Professional Blogging For Dummies (my book), bad pitches and news from Liberty Mutual’s Responsibility Project

by

Professional Blogging For Dummies will be in your local bookstore by the end of the month! Hard to believe it’s only been a year since I first met Dummies Acquisitions Editor Amy Fandrei at BlogHer.

Speaking of which, I will be signing copies at the BlogHer bookstore in New York next month, but I’m not sure of the day/time yet. I’ll also be speaking at the Pennsylvania Governor’s Conference for Women (Pittsburgh, 10/14), the Texas Conference for Women (Houston, 11/10) and the Massachusetts Conference for Women (Boston 12/9), and I think they will be organizing a book signing at those venues as well.

Professional Blogging For Dummies was written to help individuals and small business owners develop a blog  to generate revenue directly or support their small business. There’s a whole section just on monetization.  That said, I think anyone with a blog or considering starting one — even if they aren’t focused on revenue generation — would benefit from the chapters on strategy, planning, development and design. Plus, the book is chock full of case studies and interviews with successful bloggers.

It’s the silly season for bad pitches

Last week, I told you about a marketing agency that sent me a press release offering expert commentary on celebrity use of social media. Because that’s what I write about, right? Clearly they aren’t reading my blog, or they would not have sent me this week’s release offering their services as a source on “how social media monitoring tools can be used to track weather patterns.”

I kid you not. Here’s the money quote:

“Everyone is talking about how hot it has been lately, especially on Twitter,” [name redacted], chief optimism officer and founder of [name redacted] said. “By analyzing keywords like ‘hot’ and ‘heat,’ our social media monitoring tools, in addition to our social media team of experts, have found a correlation between what people are saying on social networks, and actual weather patterns.”

Really? It’s actually hot in those places that people are talking about how hot it is? I never would have thought of that without your press release. One more of these silly releases crosses my desk and I will invoke the Bad Pitch Blog‘s “three strikes and you’re out-ed” rule.

Other gems from my inbox this week included a request to post a video link of some chef making ceviche and a press release about a self-published book of nude photographs by (not of) some dude who created a series for Playboy TV.

And then there was the social network that offers to let me share my dreams with the people I care about. I cannot make this stuff up:

Have you ever wondered if anyone had a similar dream to one that you had, or which celebrity is most dreamed about? Did you know that global news events impact dreams in a tangible way, and that millions of people are already sharing their dreams with others? There is a good chance that your readers at Marketing Roadmaps are thinking about it as well.

So readers, tell me. Are you interested in this? I’m thinking not, but… Maybe this social network has mined your dreams and this is what you want from a blog about marketing, social media and best practices. Please advise.

Now I know I’m not the only one getting ridiculous pitches this summer. I’m actually lucky. Mine are funny, not offensive.

Alas, that was not the experience of my friend Allison Blass. Allison has type 1 diabetes and often writes about the disease on her personal blog  Lemonade Life. Professionally, she’s a PR person and regularly reaches out to bloggers on behalf of her clients, so she’s not opposed to getting pitches to her personal blog.  But she wants them to be relevant. If the pitch angle is about diabetes, the product had really better be for diabetics. Not simply a diabetic “gloss” on a consumer product intended to make it seem relevant to her blog. For example, the pitch she recently received for  a water filter.

Allison mentioned the pitch on Facebook and at my request, forwarded it to me. There were two basic problems with the pitch. First, as noted above, the product is a water filter. It isn’t something special for diabetics. Linking it to diabetes was just a hook. Worse, the basis the company used to link the product to diabetes didn’t sit well with Allison, who was diagnosed as a child and is very active in the diabetes community. When Allison called the rep on her facts, the PR rep got defensive and then a bit offensive. And that’s problem number two.

When the blogger or reporter says “this isn’t for me and you have all your facts wrong,” think twice about engaging. Most of the time, it’s better to apologize and move on to someone more receptive. Hard to do, especially if it’s a writer you really want to reach, but probably a better tactic than getting into a pissing contest with the person.

And pay attention to the objections. It doesn’t matter what YOU the company know. Success is in the customer’s perceptions. Reach out to them on their terms, not yours. If they think your pitch is a bit dodgy, it is. Period.

News from Liberty Mutual’s Responsibility Project

I first learned of Liberty Mutual’s Responsibility Project last year when its PR Agency reached out to me because of Blog With Integrity. I’ve since written about the project, attended a teleconference interview with Chuck star Zachary Levi about a short film he directed for the Project as part of a partnership with NBC, and will be attending a pretty cool (private) event next month the day before BlogHer. That’s the disclosure.

Here’s the opinion.

I’m not a customer of Liberty Mutual’s insurance products so I can’t offer an opinion about them. However, I am a customer of its message about responsibility, and they have done some admirable work.  The new TV commercial is excellent and makes a strong point about the need to “do the right thing.” A message that has value no matter who you are or how you are insured.

As the parent of a 10-year old, I also appreciate the attention Liberty Mutual is paying to issues like texting, online safety and personal responsibility for teenagers. The latest initiative is “Responsibility Project For The Win,” an essay contest for teens to encourage them to contribute to their communities over the summer. The five winning essays will be featured on the Responsiblity Project website and the company will make $500 donations to non-profits selected by the winners.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Travel blogs, ethics and the FTC endorsement guidelines

by

IMG_8919This past weekend, I was in New York for the Travel Blog Exchange conference (TBEX). The primary reason I attended the conference was to represent Blog With Integrity on a panel about blogging ethics, but I also got some great tips and ideas for my somewhat neglected travel blog, Snapshot Chronicles Roadtrip.

This year, I’ve spoken at a number of conferences about integrity, disclosure and the FTC endorsement guidelines. In most cases, the audience doesn’t know very much about the guidelines beyond whatever version of the urban myths are circulating within the community. This is of course why the conference organizers invite Blog With Integrity and usually someone from the FTC and/or a lawyer.

The travel community  was grappling with the ethical issue of sponsored trips  well before the guidelines were revised last year. Travel bloggers are very passionate about ethics and receptive to the approach of best practices — disclosure policies that go beyond what the FTC minimally requires. In fact, many travel blogs already have published policies.

During the Q&A on Sunday, it was clear that the attendees wanted to comply with the FTC requirements,  but they were struggling a bit with exactly what had to be disclosed and how.

And then I had an “Aha” moment. Hard to believe that after all I have written about this topic for more than a year, there would be something I hadn’t thought of, but lo and behold, there was.

I broke it down to a simple equation for disclosure, which seemed to clear things up for a lot of the bloggers at TBEX.

Endorsement + Compensation = Disclosure Required

How to disclose

The best way to disclose to meet the FTC guidelines is within the post that contains the endorsement: “I was privileged to be hosted by…” “I was thrilled at the opportunity to take a trip to (place) courtesy of (sponsor).” And so on. It is not sufficient to disclose in your disclosure policy or About page.

However, I recommend that you also have  a disclosure & editorial policy on your page:

  • to let your readers know what they can expect on your blog, especially casual readers or folks that find you through a search engine, and
  • to inform marketers and PR people about your interests so they contact you with relevant, appropriate offers.

Relationships and SWAG

Another key point Mary Engle from the FTC and I both stressed on Sunday was the relationship between the marketer and the blogger. If the marketer is reaching out to specific bloggers with sponsored trips and free products, there is a compensated relationship that must be disclosed. If 300 bloggers all get identical SWAG (stuff we all get) at a conference, the reason they received it was as a member of a group, not as an individual. There is no relationship between the marketer and a blogger who got the SWAG. This is still true if distribution of the SWAG is managed using a list of bloggers at the conference entitled to receive it. A list doesn’t create a relationship. Communication between people creates a relationship.

That said, of course, you know my mantra — disclose anyway. The company that provided an item relevant enough that you decide to write about it deserves the props for supporting the conference SWAG bag.

Bloggers, journalists

A touchy subject was the idea that travel bloggers are being held to a higher standard than travel writers for mainstream media who don’t have to disclose. I’ve written about why the FTC doesn’t require disclosure from mainstream journalists many times, and won’t rehash it all again. The brief version is that it’s about the consumer reading the item, not the person writing it. If the consumer would understand that the endorsement was compensated  — in the case of a journalist, by his salary and probably the subsidy of his paper for the trip,  no further disclosure is required.

The predominant sentiment at the conference was that mainstream journalists should be required to disclose as well. I agree. Disclosure is a best practice, full stop, regardless of your publishing channel.

However, I reject the opposite argument, which wasn’t offered by the TBEX audience, but I’ve read elsewhere — if mainstream journalists don’t have to do it, why should bloggers? That’s grabbing the stick from the very wrong end.

I also think it’s counter-productive to worry too much about others. Focus on what you need to do to connect with your readers, provide them good information and entertaining writing, and be honest about any business relationships you have. Compensation or free product may not change your opinion or writing one little bit, but you have to let the reader make that call for herself. You shouldn’t attempt to do it for her.

Twitter?

How to disclose on Twitter always comes up during ethics panels, and Sunday was no exception. It’s also a bit more complex for travel writers taking sponsored trips, as opposed to someone reviewing a single product. A trip occurs over a period of time, and there are only 140 characters. If part of every tweet has to have a disclosure, the tweetstream would get pretty dull.

Mary Engle made an important clarification for us. You have to disclose that the trip was compensated or the product was free in tweets containing the endorsement of the sponsor/advertiser. When you are tweeting about something unrelated to the sponsor — for example,  your experience at a local museum or farmers’ market, there’s no need to disclose because you are not endorsing the sponsor.

Here’s my advice.

  • Start your trip with a tweet acknowledging the sponsor (and linking to a post on your blog with more details if you have one)
  • Be sure to disclose in some fashion in any tweets endorsing the sponsor: “I love my room at the Aruba Marriott #sponsor” “The beach at host hotel Swanky Resort is pristine.”
  • If the trip spans multiple days, make sure you have at least one tweet per day that discloses that your trip is sponsored and by whom. The easiest way to do this is to spread out your endorsements of the sponsor 🙂
Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thoughts on the FTC investigation of Ann Taylor LOFT blogger event

by

So many things queued up to write about, including last week’s New Comm Forum, a slew of bad pitches that folks have forwarded over the past few months (Douches, Snakes and Brand Ambassadors) and a great visit to the Dana Farber Cancer Institute yesterday to learn more about the Jimmy Fund.

But the FTC went public this week with the results of its first investigation under the new endorsements and testimonials guidelines, and that news trumps the other (more evergreen) topics.

As reported in Ad Age, the FTC investigated an event held by Ann Taylor LOFT in January to launch its summer collection. The company invited bloggers to attend a special preview of the collection; those that posted about the event within 24 hours were entered into “mystery gift-card drawing” with a value between $50 and $500. (More about the event on Jezebel: February 3, April 28)

Reported Ad Age:

The event and the unusual request for posts to be submitted for a prize received media scrutiny and caught the eye of the FTC. “We were concerned that bloggers who attended a preview on January 26, 2010 failed to disclose that they received gifts for posting blog content about that event,” Mary Engle, the FTC’s associate director-advertising practices, wrote in a letter dated April 20 to Ann Taylor’s legal representation.

According to the article, the FTC decided not to take further action because it was a single event, only a small number of bloggers participated (and some disclosed) and Ann Taylor subsequently adopted a written policy for blogger outreach.

This is exactly what the FTC said it planned to do all along. Its focus would be on advertisers, not individual bloggers, and the initial investigations would likely result in warnings, not indictments.

Taking the step of pursuing an action in the courts is a long expensive process. The harm to the public has to be pretty significant to merit the cost, especially if satisfaction can be obtained more efficiently, as it was here.  I suspect an uncooperative Ann Taylor might have resulted in a different outcome.

What can we learn from this?

The guidelines are intended to prevent deceptive advertising practices. The media may love the (erroneous) idea that the FTC is “cracking down on bloggers,” as Ad Age repeated again in this week’s article, but reality is, the larger burden is on the companies, not the individuals.  The FTC expects the company — the advertiser — to provide guidance to its WOM agents about the requirements. In the Ann Taylor case, there wasn’t much guidance.

While it isn’t covered in the Ad Age article, there was also an element of confusion in the event that probably concerned the FTC. This is entirely speculation on my part, but it’s a fairly informed one.

Basically, if you write about a company or product and subsequently get a gift, you aren’t required to disclose the gift. Unless of course you write about the company again. Further, if you win a sweepstakes or get a product in a swag bag, you don’t really have a material relationship with the advertiser. Your receipt of the product is random. Best practices may dictate disclosure but the endorsement guidelines do not.

Here we have a gift contigent upon a post. That’s compensation, albeit a little ugly. Not a gift. Disclosure required. But confusing.

This is compounded by the contest-like element of the mystery gift card drawing, which makes it look a bit like a sweepstakes. Except not really. Everyone who wrote a post got a gift card, and you had to get the initial invitiation to participate.  Relationship and compensation. Disclosure definitely required.

Bottom line, just a messy confusing campaign all around. Confusion for bloggers about whether they need to disclose, and little guidance from the company on the requirement. Confusion for consumers, because they don’t have the information they need to evaluate the blog posts.

The lesson for companies: Keep blogger outreach programs simple and easy to understand. Provide guidance and training to your word-of-mouth agents. And your employees, especially the ones charged with developing and executing social media programs.

The lesson for bloggers: Think twice about working with companies that don’t inform you that you need to disclose. Push back if you aren’t getting the information or support you need. Also, unrelated to this case specifically, but general advice: read agreements carefully. While I do not think companies can push their liability onto you, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some tried. That’s just a mess you don’t want to get into.

What I highly advise you to NOT take away from the Ad Age article

A lawyer interviewed in the Ad Age article speculated:

“They’re [the FTC] probably throwing a little fire-starter into it, sending some messages out. The message this time is somewhere between $50 and $500 requires a disclosure.”

My head about to explode. I can just see this quote spawning a new urban legend that there is a minimum and maximum value that the FTC will look at, vis disclosure and enforcement. No no no no no. Compensation is compensation. $5 or $5000. Products or cash.

When in doubt, disclose. There’s never too much information when it comes to informing the consumer. You know. Us.

Eleven Urban Myths about the FTC Guidelines for Endorsements & Testimonials

by

There’s still a great deal of misinformation about the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Guidelines for Endorsements and Testimonials (FTC Guides or Guidelines) wafting around on the Internet, and from time to time, it makes its way into mainstream media stories.

We’re trying to chip away at it. Blog With Integrity did the two free Disclosure webinars last year. My colleagues and I leave comments with accurate information when we find posts and articles with errors. Just about every blogging conference since the beginning of the year has had a session about the Guides, and we’re doing the Bridging Brands and Bloggers webinar for PR, marketing and advertising professionals next Tuesday.

But the misinformation persists. So, it seems like the time is now for a little debunking of the urban myths about the FTC Guidelines.

MYTH: There’s an $11,000 fine for violations of the Guidelines.

FACT: The Guidelines explain how the FTC would apply Section 5* of the FTC Act to endorsements and testimonials. They are not rules or regulations, and there are no fines. Any penalties would be assessed by the courts as the result of a legal enforcement process during which the FTC would have to make its case for deceptive advertising.

* Section 5 broadly prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce.”

MYTH: The FTC dictates how you should disclose.

FACT: There’s no checklist of  “approved” ways to disclose. The Guidelines simply require  “clear and conspicuous” disclosure of material relationships between sellers and endorsers when those relationships would not otherwise be clear to the consumer. The FTC  Guidelines do include examples to illustrate the conditions under which disclosure would be required. However, there are no specific prescriptions as to how the disclosure should be done.

If you are interested in best practices for disclosure, take a look at the slides from the general session I did at BlissDom in February.

MYTH: The Guidelines were revised because bloggers are unethical.

FACT: They were revised because it had been 30 years since they were first published. It was time for an update.  Initially because it had become clear that the way disclosure was being handled in traditional media for certain types of products  (like weight loss) wasn’t working as it should. In the process, it became clear that changes in the the media landscape, and specifically, the rise of social media, needed to be addressed.

MYTH: Mom blogs have been singled out for special scrutiny.

FACT: Absolutely not. This was confirmed by Mary Engle, the FTC’s Associate Director for Advertising Practices, during the Blog With Integrity webinar on November 10, 2009.

The FTC Guidelines apply to endorsements and testimonials in all types of marketing including viral,  WOM, blogs, TV, radio and print.

MYTH: Bloggers are being held to a higher standard than journalists.

FACT: The issue at hand isn’t standards or even ethics. The Guidelines are all about making sure that the consumer has enough information to evaluate the endorsement or testimonial. If she would not reasonably expect a material relationship to exist or would not understand it without the disclosure, the endorser should disclose. If the context is clear, disclosure is not required.

In the case of the mainstream media, consumers generally understand that the reporter didn’t buy the item or choose his own topic, and can evaluate the report accordingly. We make different assumptions about people “just like us,” thus disclosure is necessary. A blog or website that operates just like a magazine would be treated like a mainstream magazine because the consumer, or reader, would have the proper expectation. More on this topic in this post.

MYTH: Celebrities are not subject to the guides.

FACT: There are specific examples about celebrity endorsements. The litmus test is the consumer’s expectation. If we would understand the relationship — for example a celebrity athlete wearing logo gear — no disclosure is necessary. We assume a compensated relationship. If the consumer wouldn’t understand the paid relationship, disclosure is required. More on this topic in this post.

MYTH: The FTC said that X was (or was not) a violation.

FACT: The FTC does not speak about specific cases. This could compromise ongoing investigations. More importantly, if it were you, or your company, would you want the FTC passing comment before a full investigation had been completed? I wouldn’t.

MYTH: The FTC is gunning for bloggers.

FACT: The FTC has stated on more than one occasion that its enforcement attention is focused on advertisers and companies, not on individual bloggers.

MYTH: The FTC guidelines violate the 1st amendment.

FACT: The FTC guidelines apply to commercial speech. Compensated, material relationships. They do not apply to opinions where there is no material relationship. If you are paid for your opinion — even if you can say whatever you want — it’s commercial speech. Commercial speech is paid speech. Not free speech.

Free speech is still free. And protected.

MYTH: All you need is a disclosure policy.

FACT: A disclosure (or editorial) policy is a best practice. You still must disclose within the post or tweet if you have a material relationship with a seller.

MYTH: The FTC guidelines will destroy the blogosphere.

FACT: So far, not so much.

Disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer and do not play one on the Internet. This post is my opinion based upon analysis of public records, including the FTC Guidelines.

This post also appears on BlogHer.