Social media

Contests. Sweepstakes. Prizes. Liability? Oh my!

October 3, 2007 by Susan Getgood

Contests on blogs. Everybody loves them. The blogger loves them because they often bring new readers. Readers love them because they might get free stuff and a mention on a popular blog. Companies who donate prizes love them because their products are mentioned on the blogs.

It’s a win for everyone.

Except, what if someone has an issue with the contest? What’s the liability of the blogger if someone complains about how the contest was run? It seems so odd to ask this question, given the overwhelmingly positive spirit of most contests on blogs.

I’ve done a contest with some friends through my personal blog Snapshot Chronicles, and it was nothing but fun – for me, for my friends and for the people who entered.

Then again, the prizes, while cool, weren’t of excessively high value. Camera cases, photo frames, pens and ball caps [thank you again Photojojo and HP], not trips to Europe and TVs. This is generally the case with most blog contests; the prizes are desirable but nothing to sue over.

Well, maybe not. Remember, there are folks who enter contests as a revenue stream, not just as a fun activity. For them, it is serious business. And the value of the prizes continues to rise.

What happens if someone decides it wasn’t fair, and decides to raise a stink? What is the liability of the blogger? How can she protect herself? Does the company donating the prize have any liability?

Companies who run contests, large and small, spend a lot of time and money reviewing terms and conditions. Bloggers cannot do the same, but my blogging colleague David Wescott and I decided to do a little research and offer some guidance.

I spoke with Donna DeClemente, a marketer who specializes in helping companies with contest promotions, and David spoke with Stephanie Himel-Nelson, who blogs at Lawyer Mama among other places. Read on for my post and go to David’s blog It’s Not A Lecture for his post.

My interest was both professional and personal. Let’s cover the professional first. If you have a product that is relevant and exciting for the blogger, and you can give him something to give away on his blog, do it! Makes everybody happy, and I love making everybody happy. I recommend this to clients that have appropriate products, and am in the middle of such a project right now – more soon – which is one of the reasons I started thinking about this issue.

Personally. While I do not do contests on this blog, I have done one on Snapshot Chronicles, and absolutely intend to do more. And I like my house, so I’d prefer to keep it. Do I have any liability when I run a contest?

Let’s hear from an expert. I met Donna DeClemente, who blogs at Donna’s Promo Talk, at BlogHer. She attends the promotional marketing law conference sponsored by the Promotional Marketing Association every year to stay up to speed with the regulations, and helps companies and bloggers like my friend Yvonne DiVita create contests and draft Official Rules.

I asked her about the different types of contests.

Donna: A sweepstakes is a random drawing that anyone who meets the eligibility requirements as written in the “Official Rules” may enter. Contests are different from sweepstakes. They are not just games of chance. The winner of a contest must provide a degree of individual skill or uniqueness. A contest also takes more work since all entries must be judged and/or evaluated. A raffle is a type of lottery in which prizes are awarded to people who pay for a chance to win. They are strictly to be used only as a fundraising tool by a non-profit organization. The rules vary greatly from state to state and should be reviewed carefully. A qualifying organization usually must complete an application. Raffles also are not allowed to be conducted or advertised over the Internet. (See David’s interview with Lawyer Mama for more on lotteries-SG)

Give me some general guidelines for holding a contest or random drawing.

Donna: The sponsor of a contest or sweepstakes, whether a company or an individual, assumes full responsibility for the contest. It is very important that a set of “Official Rules” be drafted and everyone who is eligible to enter have access to the rules. Once you have a set of Official Rules, you must follow these rules and not change them during the course of the contest. If you stick by them, then you should be clear of any liability if someone claims fraud or misrepresentation. For example, see the Lipsticking.com sweepstakes.

The key elements that must be included in the rules include the official sponsor, eligibility requirements, the start and end date and time of the promotion, description of the prize(s) and their value, and how to enter. (For example, as Lawyer Mama found when she dug into the issue, some states have very strict disclosure and eligibility requirements and you either have to meet them, or exclude residents of those states from your sweepstakes or contest. Explains why sometimes you see a national contest with various state exclusions or differing terms for different states – SG)

What about the company donating the prizes? Does it have any liability?

Donna: If a company is donating a prize(s) for the promotion and is not the sponsor, than they are not liable. However, it is up to them to provide a detailed description of the prize and the true ARV (average retail value). For anyone that receives a prize worth $600 or more, you must create a 1099 and the winner is liable for taxes.

Should a blogger seek legal advice about her sweepstakes or drawing?

Donna: If you are worried about the potential consequences or your program is really complex or unique, you should absolutely seek advice. But you really need to make sure that any lawyer you retain is up to speed on promotional law, and most small business and personal lawyers are not. They can do the research, but you are probably better off consulting a specialist. I’d recommend that people start by consulting a promotional specialist like me, because we can also help with other aspects of the sweepstakes like fulfillment and contest structure. Typically, I can handle most issues that come up, but if we do need a lawyer, I work with two expert promotional lawyers on a regular basis.

—

Check out Donna’s blog and Web site for more information on running a contest on your blog or Web site. And if you have any doubts or questions about a contest you’d like to conduct on your blog, especially if you have a very high value prize, get advice. A specialist like Donna can help, but at the end of the day, if you are doing something very unique, it is probably worth the call to a lawyer. The legal fee pales in comparison to the nuisance of a lawsuit if you have to deal with, in the words of Fake Steve, a “frigtard.”

Some additional resources, courtesy of Lawyer Mama:
http://www.wcsr.com/default.asp?id=534&objId=31
http://promomagazine.com/legal/marketing_staking_states/
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/California/
http://www.ct.gov/AG/cwp/view.asp?A=1772&Q=282452
http://www.dwt.com/practc/advertising/bulletins/09-05_FloridaSweepstakes.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3629/is_199408/ai_n8713060

SUSAN IS NOT A LAWYER
This information is meant to bring awareness to the topic and is not intended to be used as legal advice. If you have questions about any of the information above or related matters, please contact an attorney licensed in your state.(Thanks, Lawyer Mama, for the disclaimer language)

Tags: contests, sweepstakes, promotions

Social Media Club Boston: Fake Steve, Wal-Mart and Forrester Research

September 22, 2007 by Susan Getgood

Last Thursday’s Social Media Club Boston meeting was terrific. And oh so funny. Kudos to Greg PC for assembling such a great panel, and to the moderator and speakers for doing such a brilliant job.

John Cass has done a great job summarizing the session, so I will just share some photos, soundbites and general observations.

Moderator Monika Maeckle, VP Southwest Region, Business Wire (sponsor of the evening) A delightful and charming woman who did a great job moving the conversation along, involving the audience, but never losing control of the session.

And the esteemed panel:

left to right: Josh Bernoff, Forrester; Dan Lyons, aka Fake Steve Jobs, Forbes Magazine; Steve Restivo, Wal-Mart

As John Cass reported, Dan Lyons was the hit of the evening. Some of his bon mots:

On his Attack of the Blogs article: "I wished I had a do-over."

On Valleywag: "Valleywag sucks."

On Jonathan Schwartz, Sun: "How different is Jonathan Schwartz’s blog from a fake blog?" [Note, if this comment resonates, be sure to check out My Little Pony.]

As John reported in his post, Dan said many people knew who FSJ was well before the New York Times exposed the secret. In a brief conversation after the panel, Dan said he was impressed that they were all able to keep the secret. He said a few of them even helped mess with Valleywag on who FSJ was. Gotta love it. Unless you are Owen Thomas I suppose.

Josh Bernoff was polished and articulate. I really liked his comment that starting a "social media" project by picking a technology is ass-backward. The POST model he shared really resonated:

First: PROFILE your customer.

Second: Define your OBJECTIVES.

Third: Develop a STRATEGY — how do you want to change people

Then, and only then, decide on the TECHNOLOGY.

Another great quote from Josh: "Only one group of people that this (social media) is really bad for — liars."

Steve Restivo from Wal-Mart did a great job representing his company, although it was clear that he was constrained by a corporate role, unlike the other panelists, who are encouraged (and compensated I am sure) to have strong public personas. Nevertheless I was impressed by both his acknowledgment of past mistakes like RV-ing Across America and his frank statement that competitor Target does a great job online.

The Social Media Club has chapters in a number of cities; check it out. And if you are in Boston, see you next time.

Tags: Social Media Club, Dan Lyons, Wal-Mart, Fake Steve Jobs, Josh Bernoff

Kids, social networks and Scruffy

September 7, 2007 by Susan Getgood

This is Scruffy.

Scruffy is polyester fiberfill crack. And before the people at Webkinz have a fit, let me assure you, I mean this in only the most positive of ways.

Scruffy was my son’s first Webkinz. Which I freely admit was purchased for him this summer because I am very interested in how kids interact with online social networks. How children interact with these networks gives us the roadmap for how we, as a society — not we, old geezers — will experience online in the future. For one thing, I don’t think advertising will be nearly the show stopper for the next generation as it often is for internet old-timers. (And how weird is that to write, let alone as a concept. Internet old-timers. Ouch.)

Yes, I made my kid a Webkinz user. Little did I know he would become, in very short order, a Webkinz addict. To the point that when we returned from our house in Vermont on Monday, I needed a duffle bag just for the Webkinz. He’s even spent his own allowance on them. OMG.

But why am I writing about Webkinz here on the Roadmap? Interesting as my child’s stuffed animal collection is (not), what does that have to do with marketing?

Here’s what. Hats off to the folks at Ganz, who reinvented a stuffed animal business into a hot Internet destination

Those of you with kids age 6-10 probably already know what Webkinz are. For those of you with younger, older or no children, Webkinz are stuffed animals, purchased at fine retailers everywhere, that come with a code that gives the owner access to the online site Webkinz World for one year from the date of adoption (registration) of the particular animal. Oh, and you get $2000 kinzcash with each adoption. Remember that; it will be important later.

Webkinz World is a virtual world for kids. They dress, feed and play with the online avatars of their stuffed pets. They purchase clothes, food and furniture with their kinzcash, earning more by playing online games and quizzes. There are also activities that kids can only do once per day, encouraging daily visits. Is it possible to earn a lot of cash with the games? Sure. But not surprisingly, the biggest infusion comes when you adopt another Webkinz. Which is why kids have so many of them. And that’s not even counting the trading cards and charms (required for access to the charm forest.) It’s an online world, but the financial model is solidly rooted in physical goods.

It’s like having a money machine in the basement. Without doubt, it willl be a Marketing 101 case study of an old line business that made a successful transition to a (quasi) online model. Certainly breathed new life into the stuffed animal segment. Aunt Mabel may not be online but she can certainly purchase a stuffed pet at the toy store.

Webkinz World is fun. The games are challenging but not impossible, and kids can safely play with other children online. I would give it a big thumbs up as a social network for kids except for two problems. First, the infrastructure just can’t support the volume of kids logging in. Which makes for a frustrating experience for the child. Especially when things go wrong, which is the other problem. For a community focused on kids, its customer support is distinctly unfriendly and works overtime to avoid an actual conversation, email or otherwise, with a user, relying instead on FAQs and automated emails. Not much use when you are trying to console a 7 year old about a lost "Torch Treasure." Not terribly consistent with Ms. Birdy, the friendly adoption counselor.

Apart from these issues though, watching my son on Webkinz World has confirmed some things for me about the digital native population –those that have no "pre-Internet" memory.

First, the commercial aspects won’t bother them in the least. Advertising. Sales Promotions. Contests. No problem. As long as they are being entertained or even educated. As long as the advertising fits with the experience. As long as they are sufficiently rewarded for their time.

Second, much as they may love one experience or world, it is a mistake for the world to assume total loyalty. If Webkinz World is unavailable too long, my son is more than happy to pop on over to Nicktropolis, which, while not as engaging, does a better job on availability. And has Spongebob.

I have no idea how long Webkinz will capture his attention. But for now, he’s having fun, and I enjoy watching him, and occasionally helping him with a game or two.

And btw, I play a mean game of "Lunch Letters."

Tags: webkinz, ganz, virtual worlds, social networks,webkinz world

BlogHer Recap Part 2: Everything and the Kitchen Sink

August 5, 2007 by Susan Getgood

There was a lot more to BlogHer than a bit of a fuss about public relations, including seeing so many old, and meeting so many new, friends. Since I am bound to leave someone out if I do a list, know that I was so happy to see or meet you, and was sorry I missed so many people that I know or read. Next year….

This post is going to cover a variety of things, from the unconference on Sunday to politics and why the major media didn’t come to BlogHer.

In fact. let’s start there. Joanne Bamberger of Pundit Mom and Jennifer Pozner at the Women’s Media Center have done an excellent job of summarizing the issue: the national media didn’t bother with BlogHer, with 800+ women bloggers in attendance, even though a major policy effort, BlogHers Act, was a key element of the program and Elizabeth Edwards was featured in the closing keynote. Yet a week later. everyone finds time to go to Chicago for YearlyKos.

Why?

As I posted in a comment yesterday to my previous BlogHer post, I wonder if it was in part because of the absence of assholes?

Bear with me a moment.

It’s a well known fact. Disagreement and invective make better stories than agreement and community. At least as far as the mainstream media is concerned. Don’t believe me? Just pick up your local morning paper and look at the front page. Besides, there really is no other explanation for Ann Coulter.

Why doesn’t the mainstream media understand that 800+ women bloggers are a powerful political presence? Especially in the context of BlogHers Act, a collective effort to make a difference on a significant issue, global health?

I’m wondering if it is because the BlogHer community generally embraces its diversity instead of encouraging controversy? The media loves arguments and assholes and division, and you know, there is plenty of all three over on most political sites. But 800 women coming together out of a mutual interest in using blogs to share their experiences, whether professional, personal or political, and agreeing to respect the diversity of the community, not proselytize?

Nah. That’s no fun.

It’s also not right. Think about how you can change it.

Moving on, let’s be crystal clear. Just because the BlogHer community isn’t a bunch of jerks doesn’t mean that there aren’t political differences among the members. Julie Marsh, mothergoosemouse, touched upon them on both her personal blog and on Imperfect Parent. As she notes, the women in the BlogHer community are good at coming together on the areas upon which we agree. But there seems to be a liberal bent, which may be off-putting to more conservative women. How do we embrace both groups? It’s not a trivial question.

Especially in context of the thing that worries me the most about US politics, which is that we seem to have become so polarized (call it red/blue if you must) that we cannot come together on anything. I posted the following on BlogHer a few weeks ago and Lisa Stone referenced my question during the Edwards keynote:

I continue to be inspired by how EE called Ann Coulter on her lies and innuendo. I would be very interested in her take on how we can return the level of US political discourse to conversation about issues. Versus the hyperbole, innuendo, cult of personality and battle of the soundbites it has become.

Can we? Or have we become so polarized, so divided (call it red state blue state if you want) that we can’t talk about issues, we can only talk from positions?

If we do not agree on gay marriage, does that mean we cannot discuss healthcare? If we do not agree on abortion rights, does that mean we cannot discuss childcare? If we do not agree on the war, does that mean we cannot discuss the economy?

Certainly, it is in the best interests of the major political parties that we stay so divided. But is it in ours? I do not think so.

———————–

Okay, that’s the political discussion. On to social media. As I mentioned, I attended the unconference, sponsored in part by my client HP, and I have nothing but good things to say about it. The format and facilitation were great, and I got as much out of my four hours there as I did from the previous two days. That wouldn’t necessarily be the case for every BlogHer, but for us quasi or totally techie social media types, it was heaven! I wish I could have stayed until the end.

I participated in three topics: advertising on blogs, the death of communities and how do we define social media. The discussion was terrific, and I can in no way do it justice here. My notes are pretty awful 🙂

But I would like to share with you some things I shared with my fellow "open spacers" last Sunday. And not just that John Mackey from Whole Foods was a jackass for his anonymous Wild Oats bashing, which he was but I’ll let others wax eloquent on that. I have no time for a public company CEO with so little responsibility to his shareholders.

Back to the unconference. The three sessions I participated in gave me an opportunity to share two themes that I have been noodling for quite some time. The response in Chicago was pretty positive- thanks, BlogHers, and Hims. Would love your thoughts as well.

First, a common issue that seemed to underly all the discussions was the delta between what customers/bloggers are interested in, and what companies seem to put out, whether in advertising, blogger relations or communities. I’ve long thought of it in terms of product — task — emotion. Companies love their products, sometimes understand that tasks, not features, motivate, but rarely understand that the true motivation is the underlying emotion: WHY the person wants to do the task. Jack Vinson from Knowledge Jolt, created a good example from my starting point: We understand that the drill (product) is purchased to drill holes (task) but what we miss is that the real purpose is to build a birdhouse and watch birds.

There is almost always a higher order, emotional purpose. Look for it.

Then over lunch, we tried to come to a definition of social media, and were only slightly sidetracked by Whole Foods and furries, but not thank heaven, in the same sentence. Mackey is a vegan after all.

I shared a construct that drives my thinking of social media. For me, social media are the tools that let us return to a simplicity of communication not dissimilar from the village. Here’s how it goes.

Way back when, we had villages. And in the villages, everyone knew everyone. Call it the beat of a drum or gossip or simply society. People spoke with each other, and directly learned what they needed to know. And then everything exploded. The Industrial Revolution begat the Modern Age, and mass media intermediated. You didn’t get your information from someone you knew. You got it from Huntley & Brinkley, Chancellor, Tom, Dan and Peter. Mass media became the filter to our experience.

And then the Modern Age begat the Internet. And social media tools like blogs and social networks and Twitter and whatever comes next…. they allowed us to talk to each other again. Directly. Without editors.

Which means we filter a lot of crap. But it also means that a landlord can’t bamboozle a young couple. And companies can’t dismiss warranties. And a whole lot of other things.

Because we know each other again. In our little village called the Internet.

At least that’s how I see it. What do you think?

Tags: blogher07, blogher, politics, gender, unconference, social media, social networks