If you have questions about the guidelines, Blog with Integrity is holding a free webinar next Tuesday November 10th at noon featuring special guest Mary Engle, the FTC’s Associate Director for Consumer Protection. She’ll be answering questions submitted by the community; submit yours by Friday November 6th to blogwithintegrity@gmail.com and then join us on the 1oth. She will also take questions live, but the best way to ensure that yours makes the cut is to get it to us in advance.

Examples:

Example 8 (Section 255.0): A consumer who regularly purchases a particular brand of dog food decides one day to purchase a new, more expensive brand made by the same manufacturer. She writes in her personal blog that the change in diet has made her dog’s fur noticeably softer and shinier, and that in her opinion, the new food definitely is worth the extra money. This posting would not be deemed an endorsement under the Guides.

Assume that rather than purchase the dog food with her own money, the consumer gets it for free because the store routinely tracks her purchases and its computer has generated a coupon for a free trial bag of this new brand. Again, her posting would not be deemed an endorsement under the Guides.

Assume now that the consumer joins a network marketing program under which she periodically receives various products about which she can write reviews if she wants to do so. If she receives a free bag of the new dog food through this program, her positive review would be considered an endorsement under the Guides.

I was thrilled to see this example. It covers three common scenarios under which bloggers might acquire goods, and clearly differentiates among purchase, a mass distribution of samples without any relationship (the supermarket coupon) and a relationship under which a disclosure is required (the marketing program.)  This third scenario is clearly the situation referred to when the FTC’s Mary Engle commented on P&G’s program:

Moreover, Engle said the revised guidelines are aimed at advertisers and marketers, not individual bloggers. She cited a Procter & Gamble campaign called “Vocalpoint,” which provided “400,000 moms” with free products in exchange for endorsements made via blog posts and tweets.

“If these moms are posting about how great Tide is or Febreeze, that wasn’t just because they tried it and they loved it; it’s because they are part of P&G’s marketing campaign and that relationship needs to be disclosed,” said Engle, who also admitted, “We probably could have done a better job of describing the distinctions between people who write blogs about books and the moms who are part of P&G’s team.” (Publishers Weekly)

I think it also applies to pay-per-post and sponsored post programs under which bloggers regularly receive offers as a result of participation in the program.  I also think that mass distributed SWAG bags, regardless of the value of the merchandise, may not be included as there is no specific relationship with the blogger. Am I right? We’ll ask Mary on the 10th.

Example 5 (section 255.1): A skin care products advertiser participates in a blog advertising service. The service matches up advertisers with bloggers who will promote the advertiser’s products on their personal blogs. The advertiser requests that a blogger try a new body lotion and write a review of the product on her blog. Although the advertiser does not make any specific claims about the lotion’s ability to cure skin conditions and the blogger does not ask the advertiser whether there is substantiation for the claim, in her review the blogger writes that the lotion cures eczema and recommends the product to her blog readers who suffer from this condition. The advertiser is subject to liability for misleading or unsubstantiated representations made through the blogger’s endorsement. The blogger also is subject to
liability for misleading or unsubstantiated representations made in the course of her endorsement. The blogger is also liable if she fails to disclose clearly and conspicuously that she is being paid for her services. [See § 255.5.]

In order to limit its potential liability, the advertiser should ensure that the advertising service provides guidance and training to its bloggers concerning the need to ensure that statements they make are truthful and substantiated. The  advertiser should also monitor bloggers who are being paid to promote its products and take steps necessary to halt the  continued publication of deceptive representations when they are discovered.

This example is unchanged from the proposed guidelines. Key points:

For bloggers: Take care in making product claims; stick to your own experience and stay away from highly evocative words like “cure;” educate yourself on the features/benefits of the product; disclose the relationship.

For companies: Make sure you have properly informed bloggers about your product and stay on top of their posts. You need to fix errors asap.

Example 3 (section 255.5 disclosure of material connections) : During an appearance by a well-known professional tennis player on a television talk show, the host comments that the past few months have been the best of her career and during this time she has risen to her highest level ever in the rankings. She responds by attributing the improvement in her game to the fact that she is seeing the ball better than she used to, ever since having laser vision correction surgery at a clinic that she identifies by name. She continues talking about the ease of the procedure, the kindness of the clinic’s doctors, her speedy recovery, and how she can now engage in a variety of activities without glasses, including driving at night. The athlete does not disclose that, even though she does not appear in commercials for the clinic, she has a contractual relationship with it, and her contract pays her for speaking publicly about her surgery when she can do so. Consumers might not realize that a celebrity discussing a medical procedure in a television interview has been paid for doing so, and knowledge of such payments would likely affect the weight or credibility consumers give to the celebrity’s endorsement.

Without a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the athlete has been engaged as a spokesperson for the clinic, this endorsement is likely to be deceptive. Furthermore, if consumers are likely to take away from her story that her experience was typical of those who undergo the same procedure at the clinic, the advertiser must have substantiation for that claim.

Assume that instead of speaking about the clinic in a television interview, the tennis player touts the results of her surgery – mentioning the clinic by name – on a social networking site that allows her fans to read in real time what is happening in her life. Given the nature of the medium in which her endorsement is disseminated, consumers might not realize that she is a paid endorser. Because that information might affect the weight consumers give to her endorsement, her relationship with the clinic should be disclosed.
[...]

The bolded section, about the celebrity endorsement on a social networking site, is a new addition to the guidelines. It is important because it extends the disclosure responsibility to celebrities. IMO, this applies to anyone who can be deemed to a celebrity in the mind of the average consumer of the web content. Even web celebrities who are relatively unknown outside the net. If the reader would NOT understand that the review was a paid endorsement, there is an obligation to disclose.

Example 7 (section 255.5 disclosure of material connections): A college student who has earned a reputation as a video game expert maintains a personal weblog or “blog” where he posts entries about his gaming experiences. Readers of his blog frequently seek his opinions about video game hardware and software. As it has done in the past, the manufacturer of a newly released video game system sends the student a free copy of the system and asks him to write about it on his blog. He tests the new gaming system and writes a favorable review. Because his review is disseminated via a form of consumer-generated media in which his relationship to the advertiser is not inherently obvious, readers are unlikely to know that he has received the video game system free of charge in exchange for his review of the product, and given the value of the video game system, this fact likely would materially affect the credibility they attach to his endorsement. Accordingly, the blogger should clearly and conspicuously disclose that he received the gaming system free of charge. The manufacturer should advise him at the time it provides the gaming system that this connection should be
disclosed, and it should have procedures in place to try to monitor his postings for compliance.

Example 8 (section 255.5 disclosure of material connections): An online message board designated for discussions of new music download technology is frequented by MP3 player enthusiasts. They exchange information about new products, utilities, and the functionality of numerous playback devices. Unbeknownst to the message board community, an employee of a leading playback device manufacturer has been posting messages on the discussion board promoting the manufacturer’s product. Knowledge of this poster’s employment likely would affect the weight or credibility of her
endorsement. Therefore, the poster should clearly and conspicuously disclose her relationship to the manufacturer to members and readers of the message board.

These two examples are unchanged from the preliminary document. The first relates to the reasonable expectation of the reader, the second is about astro-turfing, the practice of not revealing a paid employee relationship with the company. In both cases, disclosure is required so the reasonable person understands that there is a compensated relationship between the reviewer and the company.

As I wrote in last week’s post, I would like to see some additional examples from the FTC covering the difference between bloggers and journalists, and the distinction between personal blogs and those that operate like magazines. Overall, however, I don’t think the FTC did a bad job understanding the social media space.

Certainly a much better job than Congress did about 13 years ago when it mucked about with the Communications Decency Act.

In this post, though,  I want to talk a bit more about the FTC’s stated intention to apply the  endorsement guidelines to social media but not to mainstream media (MSM) journalists. Some critics have labeled this an unconstitutional assault on free speech. Others are simply concerned about different rules applying to bloggers than to journalists when the differences between the two types of writers are not so clear cut. Not all bloggers are journalists, but some most definitely are.

I covered this at some length in my October post, but a few things bear repeating.

This is a trade issue, not a free speech issue. No one is limiting or restricting speech.  In my opinion, the FTC simply is saying that it will treat commercial endorsements  on blogs EXACTLY the same way it treats commercial endorsements in other media. New media does NOT get a pass to deceive the consumer. Neither does old.

Far fetched examples that imply that bloggers will have to remember forever where or how they acquired an item before they write about it in any fashion are silly.  For one thing, the guidelines are not retroactive. No one expects a blogger to remember something that happened many years ago. The principal tests are the reasonable person, which has been the test for years, and the degree of relationship. Got a free book yesterday? That’s close. 20 years ago? Not so much. There’s a common sense element that is deliberately being ignored.

Moreover, there is no new law here. Deceptive advertising – deceptive commercial speech – is already illegal. The precedent has already been set that we treat commercial speech differently in the United States than non-commercial. At issue is what constitutes commercial speech, and that will require a court test. The guidelines merely outline how the FTC believes it should enforce the law, including applying them to social media. The FTC’s interpretation will be tested in the courts when it eventually brings a case. Trial by media or press release has no standing.

There is some validity to the argument that bloggers are being held to a different standard than journalists. This is because the FTC  guidelines do not adequately clarify WHY there is a difference between personal bloggers and journalists. It’s not a free speech issue, nor are journalists somehow more ethical than bloggers. It’s all about the reasonable consumer’s  interpretation of the endorsement.

The FTC should have explained why it doesn’t think the consumer’s opinion would be impacted by the knowledge that the MSM reviewer got the item for free (page 47). I think, but the FTC did not explicitly say,  it is because we already assume that a MSM reviewer did not pay for the item. Either her employer purchased or paid, or the manufacturer comped. We also understand that the decision to review was motivated by the compensation paid to the reviewer as her salary. We already believe the reviewer was paid and comped. Thus the endorsement of the review is different than a blogger’s review – a person like us – who we assume purchased the item herself.

All the talk about whether bloggers get to keep products or not is a bit of a red herring. That reporters sometimes keep products or resell them, which is probably a violation of the editorial policy under which they received the goods, doesn’t make it RIGHT for bloggers to do so without disclosure. The important element is what the consumer believes, not whether the reviewer keeps the product. Or even whether the publication has editorial guidelines (more on that below) Compensation is just part of the test.

The FTC also should have been more clear that it looks at EVERYTHING on a case by case basis. The advertising industry, which has been affected by these guidelines for nearly 30 years, knows this. Bloggers don’t. Read carefully. On page 48 of the Notice to the Federal Register, the FTC clearly says that if a MSM reviewer received a direct benefit from a company whose products he reviewed/wrote about, the FTC stance could be different. This possibility is exactly why MSM has review and editorial policies, and why journalists don’t own stocks in the companies they write about.

There’s also a confusion created by the use and interpretation of the word blog. I think the FTC tried to clarify this by using the phrase “personal blog” but it’s not enough. The use of blogging platforms does not mean a site is a personal blog. That’s confusing form with content.

There are many  sites using blog and CMS (content management system) platforms that operate like MSM. Some are owned by MSM, some by individuals. They operate like magazines, with editorial policies, editors, assignments, compensation to bloggers etc. etc. For example, BlogHer and Cool Mom Picks.

If a site like this has a clear published editorial policy, runs like a publication/business, probably compensates its writers directly,  it should be treated the same way as an MSM publication. There is NO reason why a shopping review site owned by two individuals should have different guidelines than one owned by Conde Nast IF THEY OPERATE IN THE SAME WAY. Fundamentally, I think the FTC will be treating them the same way, but it should have been more explicit.

It boils down to the consumer’s expectations and the difference between a “personal blog” and an “online magazine, portal or review site.” Writing for Ad Age, whether online or off, and Cool Mom Picks is different from writing A Cowboy’s Wife or Marketing Roadmaps. Disclosure on every post should not be required if the consumer would understand the situation without it. However, a clear  editorial policy is.

This line of thinking  could probably be extended to any review blog devoted exclusively to a single sort of product that you have to buy to consume when new – books, movies, theater. Less so TV and music. For example, books.  In my opinion, if ALL you do is review books, a broad disclosure/editorial policy should be sufficient. If you have a personal blog that talks about your life and family, or even a marketing blog that is usually about social media, and up pops a book review, you should probably say whether you bought it or got it.

This, however, is merely my educated opinion. I’d really love to see the FTC clarify this with an example. In fact, this will likely be one of my questions for Mary Engle during the webinar.

I also plan to ask her to expand on her comments to KidLitCon 09, as covered in Publishers Weekly:

Moreover, Engle said the revised guidelines are aimed at advertisers and marketers, not individual bloggers. She cited a Procter & Gamble campaign called “Vocalpoint,” which provided “400,000 moms” with free products in exchange for endorsements made via blog posts and tweets.

“If these moms are posting about how great Tide is or Febreeze, that wasn’t just because they tried it and they loved it; it’s because they are part of P&G’s marketing campaign and that relationship needs to be disclosed,” said Engle, who also admitted, “We probably could have done a better job of describing the distinctions between people who write blogs about books and the moms who are part of P&G’s team.”

What are the  distinctions? How does this focus apply to the large blog networks and the bloggers who participate in their programs?

But enough of my questions. What would you like to know? Questions should be submitted in advance by November 6th to blogwithintegrity@gmail.com.

Disclaimer: Most of you know by now, I am not a lawyer but totally geek out on reading legislation and policy docs.

I’ve got more than a few posts pending, including part 2 of my analysis of the published FTC guidelines on commercial endorsements and an update on Blog with Integrity, but today I received an email that demanded immediate attention.

As many of you know, I collect bad pitches. I use them here on the blog and in my workshops. Someday perhaps they will even make it into a book about community engagement. I get a few myself (and for some reason more lately), but the best source of pitches — good and bad — are my friends and readers.

Today’s example, from a reader, was just about the worst pitch ever. It’s bad enough when bloggers get press releases that quote their previous reviews on the topic. That’s clueless and stupid.

When the pitch plagiarizes a blogger’s own words, and they send her the pitch? There really are no words.

Here’s the pitch, dated 10/22/09:

And here’s the post from which the content was lifted, from 9/29/09:

Yes, my friends, apparently, this PR agency took the blogger’s intellectual property, changed a few words, and then sent her the pitch. There’s so much wrong with this whole scenario that it’s hard to know what’s worse — stealing the post or stupidly sending the pitch to the victim.

How do I know that it was the PR agency that ripped off the blogger and not vice versa? Apart from the dates, which make it pretty obvious?  Gut. While I’ve only met this blogger once, at BlogHer Boston last year, I have no reason to doubt her. She also had no problem being identified in this post, an inevitable consequence of her by-line. I double-checked.

The agency in question? It’s like the umpteenth time someone has sent me one of their pitches as a bad pitch, and I’ve received more than a few crappy ones from them myself.

This is why PR agencies have to be more than crisp when reaching out to bloggers. You have to be damn near perfect because there are dopes out there doing crap like this.

Makes me sick and embarrassed for the marketing and communications profession.

</rant off>

It is often said that consumers don’t like or pay attention to advertising.

Not true.

What consumers don’t like is BAD advertising. Lazy copy. Poor targeting. Offensive stereotypes.

We also don’t like crummy products. No matter how good the ad, it cannot make a crummy product excellent or a dangerous product safe. Regardless of what they say on Mad Men.

We do like — even love — good advertising. Ads that tell a story. Make us feel. Make us laugh. If we’re in marketing, make us wish we’d thought of that.

Tuesday night, I was privileged to  attend the 49th Annual Hatch Awards as a guest of the AdClub and got to see a lot of great advertising without having to watch TV or read a magazine.

There’s no way I can do justice to all the award winners in a single post, but here’s a random sampling of the ones I liked most.

My favorite TV spots were Mullen’s Bruins Hockey Rules commercials. The campaign won a gold as did this commercial “Date.”

If you want more, I posted all the spots over at Snapshot Chronicles.

I also liked Arnold’s TV spots for the American Legacy Foundation and Hill Holliday’s series for Liberty Mutual’s Responsibility Project.

It’s harder to appreciate print advertising in the award show format. You miss the look and feel of the ad in the chosen vehicle. How well it fits (or doesn’t) in the publication. Even so, it was easy to like Mullen’s work for the New England Aquarium and Kelliher Samets Volk/Boston’s newspaper ads for WMBR radio.

Finally, as much as I do not believe in personal branding, I have to commend the silver winner in the personal branding category for the sheer balls of his campaign, malecopywriter.com

You may have noticed I did not mention any of the award winners in the social media or website/microsite categories. Not because the work wasn’t excellent. It was. But my strongest impression was that advertising agencies see, and execute, social media very differently than PR agencies and marketing shops (internal and external) focused on interactive media. Yes, I am about to make a generalization, and welcome respectful disagreement, but the ad agency work seemed to be about production values, not relationships.

In other words, engagement means very different things to the different groups.

Now, I didn’t actually find this surprising. I’ve written before that I have noticed that PR and advertising folks definitely approach engagement through different lenses.

Public relations folks — good PR folks — understand the importance of building relationships with customers. That blogger engagement is a commitment, not a one-night stand. Where sometimes they have difficulty is engaging with emotion and enthusiasm. Their training teaches them to be objective, factual. Storytellers, not promoters. It can be difficult (although not impossible) to shed that skin and engage around emotion and shared values, versus news, facts and benefits.

Advertising professionals, on the other hand, have no problem understanding the importance of emotion in eliciting engagement. Good advertising taps into our emotions to evoke an action. It’s rarely about what a product does. It’s all about how it makes us feel. Where advertising pros can miss in social media is that they don’t dial it down to more personal terms. The message is hype, not human. It’s about producing a slick “viral video,” not about finding a shared value with the customer that encourages her to pass the message on.

That’s where marketing generalists (like me) can help the process. We embrace both approaches – relationship and emotion – and can help organizations best leverage their advertising and PR specialists to develop well-rounded programs and campaigns that truly engage the customer.

I’m updating my May analysis of the proposed guidelines in two parts. First, in this post, some general comments about the final guidelines. Next — either Friday or Saturday– a detailed analysis of the sections relevant to blogging and social media.

General observations

The two keys to the FTC guidelines are the reasonable person standard and the degree of  the relationship between the company and the endorser.

“The Guides have always defined endorsements by focusing on the message consumers take from the speech at issue. Indeed this focus on consumer takeaway is completely consistent with the approach the Commission uses to determine whether a practice is deceptive,and thus in violation of the FTC Act.” (page 5)

“…in determining whether a representation, omission or practice is deceptive, ‘we examine the practice from the perspective of a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances.’” (footnote, page 5)

“…the fundamental question is whether, viewed objectively,the relationship between the advertiser and the speaker is such that the speaker’s statements can be considered ’sponsored’ by the advertiser and therefore an advertising message. In other words, in disseminating positive statements about a product or service, is the speaker: (1) acting solely independently, in which case there is no endorsement, or (2) acting on behalf of the advertiser or its agent, such that the speaker’s statement is an ‘endorsement’ that is part of an overall marketing campaign?” (page 8 )

Some critics of the FTC’s decision to apply the guidelines to blogs and new media focus on the fact that they will not be applied to similar content like product and entertainment reviews in mainstream media. Why do bloggers require regulation and journalists don’t, the argument goes.

There is some merit to this line of thinking, but I would argue that the issue isn’t that the guidelines shouldn’t apply to blogs. Instead, we need to separate the technological form used to publish a site — blogging software  — and focus on the type of site. Does it operate like a magazine — with editors, contributors, and editorial policies?

“In general, under usual circumstances, the Commission does not consider reviews published in traditional media (i.e. where a newspaper, magazine, or television or radio station with independent editorial responsibility assigns an employee to review various products or services as part of his or her official duties, and then publishes those reviews) to be sponsored advertising messages.” (page 47)

Under these circumstances, the FTC doesn’t believe knowing whether the reviewer paid for the item would affect the weight consumers give to the review, however, it does leave room for a different interpretation if the reviewer receives a benefit directly from the manufacturer. Mainstream media have editorial policies that govern their review practices to prevent potential abuses.

Applying the reasonable person standard, if the consumer would understand that the online site is acting as an independent review site, and like the traditional media, gets its review products for free from manufacturers, I doubt whether the FTC will vigorously apply the commercial endorsement guidelines. If the product value is low, it may not even matter if the reviewer keeps the product.  This is just my opinion based on the documents and the fact that the FTC investigates on a case by case basis. It just does not have the resources to pursue weak cases.

Does that mean such a review site shouldn’t practice strong disclosure? Absolutely not. It should have an editorial policy as airtight and as clear as the mainstream publications that provide a similar service. If you wanna be a duck, you gotta quack, and walk,  like one.

The FTC guidelines are NOT about compensation; compensation is simply one measure that determines how the consumer might interpret the blogger’s recommendation. The important test is whether the reasonable consumer would understand that a relationship exists (or doesn’t) between the reviewer and the company without disclosure. We know that the movie reviewer at the local paper or an entertainment website doesn’t pay for his ticket. We know that review sites like Cool Mom Picks get free products from manufacturers for review. We don’t however expect that people “like us”  — personal bloggers — get truckloads of free stuff from companies. So, that needs to be disclosed.

What about the argument that my readers know me? Why should I have to disclose?  Not all readers are regular readers who already understand your perspective and perhaps your business relationships. All blogs get some traffic from search engines, and those folks don’t know you from Adam (or Eve). You need to disclose your material relationships so all readers can properly evaluate your words.

Then there’s the assertion that journalists aren’t required to disclose. True, they don’t have to have a disclaimer on every post, but the publication they work for has an editorial policy that separates the editorial content from the commercial speech. The advertising. The very reason we assume that journalists are objective is because their employers have these policies. The reasonable consumer understands that the traditional media she reads makes a clear delineation between editorial and advertising.

Are the guidelines a violation of free speech? Jeff Jarvis and Dan Gillmor think perhaps. JD Lasica disagrees. So do I. You can write whatever you like. You just have to be clear about your interests and material relationships that might impact your opinion. The fact that you got paid or got a new living room set for free may not influence your opinion one little bit. The FTC just wants your reader to have the information so she can decide.

Take a minute and read through some of the comments the FTC received to the initial proposal, and some of the ways companies/advertisers try to shirk their responsibility and liability for commercial speech. Trust me, you will have a better appreciation for why it is so important for the FTC to take action.

Yes, we are bloggers, and these guidelines may impact how we do “our thing.” We are also consumers, and I for one am grateful that the FTC is watching out for deceptive advertising. These guidelines aren’t just about spelling out the blogger liability. They put the advertiser squarely on notice as well.

Lastly – this is not new law. Deceptive advertising is already against the law. The FTC guidelines merely inform as to how the agency intends to apply the law. Nor is there a prescribed fine associated with the guidelines. Penalties will be assessed in the enforcement – legal – process. The legal process is also where these guidelines will be tested. The FTC has to prove its case, and the courts have to agree – on both its interpretation of the law and whether the advertiser or endorser was deceptive.  The burden of proof is on the FTC. Admittedly, it can cost a lot to be the subject of a federal agency investigation, so it behooves us all to put our house in  order, just in case.

But the FTC hasn’t added additional resources to investigate commercial endorsement claims. It has said many times that it will continue to investigate complaints based on where it perceives the greatest potential harm to consumers, and specifically to the revised guidelines, Rich Cleland has commented in numerous media this week that the Commission plans to focus on advertisers, not bloggers:

“Our approach is going to be educational, particularly with bloggers. We’re focusing on the advertisers: What kind of education are you providing them, are you monitoring the bloggers and whether what they’re saying is true?” (Source: FastCompany)

My opinion – the first stop on the FTC enforcement train will be the large blog networks. The FTC will be checking that they are advising the bloggers working with them to properly disclose and  ensuring that blog posts are not deceptive as to facts about products.

What should bloggers do? I consider disclosure a best practice, and recommend that all bloggers publish a clear editorial policy on their blogs. At a minimum, even if you don’t engage with marketers and none of the FTC guidelines apply, you probably have a policy about comments. You may also want to disclose other general principles that guide your blogging and shape your point of view. Not because it is required. Simply because you want to help your reader — whether she visits once or a hundred times — understand what your blog is all about.

I do not however recommend using generic policies like the ones at disclosurepolicy.org. They are okay as a starting point, but they are often more about protecting the advertisers than the bloggers. Take the time to customize your policy. Be specific about your policies and practices. Ditch the legal mumbo-jumbo that’s generally designed to obfuscate, and speak to your reader in the same human voice you use on your blog.

Next post: Detailed analysis of the new examples relevant to blogging.

–

Additional Reading:

New FTC guidelines call for greater blogger disclosure (CNN)

Yes, new FTC guidelines extend to Facebook fan pages (C|net)

FTC Responds to Blogger Fears: “That $11,000 Fine is Not True” (FastCompany)

Hey Bloggers! Let’s Hear It For Government Regulation! (MediaPost)

The new FTC guidelines and what they mean to you (BlogHer)

The WORST coverage of the new FTC guidelines? Hands down, ABC, which once again decided that this is all about mommy bloggers, even though the word “mom” does not appear even ONCE in the entire FTC document — Mommy Bloggers Could Be Held Liable for Product Reviews

–

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and do not play one on the Internet. This post is my opinion based on published FTC documents and statements.

More from me on this later this week. We’ll also be updating and repeating the Blog with Integrity webinar on disclosure to reflect the final approved guidelines. Follow @BlogIntegrity on Twitter, fan on Facebook or subscribe to the email list for updates.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will be tweeting live from the Ad Club of Boston’s Hatch Awards tomorrow, courtesy of an invite from the folks at 360 Public Relations. Hashtag #AdClub.

First, the Social Media for Small Business conference. Developed to help the the small business owner integrate social media into the business plan, the conference will be held October 22-24 2009 at the Renaissance ClubSport in Aliso Viejo California (about half way between LA and San Diego). I’ll be participating in a panel about Blogger Relations.

The Society for New Communications Research Symposium and Awards Gala is always a great event to recharge your intellectual batteries. This year the event will be held November 5 and 6 at the Harvard Faculty Club in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Just a few of my favorite posts.

The Four Ps of Social Media Engagement (12/12/07)
The secret sauce for the perfect pitch (8/13/08)
New Comm Forum: the 5Cs of Viral Marketing (3/11/07)
Personal Brand? (3/31/09)
The FTC is NOT gunning for mom bloggers (5/19/09)

The one about BlogHer (7/16/09)
BlogHer Boston Sessions (10/18/08)
BlogHer ‘08. Too many parties? (7/26/08)
Almost live from BlogHer Business (4/6/08)
Can this pitch be saved? (3/29/08)
BlogHer Recap Part 2: Everything and the kitchen sink (8/5/07)
Post BlogHer Recap: In which I contemplate the woodshed (8/1/07)
On BlogHer and the Do’s and Don’ts of marketing to bloggers (4/3/07)
A bit more BlogHer (8/3/06)
Dateline BlogHer (8/1/06)
BlogHer Takeaway: Blogs need a Code of Ethics (9/9/05)
blogher observations (8/11/05)

Thumbs Up Facebook (7/13/2009)
It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood (7/7/2009)
My Facebook page experiment (6/17/2009)
The great Facebook URL grab (6/16/2009)
Facebook. The gateway drug to social media (6/4/2009)
What does Facebook want to be when it grows up (11/1/2007)
Ways to grow your business? Piss off the moms? Not. (9/26/2007)