t396t…

t912t…

t896t…

t275t…

t344t…

t523t…

t798t…

t3t…

t644t…

t800t…

t628t…

t482t…

t500t…

t21t…

With that in mind, I’m concerned that the current proposal is too complicated and tries to do too much, while also covering too little. As has been noted in prior comments, there are multiple material connections that aren’t just payment or product; yet the proposal doesn’t include flexibility for that spectrum. It also doesn’t handle the scenario of having a material connection to the competitor of the subject of a post (e.g. wouldn’t a reader want to know if a Walmart-sponsored blogger writes about Target?) or how to handle that large portion of content that isn’t specifically a review (e.g. posts or tweets about a movie that hasn’t come out yet — they aren’t reviews, they are just spreading the word about something coming). There is also no mention of scenarios where there exists a material connection (i.e. display advertiser) that isn’t specific to a piece of content, but is often a wink-nod part of gaining coverage in editorial or elsewhere.

Unfortunately, when the proposal does try to cover multiple situations (e.g. different content streams, sites, networks), it does so with such specificity that it complicates enforcement and potentially creates standard-creep depending upon the media. Remember, divergent, media-specific standards are part of what created uncertainty in the first place:
○ TV: disclosure required for infomercials, but not celebrities or in-show product placements
○ Movies: no disclosure of product placements
○ Radio: no disclosure required for talk radio endorsements
○ Newspapers: “advertorial” phrase for sponsored editorial, no disclosure by reviewers of free products
○ Magazines: “advertorial” sometimes used, but many magazines regularly spotlight advertisers in editorial with no disclosure
We have an opportunity to create a single core standard online, with a framework and Living Ethics platform/process to improve it over time.

I think WOMMA’s standard for meaningful disclosure of material connections to endorsements should start with 3 core elements:
1. Disclosure Policy
2. Simple Disclosure
3. Compliance Tools

1. Disclosure Policy

The standard begins with a mandatory, simply-worded Disclosure Policy to educate visitors of what they can expect from the site they visit, similar to how Privacy Policies educate visitors of what they can expect for their personal data collected by the site they visit. A Disclosure Policy should be posted online, without legalese, that describes someone’s material connections and how they will disclose material connections (maybe with a link to WOMMA standard). A DP can even be helpful for handling “grey areas” such as what they consider a material connection: for example, blogging about an immediate family member’s company may be considered material, but not a second-cousin’s company. The FTC Guidelines leave plenty of “grey area” and DPs can help match interpretations/expectations between a publisher and a consumer of content. As the use of microformats increases, DPs also provide a standard, programmatic way to define/highlight disclosure by browsers, twitter apps, search engines etc. — imagine a browser plug-in that could automatically highlight a post in green if it mentions a company listed as a material connection in the Disclosure Policy. As for WOMMA, the existence of a Disclosure Policy posted online, with URL/link included on every page that may contain conflicted content would be required of content creators or marketers who want to be WOMMA members.

2. Simple Disclosure

○ Where space is available: “I have a material connection to [Company-X that competes with] Company-Y mentioned in this content” or something similar (whether that material connection is employment, agency, competitor, soft-money payment, hard-money payment, product, points, passes, trips, family/friend, partnership etc.)
○ Where minimal space is available (e.g. tweets): “#ad”, “#spon” or something similar (maybe WOMMA recommends a set of acceptable hashtags to communicate material connections)

Bloggers and marketers can always get more detailed for their specific situations, but as someone who has been involved in shaping more standards than I care to admit, simplicity and consistency of core requirements are keys to adoption and enforcement.

3. Compliance Tools

If WOMMA’s standard is supposed to drive best practices, then I believe required use of FTC Compliance tools need to be part of the standard. The FTC expects pre-campaign education, in-campaign disclosure and post-campaign monitoring. Trying to meet and document compliance via email and phone blogger outreach was NOT a best practice after December 1, 2009 (FTC Endorsement Guides). However, using FTC Compliance tools such as those provided by IZEA automatically enforce disclosure and document compliance after-the-fact. In fact, if disclosure doesn’t exist, payment is programmatically blocked, so you either have disclosed material connections or no material connections to disclose. Another compliance tool provider mentioned in an earlier comment, CMP.LY, can also help with a piece of the puzzle. Regardless of whose tools are used, WOMMA has the opportunity to standardize the expected use of FTC Compliance tools as a best practice for the industry — just as using SOX Compliance tools and HIPAA Compliance tools are best practices for other industries.

That brings me to my final observation about the proposal: it only mentions “marketers” and “bloggers” but there is another participant in this ecosystem, “tools providers”. That category includes CMP.LY and IZEA mentioned above, but also blogging tools (e.g. WordPress), status update tools (e.g. Twitter, Facebook), video hosting tools (e.g. YouTube) and advertising networks (e.g. FederatedMedia). I believe WOMMA’s standard should make it clear that any “tools provider” to the industry must allow “marketers” and “bloggers” to meet these standards. For example, a “tools provider” whose TOS doesn’t allow marketers to require disclosure wouldn’t meet WOMMA’s membership standard. However, tools providers may only provide pieces of the overall puzzle, so it must remain clear that the responsibility for disclosure always rests with the marketer and blogger. In other words, although they must allow it, it’s not WordPress’s responsibility to require marketers/bloggers using their tools (who may or may not be WOMMA members) to disclose in a specific manner. Such an approach is consistent with FTC Guidelines and internet service provider safe harbors for content created using their tools.

As others have mentioned before me, the goal of defining a WOMMA standard that exceeds FTC requirements is a good one. We’re capturing/defining best practices for our members, not writing law for the industry. I would make sure that goal is stated explicitly in the standard, so WOMMA “best practices” and FTC requirements are understood to be two distinct thresholds. I hope this feedback helps simplify the standard and maximize adoption for all.

Another gray issue for me is the “above the fold” guideline. There are many in web design who don’t believe there is such a thing as a virtual fold. With an ever increasing number of screen sizes and resolutions, large and small, there is no common definition of the fold, and therefore defining and enforcing this guideline will be a challenge. In addition, if the disclosure relates to a specific photo, video, or blog post, there is no controlling where it will appear on the page. In most cases, you are specifying the disclosure should occur in the description or as part of the profile. I don’t think any additional guideline is needed.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Disclosure should not interrupt. The primary purpose of a disclosure should be to inform, or to notify that additional information is available elsewhere and to direct the reader to that source.

In order to make this short-form, non-interruptive disclosure a reality, we need to agree on an industry standard, widely known and accepted code or set of codes. I have proposed a set of codes on my blog here – http://jburg.typepad.com/future/2009/10/a-new-take-on-shortform-disclosure.html

I am extremely pleased to see that the industry is taking an active interest in self-regulation and standardization. Looking forward to contributing and participating.

For the digital influencer:
1. Post an ethics and disclosure policy in the main navigation bar on your site
2. List the companies that you are currently or will be mentioning in your posts, tweets, comments etc.

For the brand:
1. Educate Employees:
Whether or not employees are officially tasked with responding on social networks, they are using Twitter, Facebook etc and they do discuss their jobs. Give them the tools to keep everyone out of trouble. Provide a 30 minute quick “social media disclosure 101” both in person or video as well as an official written document in the employee handbook with clear direction indicating that disclosure is mandatory for all employees.

2. Signed Agreement:
Create a one page agreement between the digital influencer and the brand that is signed and returned before product / service is exchanged. We are putting this into place with our wine, restaurant and travel clients and it’s working out well. Many of the bloggers who we’ve provided product to are thankful for the additional information.

Agencies and other vendors:
1. Include a “we will provide complete transparency when writing, blogging, etc.” clause into each letter of agreement and / or contract.
2. Education for all employees
3. Include a disclosure policy in the agency handbook.

Thoughts on standardized coding:
1. We would like to see a standardized coding system that works across all platforms. We currently use a list of two letter codes with brackets to indicate our material relationships. That list is also outlined in our ethics policy in our main navigation on our site. Having to change the codes for each platform can be confusing and I can barely remember my passwords! The two letter code works well on Twitter where it can be a challenge to fit everything into 140 characters.

Obvious, Not Disruptive:
We all agree that disclosure is not only mandatory, but believe it’s additive. However, a primary discussion in the office is how to provide minimum but effective disclosure so that it does not feel forced or out of place.

Thanks WOMMA for heading up this important effort.