Blog with Integrity

By displaying the Blog with Integrity badge , I assert that the trust of my readers and the blogging community is important to me.

I treat others respectfully, attacking ideas and not people. I also welcome respectful disagreement with my own ideas.

I believe in intellectual property rights, providing links, citing sources, and crediting inspiration where appropriate.

I always present my honest opinions to the best of my ability.

I own my words. Even if I occasionally have to eat them.

Inspired by http://theartfulflower.blogspot.com/2010/05/mommy-elephant-in-room-not-so-much.html at #smbh. Julie (the blogger and one of the presenters) told us this is what smart bloggers do.

I also learned at the Social Media Breakfast Houston about a case of what not to do, which I would never do anyway, in which a pr person blogged in rage about a blogger having a hormonal imbalanced...rant goes on... Anyway, apparently this person's mother teach them not to put anything in writing that you did not want to see as a headline. Old school maybe. So, let's update it. Do not put anything in writing that you do not want to see go viral all over the worldwide Internet.

What was very informative was Julie's suggestion that we familiarize ourselves with http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005endorsementguidesfnnotice.pdf.
The Federal Trade Commission, in a news release, summarized it this way:

...endorsements by consumers, experts, organizations, and celebrities, as well as the disclosure of important connections between advertisers and endorsers. The Guides were last updated in 1980.

Under the revised Guides, advertisements that feature a consumer and convey his or her experience with a product or service as typical when that is not the case will be required to clearly disclose the results that consumers can generally expect. In contrast to the 1980 version of the Guides – which allowed advertisers to describe unusual results in a testimonial as long as they included a disclaimer such as “results not typical” – the revised Guides no longer contain this safe harbor.

The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that “material connections” (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other “word-of-mouth” marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims.

Celebrity endorsers also are addressed in the revised Guides. While the 1980 Guides did not explicitly state that endorsers as well as advertisers could be liable under the FTC Act for statements they make in an endorsement, the revised Guides reflect Commission case law and clearly state that both advertisers and endorsers may be liable for false or unsubstantiated claims made in an endorsement – or for failure to disclose material connections between the advertiser and endorsers. The revised Guides also make it clear that celebrities have a duty to disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in social media.