I really don’t want to blog daily on this whole Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guideline debacle, but it just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

First off, I finally got a link to the full 81-page document (PDF link) from Steven Hodson, and although I have only read through 51 pages thus far, this is going to be mandatory reading for every independent blogger if you want to make sure to keep yourself from getting in trouble with the FTC.  That being said, be prepared for the extreme ambiguity of the document on many fronts.

So far I have still yet to find anywhere that describes in detail how disclosures are supposed to be written.  It mentions numerous times that you must disclose if you receive a product for free and then give it a positive review (there is some implication that disclosure is not required on negative reviews), but nowhere does it say how are exactly where it is to be placed.

The document also discusses new rules for celebrity endorsements and how they are supposed to disclose their relationship with anything they speak positively of.  The problem with this is that at no time do they define what a celebrity is.  On tonight’s episode of CobWEBs, Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins and I discussed this, and technically you could call iJustine a celebrity, but that is only to a handful of people on the Internet.  Heck, there was even a time when I was working for Wizard magazine that I was being asked for my autograph on a regular basis, would that have qualified me as a celebrity?  I was a celebrity to those people, but not to the other 99.999999999% of the population of the country, but would I have qualified for the FTC celebrity rules?  Who knows, their answers are so vague.

Then to muddy the waters even further, Richard Cleland, assistant director, division of advertising practices at the FTC (and someone Rizzn has been trying to get an interview with for 3 months with no luck) spoke with FastCompany, and made some of the most mind boggling statements ever.

Heather B. Armstrong, author of parenting blog Dooce: “Eleven thousand dollars is a little crazy for a post. Maybe I’m being naïve, but I think a lot of people who are in violation [of not disclosing] just don’t know that they’re supposed to.”

Richard Cleland: “That $11,000 fine is not true. Worst-case scenario, someone receives a warning, refuses to comply, followed by a serious product defect; we would institute a proceeding with a cease-and-desist order and mandate compliance with the law…

Excuse me?  When did the FTC start writing laws?  They are a regulatory body, they are not capable of making “laws”.  Perhaps he was misquoted, but if the FTC really sees this as “law”, we’re in bigger trouble than any of us first thought.

Brian Lam, editorial director of Gizmodo: “Some colleagues of mine just reminded me of how many freelance pro journalists take junkets. In the end, I’m glad these rules are being introduced, but it’s kind of stupid to attach unethical behavior to a particular publishing medium. Look at how shitty TV journalism can be, by and large.”

RC: “It’s not the medium, it’s the message. We want to establish a self-imposed ethical standard so people are aware of the conflicts of interest…

“We want to establish a self-imposed…” um … which part of this sentence makes any sense?  How does person #2 establish SELF-IMPOSED anything on person #1?

This is what we are dealing with folks: vagueness, ambiguity and a regulatory body that seems to have no clue what its actual job is.  If you aren’t scared yet, you aren’t thinking.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

The Full FTC Guidelines Make Your Head Hurt

ShareThis

In all of the hoopla yesterday, Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins, Steven Hodson and myself ran into many instances of being questioned over our vehement hatred of the new guidelines, and also more examples of just how messed up this whole thing is.

“Print media is already under these rules.”

No, they aren’t.

This was the most tired argument I have seen, and it simply isn’t true.  If this was true, I want you to point out to me where movie reviewers disclose that they got into a movie for free or got sent a DVD copy of the movie for free.  We all know it happens, but have you ever seen them disclose it?  Same goes for book, movie and DVD reviews.

Now, under these new FTC rules, if I decide to review anything, and if it was sent to me for free, then I have to write a disclosure every single time I do it.  Tell me how these are the same rules traditional media has been under.

“Facebook and Twitter fall under these rules also.”

Yep, all that fun you have on social media sites?  Well, prepare yourself to always disclose your relationship for any product you speak positively of.

Caroline McCarthy of CNET spoke with a Richard Cleland, associate director for the FTC’s advertising division, and here is the scenario he set up to explain the Facebook scenario:

Here’s a sample scenario: a celebrity or other prominent figure with loads of friends on Facebook receives free hotel says [sic] from Hotel Chain X in exchange for running Hotel Chain X ads on his or her blog. If that person then signs up as a Facebook fan of Hotel Chain X–which, remember, could mean that the person’s name can show up for his or her Facebook friends alongside Hotel Chain X display ads on the social network–he or she could be held liable by the FTC.

“It would be the same thing if you were going to pay the celebrity a thousand dollars to go register as a fan,” Cleland said. “In that case, there wouldn’t be any question about it.”

And as for new media darling Twitter?

As for Twitter, the FTC isn’t letting you get a pass with the excuse that 140 characters–Twitter’s famous text limit–is simply too short. “There are ways to abbreviate a disclosure that fit within 140 characters,” Cleland said. “You may have to say a little bit of something else, but if you can’t make the disclosure, you can’t make the ad.”

So, think you will be exempt from this if you aren’t a blogger.  Too bad.  If you have any sort of relationship with a product, and you make a comment anywhere on the Web about it, you better be prepared to disclose your relationship.

“This is all about going after sploggers.”

No, it isn’t.

In a discussion between Steven Hodson and Matt Cutts of Google on The Noisy Channel, they brought up the discussion of how this will cut out bad marketing:

Steven: “No degree of FTC intervention is going to make any difference to splogs or other such garbage…”

Matt: At a respected search conference last year, I sat in the audience and watched a presenter recommend “sock puppet” marketing by coming up with fake personas to promote products. With this new guidance from the FTC (plus similar recent guidance in the UK/EU against sock puppet marketing), that sort of bad advice will be much less likely to appear at search conferences. That’s one easy counter-example.

No, Matt, it isn’t.  You are talking about advice given at a conference, big deal.  The Sock Puppet marketers will simply start hiring people from Africa and India off of GetAFreelancer or other such sites and have them do that sort of marketing far from the reach of the USA, UK or EU.

And that is one of my biggest complaints about this whole thing is that the unethical people it is supposedly targeting will just find new ways of working around it, while those of us who follow ethical blogging and online presence will be saddled with these idiotic new rules, libing under fear of some little slip up costing us a potential $11,000 fine.  Oh yeah, that makes things so much better.

“This will stop all those fake review sites.”

Are you kidding me?

Lets say that an “unethical” blogger is currently working out of the USA with their web site on servers that reside in the USA.  They want to get away from these new rules so they move their site to servers in another country, they put privacy protection on their domain name and then they sit back.

The FTC finds them lacking disclosure, they will have to get a court order to reveal the name of the person who holds the ownership of the domain.  So the FTC will have to weight taking the time to get the court order, and in some cases they will have to go through a court in another country, is it really worth all of that effort, time and taxpayer money for a possibly undisclosed material relationship?  You guessed it, I would go with “no.”  Of course, that doesn’t mean they won’t try.

All of the “bad” sites will simply move off shore to countries that don’t care about all of this hoopla, and the innocent people will yet again be left to jumping through hoops that should have never been required.

“This system is ripe for abuse.”

Yes, it is.

We have no clue what the investigation process will be like yet, but what is to stop people from reporting you for fun or revenge?  ”Oh, hey, I think so-and-so has a relationship with that company they just posted abut on Facebook.”  Oh won’t that be fun to defend yourself from false accusations?  This is why some people will be better off even disclosing when they purchased something to cut off any possible questioning to avoid any sense in impropriety.

In other words, people will be so annoyed by having to watch their behinds that they simply won’t want to talk any more.

“Aren’t you worrying about this too much?”

No, I’m not.

I have done more reading today, and the tone of the conversations have changed quite a bit in the second day.  Check out SiliconANGLE’s FTC vs. the Blogosphere Day 2 Roundup to get a better sense of what is being said everywhere.  (disclosure: I am linked to in that article and I work for SiliconANGLE … see … won’t that get annoying?)

Also make sure to check out Steven Hodson’s questions that he is still waiting for answers to:

1. Will these same ‘guidelines’ be applied against “traditional media” and if not – why not?

2. What exact form do these disclosure need to take? Per post? Per page? Per comment?

3. Is this retroactive? Does this mean that sites like Gizmodo, TechCrunch, Mashable, – well every single blog past and present will have to go through all their archives and add a disclaimer. Because we all know that posts that are even months or years old can resurface.

4.Will book publishers make signing a disclosure form a part of bloggers doing book reviews and is it really worth the effort at that point?

5. Does the country of origin of the writer matter as to whether a disclosure is included?

6. Does it matter the country of origin of where the blog served from come into play?

7 Does the country of origin of the product, service or book come into play at all?

(disclaimer: I know Steven and make fun of his Canadian citizenship on a regular basis)

The FTC has got to start defining this whole thing better, but somehow I don’t see that coming any time soon.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

The FTC Situation Just Keeps Getting Worse

ShareThis

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has updated its Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in advertising for the first time since 1980.  The new additions to the guides include endorsements by consumers, experts, organizations, and celebrities, as well as disclosing of “material connections” between advertisers and endorsers.  In plain English, this means that if you get paid to talk about an item, or you receive it for free, you must disclose those situations wherever you talk about them online.

Well, that is if you talk about it on the Internet, if you do the same in a magazine or newspaper, then you’re perfectly fine and don’t have to say a word.

You see, for years newspapers and magazines have received free items to review, but they have never been required to disclose the arrangement.  Do you really think movie reviewers pay to go all those movies?  Do book reviewers pay for the books they receive?  No, they don’t, but for some reason it is important that people know that those of us on the Internet who receive similar freebies are obligated to tell you because … well … we’re not really sure why, but if we don’t we could be facing fines of up to $11,000 per incident.

I have already written about this today at Tech.BLORGE.com and StarterTech.com, as well as having just recorded a podcast with Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins and Steven Hodson about it that I will be posting later, and I have never thrilled to reusing a subject, but this is just too important to not be everywhere possible.  The StarterTech article in particular lists my major reservations over this, but it can all be summarized as I fear the precedent it sets.  It starts here, where does it go next?

My father asked me why I was so upset about this today as I don’t do reviews typically and it would have little to no impact on me, and I pointed him to one of my all time favorite quotes:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

This speaks to First Amendment issues, and is actually why I imagine this could end up being challenged in the courts at some point, but for now it is just frightening.  The FTC thinks they are helping the American people, but this leads to one of Mark Hopkins’ favorite quotes:

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

Ronald Reagan

If you don’t speak out against this, then where will they go next?

Post from: SeanPAune.com

…And There Was No One Left To Speak Out For Me

ShareThis

There is no doubt that the United States Postal Service is having financial problems, and recently they announced that they are removing over 100,000 drop
off boxess from the streets of the United States. They have also been looking at reducing the number of hours at some offices and placing a freeze on new hires and any raises for existing employees. Unfortunately it looks like those measures still aren’t enough to bring down the organizations expenses as much as they want, and now come the drastic measures.

As it currently stands, the postal service is looking at a $7 billion loss for the fiscal year closing on September 30th, and this is even with a postal rate increase that happened in May. So, the only solution at this point is to look at closing and consolidating some of the existing offices. There are currently 32,741 post offices, and after putting together a list of 3,243 potential closure sites, they are now looking at a list of around 677. You can see the post office closings list (PDF link) for yourself, and it looks to me to be mostly urban areas that are are serviced by numerous offices to begin with.

In case you’re wondering what is going to so wrong with the postal service… do you really need to think about it very hard? Yes, email is one of the biggest culprits, but you also have to keep in mind that companies are cutting out printed catalogs left and right. (Although today I got four copies of the same catalog from Paper Direct…) Mail volume fallen from an all time high of 213 billion pieces of mail in 2006 to a projected 170 billion in 2010, and it’s probably going to fall even further as companies look to cut their costs for printing and mailing. This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

My one thought on this whole thing from a business perspective is if you make a service less convenient to use, won’t that cut people’s willingness to use the service? “Well, I could drive that extra mile to the post office I have to go to now… or I can scan the document and email it… let me fire up that scanner.” If you make something harder for people to use, they’ll just stop using it.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

Post Office Closings List

ShareThis

I admit I first heard about this while watching “Weekend Update” on Saturday Night Live this past weekend, but my jaw dropped as I discovered it was a real story.  It seems that two women complained to the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs after they were injured by the Brazilian wax (example images of naked women at link) treatments they had received.  One of the two women had sued the salon involved, but the state still investigated the complaints.  They then decided that this was a process that should possibly be banned all together.  The decision will be made by the Board of Cosmetology of April 14th at a meeting.

According to Philly.com, it seems that under current New Jersey laws it only allows for the waxing of face, neck, arms, legs and abdomen, but it does not spell out that the waxing of genital areas is explicitly banned.  As this has gained some press coverage, some salons have ceased offering them, but the majority have not.

Philly.com spoke with Linda Orsuto, a salon owner in Cherry Hill, NJ who said that women would “go ballistic” if this passes.  She also said they would resort to waxing themselves, visiting unlicensed salons or even traveling to other states for the service.

So, essentially, it took exactly two people complaining to possibly get an entire service ended in a state?  This is another example of “the nanny state” going to an extreme.  I have no clue how many people get this procedure done, but I would imagine in the state of New Jersey alone the number must be in the tens of thousands, but because exactly two people complained, a Brazilian waxing underground movement may be set up.  Will this be like prohibition with waxing speakeasys being set up in back alleys?

Not only will they be passing a ban that makes absolutely no sense, they will be harming the revenue streams of salons in an already down economy.  As Ms. Orsuto said in the interview, people will find alternatives and legit salons in New Jersey will lose income and nothing will be truly gained by this move.  The only thing that will have been accomplished is salon owners may have to cut staff as there will be less work for them to do.

I am sorry two women got injured, but shall we look at all the other ways people are injured or even killed each day?  Shall we start banning everything in the world that someone at sometime has been injured doing?  How about we ban sports?  I mean, people get injured in sports every day, but yet no one bans those, but apparently if two people complain about a service in a salon, you can just get that completely banned.  Well, I’ve received some pretty bad haircuts in my day at salons, shall we ban those?

Yes, people should not be injured, but two isolated cases of waxings gone bad does not a state-wide terror make.  This is something that maybe should be monitored, make sure people have the proper certificates, but just banning in totality is heavy-handed and wrong.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

New Jersey May Ban Brazilian Waxing… Again

ShareThis

In the past 24 hours I have heard two odd stories of how different police departments are handling budget problems.  The first came from the infamous “M”, famed around this blog for the World’s Longest Dark Knight Review, who is currently haunting the streets of Gotham New York City.  It seems that the police have increased patrols to seemingly focus on motor vehicle violations in an effort to issue more tickets.  She told me a tale of someone she knew who got pulled over for one thing, told to move over to a specific spot on the side and was issued a second ticket for parking in a no parking area.  This person will fight the second ticket as he was ordered to move there, but that still just shows how desperate they are for income.

The second story I learned about at lunch today as I dined with a friend of mine.  After he gave me my weekly ribbing about salad bar etiquette, I was telling him about what M had told me.  He informed me of a story from St. Louis about how much their police department was spending on badges for their top officers.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch had broken a story about how the St. Louis police department had just spent $1,987 each on five badges.  The new badges were for a chief badge, two assistant chief badges and two lieutenant colonel badges.  These new works of art were purchased from Stange Co., of Maryland Heights which is known for making jewlery for third-world governments up to Queen Elizabeth II.  These new badges cost 100 times that of a rank-and-file patrol officer in St. Louis as their badges cost $19.75.

In all fairness to the new police chief, Daniel Isom, the badges were ordered before he took office, and he agrees the spending is outrageous.  Of course, these new badges are a bargain compared to the $5,900 his predecessor, Joe Mokwa, spent on solid gold badges.

The owner of the jewlery company tried to defend the cost saying that he was sure that the Police Chief of Los Angeles probably spends more.  The newspaper called the LA police chiefs office and found his badge cost $61.  The St. Louis jewler was concerned with how shabby his badge must be at that price.

We are hearing endless stories of how taxes will be raised in states all across this country to help with budget short falls, and then you see stories like this that make you wonder how long the common person will have to pay for the stupidity of those people who are partially responsible for the mess we’re in.  I am always reminded of the Kevin Kline movie Dave where a man impersonates the President after he has a stroke, and when the budget spins out of control, he calls in his best friend, an every day accountant, to look at the governments books and cut the budget to save some programs.

Where are the every day accountants?  You are needed more than ever.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

Police Budgeting Problems

ShareThis

W. Mark Felt was revealed to be the infamous Deep Throat of the Preseident Richard M. Nixon Watergate scandal back on May 31st,2005.  While some would say that Mr. Felt was nothing but a whistleblower, I don’t think any one would be hard pressed to convince me that Nixon didn’t need to be ousted from office as more and more information about his antics came to light.  Considering the tapes that have comes out in recent years, it is fairly obvious that Nixon was crazy as a loon bird.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein swore that they would not reveal Deep Throat’s identity until the person had passed away, but in 2005 Mr. Felt was suffering from progressively worsening Alzheimers, and when his family figured out who he was due to a visit by Mr. Woodward, they decided to reveal it to the world via Vanity Fair.  Luckily Woodward had The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate’s Deep Throat book ready to go, and it came out in short order.

The book revealed a man who became the snitch on the happenings of Watergate partially out of a sense of duty, but in large part due to bitterness over the fact he had been told he had little hope of ever heading the F.B.I., even after rising to the second-in-command spot after many long years of service to the agency.  While this revelation tarnished my opinion of Deep Throat some, he still had done what had to be done, and while it has never been addressed, no matter how he felt, I am sure it was not an easy decision for any one to reach that they should rat out their President for their actions.

Mr. Felt was 95-years-old, and I, for one, salute his memory.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

R.I.P. W. Mark Felt

ShareThis

For a long time I have advocated the idea that small amounts of marijuana should be decriminalized.  While illegal, and not all together smart, throwing some college kid in jail for having a joint has just never made sense to me.

Prisoner #1: What you in for?
Prisoner #2: Stabbed my wife.  You?
Prisoner #1: I had a joint.
Prisoner #2: Take whatever bunk you want, man!

This past Tuesday, the voters of Massachusetts passed Question 2, which will replace the old penalty of a $500 fine, up to six months in jail and a Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) report.  The new law is:

• Replace criminal penalties with a US$100 fine of which the proceeds go to the city where the offense takes place.
• Eliminate collection of Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) reports for minor infractions.
• Maintain current penalties for selling, growing, and trafficking marijuana, as well as the prohibition against driving under the influence of marijuana.
• The law requires additional penalties for minors not in current law such as Parental notification, compulsory drug awareness program, 10 hours community service, and a larger fine of $1,000. In addition, possible delinquency proceedings for those under 17 if the requirements are not completed.

I like this. While I have always wanted the decriminalization to happen, I will admit I had never thought of keeping a fine in place, and the penalties for minors is also sensible.

Before I go any further with this, let me make one thing crystal clear: these are not the ramblings of a pot head.  Quite often when you see people going on about legalizing marijuana, you have to ignore their goofy grin and blood shot eyes, but, to date, I have never once smoked marijuana.  Yes, I did once get a “contact high” seeing as about 20 people behind me at an Guns N’ Roses/Aerosmith concert were smoking up, but oh well.  Otherwise I have never ventured past alcohol, cigarettes and too much Xbox 360.

So, why should a non-user give a hoot about the legalities of marijuana possession?  It’s a fairly simple answer in that I feel it is a horrible waste of civil resources.  Busting someone for small amounts of marijuana and jailing them takes up officer time, prosecuting attorney time, court time and resources of a jail.  In the end, we are all paying the price for someone smoking a plant, and that just is completely lost on me.

Our courts especially are already taxed beyond belief with backlogs of cases running into years, and this also adds to the workloads of our prosecuting attorneys.  According to an AP story, the new version of the law won’t take effect until sometime in December, but Hampden District Attorney William Bennett said he is already dropping all cases for possession of an ounce or less.

Opponents of the new law said that this was bad because pot serves as a gateway drug, which I have always found to be a weak argument.  I have known many people who have indulged in drugs over the years (hey, I said -I- was clean, nothing about people I’ve known), and not one of them ever said, “Oh, if I had just never smoked that first joint!”  In actuality, most of them had totally skipped marijuana and gone straight to cocaine or stronger.  (side note: Having seen someone in heroin withdrawal is probably what kept me from ever trying a drug -shudder-)

Is this going to be a perfect system? Probably not, but I certainly feel it is a step in the right direction for taking care of some of the load on courts and jails.  I also think it will save some people from having their lives destroyed due to a simple mistake that might keep them from getting into some schools and proffesions they may want to go into later in life.

In short, it’s not perfect, but I still think it’s better than what was there.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

Massachusetts Decrimanilizes Small Amounts Of Marijuana

ShareThis

In a recent sketch on Saturday Night Live, Tina Fey as Sarah Palin made a joke about buying “Palin in 2012″ tshirts before this current election was even over.  At the end of the joke, she said you should wait until Wednesday to wear them.

Apparently no one got the hint.

I had to go by Walmart today, and I chuckled as I walked past the Christmas displays.  For several years now, Halloween has become the marker for businesses to go in to Christmas mode.  I still think it’s early, but oh well.  As I walked past a Christmas tree, I wondered how long it would be before we heard stratagies for the losing side in this election as they looked forward to 2012.

I started to hear the rumblings by 8 PM EST.  In other words, as the first polls closed.

I spent the evening watching Republicans throwing each other under the bus at an astounding rate, and by 1 AM EST I was hearing what sort of candidate the Republican party would need in four years as well as what they will need to do to their platform.  This was followed by, “Well, our job starts tomorrow.”

-cue me banging my head on my keyboard-

I am 100% sure we would have heard the same from the Democrats had the tables been turned, but what I am thinking is… I’m tired.  I am bone tired.  I can not take any more campaigning and politicing at this point.  I was almost angry at how I looked at tonight as a finish line more than anything else.  I felt no excitement, no emotions other than relief at this exhaustive campaign being over.  No more commercials.  No more debates.  No more press conferences.  Just completion.

Both parties need to learn that the American people can only take so much of this.  It is almost the equivalent of being held hostage by the political parties and the media.  I wish whomever the Republicans run in 2012 the best of luck, but I really don’t want to even hear their name until 2010 at the absolute earliest.  Let us rest, to catch our breath, have your one day of armchair quarterbacking, but let the American people rest… please.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

Election 2012

ShareThis

After what seems like the longest election cycle in history, it all comes down today.  All anyone can do at this point is to sit back and hope for the best.  No matter who wins the presidency, they have a long, hard road ahead of them due to this financial mess and fighting wars on two fronts.  While I obviously have cast my vote for one or the other (remember, I voted early), I wish both men the best of luck, and I hope they can accomplish everything they need to in office.

All of that being said… please, I don’t care if it is raining fire where you are, please make sure you go out and vote.  I would hope you vote with a well thought out process over going with your heart, or just who you like for some surface reason.  This is too important job to be decided on a whim.

Good luck to everyone out there… and prepare for the talk about the 2012 election to begin late Tuesday night/early Wednesday morning… groan.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

November 4th, 2008 – Please Vote!

ShareThis