360DigitalInfluence

As President of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA), I have been anticipating the final release of the FTC guidelines which came out this morning at 8am. Figures that I would be in Paris with our Digital Influence team and not in the US. But even here, everyone is paying attention to the issues raised by these guidelines. This is an important step and will cause many marketers to revise their approach. I wanted to take the time to summarize some key issues as we all dig in to the document.

Helpful Resources

• You can access the actual guidelines here as a pdf
• Keep tabs on WOMMA’s legal counsel Tony DiResta’s blog here
• Get WOMMA’s initial release on the FTC guidelines here
• My posts on meaningful disclosure

What do they mean?

The big question is what do the guidelines mean to marketers who engage with boggers at the level that we do at Ogilvy. The short answer is probably not as much for us as we have been following WOMMA and our own guidelines on full and meaningful disclosure. But many marketers will need to pay heed.  There is a lot on this document. It is organized around the core issues floated earlier which we and others commented on. Among some of the issues in there:

• Different masures for considering bloggers as endorsers including whether they routinely receive product for review and receive any thing from the marketer including free product for the review itself.
• If bloggers and the marketer who engaged them can be held liable for any claims they make about the product (in some cases the answer is yes). Here is an excerpt:
  • “The Commission recognizes that because the advertiser does not disseminate the endorsements made using these new consumer-generated media, it does not have complete control over the contents of those statements. Nonetheless, if the advertiser initiated the process that led to these endorsements being made – e.g., by providing products to well-known bloggers or to endorsers enrolled in word of mouth marketing programs – it potentially is liable for misleading statements made by those consumers.”
• Bloggers are responsible for disclosure of a material relationship but so is a marketer. Here is an excerpt:
  • “The recent creation of consumer-generated media means that in many instances,endorsements are now disseminated by the endorser, rather than by the sponsoring advertiser. Inthese contexts, the Commission believes that the endorser is the party primarily responsible fordisclosing material connections with the advertiser. However, advertisers who sponsor theseendorsers (either by providing free products – directly or through a middleman – or otherwise) inorder to generate positive word of mouth and spur sales should establish procedures to advisee ndorsers that they should make the necessary disclosures and to monitor the conduct of those endorsers.”
• It will likely not be possible for marketers to use the statement “may not be typical” to make claims conditional
• Celebrities will need to proactively reveal their material relationship with marketers as they talk about the product in a compensated relationship
• A lot of energy is spent defining the characteristics of endoresement clear which would then trigger a need for full diclosure of the nature of the material relationship. Not sure the document is crystal clear on this but I am also not sure it matters for us as proactive disclosure will always be our model.

For brands trying to determine how to change their marketing to align with these guidlines, I suggest you start by embracing a practice of full dislcosure and not try to split hairs about whether your program consititutes “endoresement” or not. Meanwhile dig in to the document. We will be doing that, you can be sure.

There is a lot in there and it is worth the read as they address many of the comments made. It is satisfying that they cite WOMMA so often throughout and I am thrilled our voice was heard. I am sure we will all pour over this document carefully over the next week. It is my assigned reading on the plane home.