Comments on: An Unscientific Test of Authenticity & Transparency: How Much Do They Really Matter?

By: Joel Foner

Joel Foner — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:27:13 +0000

I thought I’d add a quick note to reinforce the full transparency choice. FTC guidelines published late last year require bloggers to be transparent about any relationship in which there a blogger (celebrity or not) receives compensation – direct or indirect – for any sort of endorsement in a social media setting. As far as I can tell, writing in support of a company and attaching your name to the work is in the sphere of activities that requires disclosure that it is a paid engagement.

I am with Alexis in believing that being transparent a net positive. Disclosing that you are being compensated for the work provides public proof – an endorsement by the client – signaling to your other and potential customers that they value your work sufficiently to pay for it. This seems to have benefits all around.

Here’s a link to a post with an abstract of the new blogger disclosure guidance http://joelfoner.com/2009/11/the-u-s-ftcs-use-of-endorsements-and-testimonials-in-advertising/. Researching and writing this one turned out to trigger a surprise request to be on a Ziff-Davis panel about the issue. It was fascinating to compare the blogger and professional journalist perspectives on these issues on that panel.

By: Beth Harte

Beth Harte — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:49:59 +0000

Alexis, makes perfect sense…thank you! You’ve helped to solidify something I’ve been wrestling with, but am no longer. I owe you one.

Jeremy, I think the issue here is that brands don’t talk, people do. If there is a particular brand that I need assistance from or want to reach out to (say Best Buy), I want to know that they are a person who can respond properly with product/service information, put me in touch with their proper co-worker, etc. I don’t know about you, but most brands that I have seen with ghost tweeters don’t have enough inside insights to tweet beyond what I would call and RSS feed (i.e. non-interaction). Personally, I don’t want to interact with a feed…they just never talk back.

By: Jeremy Head

Jeremy Head — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:48:21 +0000

I don’t really get this. A brand/corporation can never ‘be’ a person. It is always going to have to be an individual participating on behalf of a brand. What difference does it make whether it’s a full time employee or someone else? As long as the person blogging/tweeting totally gets what the brand and its products is about and is passionate about them what’s the isssue? As long as whoever is blogging/tweeting etc makes it easy enough for anyone who wants to know who they are then fine. (eg on an about page or twitter profile)

By: Alexis Ceule

Alexis Ceule — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:52:29 +0000

Beth and Leigh… I have not been doing this (tweeting/fan paging) long and certainly don’t profess to know jack squat about this topic. With that in mind, I wanted to share one of the perks I’ve encountered for having full disclosure while participating in social networks for businesses. I was fortunate that the 5 local businesses I approached accepted my offer and it’s going very well. With my name on those accounts, I have had 4 other businesses inquire about me tweeting for them. These other 4 are NOT from my city and I am not familiar with them, which leads me to have to consider “do I want my name associated with them?” The nice thing is… I have a choice. I got business leads because of my full disclosure. And that… is pretty sweeeeet!

By: Alexis Ceule

Alexis Ceule — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:21:54 +0000

I think it shouldn’t feel right to be ’someone’ else. Now keep in mind… I know a fist full of people who actually try to do that. Tweet for one person. Otherwise 98% of the “ghost” tweeterers I do know, do it for corporations or non prof’s or small businesses. Whether they are as excited about those companies as I am mine… well, the jury is still out. LOL!!! I think it comes down to…. if it doesn’t feel right, it probably isn’t.