Disclose This: I Can't Disclose Everything Everywhere!

Though hubbub around the FTC's plans to require bloggers to disclose relationships with companies, services and products has lessened over the last few weeks, the December 1st date for enactment is rapidly approaching. As promised before, and many other times, I will make any relationships I have that are beyond "typical" clear to you as best as I am able. But, as you can expect, as communication vehicles evolve, even today's best-attempt laws aren't ready for how I am operating. With so much of my downstream activity being automated due to activity elsewhere around the Web, the potential for disclosure sometimes doesn't even come up.

Long-time site visitors know that for the first 3 years of my writing on the blog, I was extremely careful not to talk about my company, its employees, partners, customers or even talk about the industry. In 2008 and this year, I started to have some unpaid advisory roles that included a minor equity share, and told you about that, disclosing where it made sense. And now, with my new role at Paladin Advisors Group (@paladinag), I am growing the client roster, attracting some enterprise companies, and startups who want to work with me more closely.

So that's a good thing, right? I agree. I am excited about the new possibilities as I sign up new clients and advisory roles, because my entanglement in the Web is changing - from an interested observer and consumer to one that can play more of an activist role, shaping the tools we are using now or will use soon. Yet, as I add such entanglements, I am thinking about where I can possibly disclose - not so I am covered by the FTC, but so I am covered with you, because your trust is more important than whatever the FTC dreams up.

(And to be honest, I've given it a lot of thought, and it's probably true that in many cases, advisors to a company, or its VCs, should be trusted a great deal more than a typical consumer, as they actually know the product and company better than just about anyone)

Here's where I perceive gaps from the FTC to my workflow:

1) Archived Posts and Discussions of Current Clients

Very often, my new clients are ones I have written about before. My previously writing on them was no doubt due to my interest, and they came to know me either prior to the story, or because of it. Now that I have a working relationship with a client, for example, with my6sense, should I retroactively go tag all previous posts that mentioned them with a new Disclosure text?

Also - should it be perceived that maybe I covered them in a positive light before, because I was angling for an advisory role? Even if there was no professional role before, should one assume that was the case, or is this coincidence?

2) Liking of 3rd Party Content On Current Clients

I won't even waste my time reading every word of the FTC's script, but other folks, including SiliconAngle's Mark Hopkins have done the dirty work. The obvious places to disclose are, of course, in blog posts, and in Tweets. But what about other people's content, where I can add visibility to their own comments, even if I was not the original author?

For example, should I not "Like" comments by the client or other shares of the client's work that others have made on Facebook and FriendFeed? Is it assumed that I would only "like" a post about a feature release because of the relationship? What about adding their items to Delicious or other networks?

3) Automation Can Prevent Disclosure

If I see a blog post by a client and share it in Google Reader, do I also have to add a note when I share that they are a client? What if I retweet their official Twitter account? Notwithstanding that Twitter won't let you make any additional comments on their new retweet functionality, one almost runs out of characters.

If you also remember that I have a fairly robust social media workflow, much of the way I get data around the Web is by letting other networks do the heavy lifting. Bookmarks I make on Delicious and items I share on Google Reader automatically get tweeted - and I never get a chance to disclose - if there is any relationship. This is essentially what could be construed as a crime of omission, one that is not egregious, but could still be looked at sideways, if one feels that I did not make best efforts to make a relationship clear.

In October, I said the disclosure rules would have little effect, largely because I believe people who skirt the rules today will continue to do so, and while there will be some showcase examples of enforcement, they will be a small percentage of infractions indeed. I still don't think this will be dramatic. But it always seems like the people who try to change the rules are changing them for the way the Web was, not the way the Web is. And if I can easily find loopholes or places to work around the rules, the people who are the real bad guys will walk all over this thing.

Why I Don't Think The FTC's Rules On Disclosure Will Have Much Effect

As you no doubt already know, the Federal Trade Commission posted a revision to guidance to advertisers around endorsements that might have far-reaching effects in the blogosphere, asking authors who receive free product, services or are paid outright to disclose such a transaction or stand to receive heavy fines, potentially into five figures. While some are welcoming the move toward greater transparency, others see it as bloggers being put under the microscope again, not being trusted, adding that mass media journalists have operated in the same manner for much longer, and disclosures are not always clearly found.

The goal of the new rules? Helping to make it clearer when somebody's influence has been bought and sold. If an author has an undisclosed financial relationship with a subject, they no doubt have bias, and that should be disclosed to the reader. In the end, the Web could become, as Matt Cutts put it, " more useful and more trustworthy". I have always mandated on this blog that all of us have a responsibility to be trusted and transparent, and I have tried to do so almost to a fault. When I have gained a new advisory role, or had a paid speaking opportunity, I have told you. I wish all folks were as ardent.

But with that said, I don't think the mandate will have a dramatic effect on the way bloggers disclose. The reason? Because good people will continue to be good, and bad people will continue to be bad. The people who have been in a gray area thus far, and have chosen not to disclose, will likely continue to not disclose - FTC regulations or not. And the FTC has a lot bigger fish to fry than the occasional mommy blogger or gadget freak who takes a free product in exchange for a plug, not to mention we haven't even discussed the enterprise space, where analysts who may have five to six-figure annual relationships with clients fail to mention that when writing articles that disparage their competitors.

The FTC's goal isn't to track down that I got a free copy of Brian Solis' book on Putting the Public Back in Public Relations (I did) or that I got a copy of the New Community Rules from Tamar Weinberg for free (I did). (Note I haven't reviewed either one yet) The FTC doesn't care that I have t-shirts I got free from Lijit (I'm wearing one now), or that I have free stickers on my laptop from companies including Seesmic, OneRiot, AllTop, TiVo, FriendFeed, Facebook, Blogger and Tweetmeme. But the FTC does care if an independent product review is really a paid review, or if a blogger "regularly" receives products from a company, which would cause the audience to "view their reviews differently". (Quotes sampled from Mary Engle, Associate Director for Advertising Practices at the FTC via BrianSolis.com)

It would be nice if every blogger who does have regular paid relationships with companies would add a disclosure link on their site. I will aim to keep my list of advisory roles up to date, and mention it when I do cover companies that are in the same space. And you might remember last year's post when I told you I won an iPhone 3G from Socialmedian, not in exchange for a post, but as a result of a contest. That is because I already made the decision to disclose. Those who aren't already disclosing probably won't now that this rule has passed. After all, isn't it like passing the speed limit? If nobody crashes, nobody gets hurt, they may feel, and after all, everyone is doing it. I am glad the FTC is thinking about this, and there will no doubt be edge cases where the most blatant offenders will be paraded in the streets, but for the minor offenders, life should continue as usual.

We're Open for Testing, but Please Don't Tell Anyone!

One of the things I like best about playing the role of early adopter is getting the chance to test sites before they reach the general public. Sometimes, I can help guide an entrepreneur to consider new features, or suggest changes to their interface that I feel could help make the difference between confusion and success. Often, this process is done before a product launches, and at other times, it is done after the product launches, and gets iterated. But what rarely occurs is for the product to be open to the world and yet, we still don't talk about it - a position I've found myself in the last week.

Last Friday, I had the opportunity to meet with a sharp entrepreneur with decades of experience launching new services. He's taken one company public and sold it, and started others. He walked me through the new service, which incorporates many of the social media tools I enjoy and use.

As he passed his MacBook Air to me in Palo Alto as we ate breakfast, I clicked through each of the tabs, and tried to find holes in the product. There were some, of course. UI issues, unexpected behavior, and complicated menus that probably weren't intuitive. But despite the issues, it was intriguing to see the incoming data manipulated and displayed and filterable in new ways. I asked my unfair share of questions and got solid responses.

Of course, I asked when the service would launch to the public, and as I planned to write about it, when any embargo would lift, so I could take a note and be ready when he was. The answer? The product is live now, with no restrictions, but... please don't write about it, as it's too early.

The combination of being open but without the option to cover is unusual. Typically, you're either open for business, or you're not, so, despite my above story, I'm not yet ready to tell you about it. When it does go live, it should be an interesting player, one that brings new ways to get connected to people and topics. I can test it, and use it, and there are no restrictions on getting in for those of you who might figure it out. But it's not yet time, and for someone who likes to help spread the word, it's an odd position to be in.

If You Look Hard Enough, Conflicts of Interest Are Everywhere

Cyndy Aleo-Carreira, contributing editor at The Industry Standard and professional guest poster in a number of Web sites, including this blog and Duncan Riley's The Inquisitr, has a great discussion starter this evening on bloggers and their conflicts of interest. The piece, titled Out of the Navels and Into the Mirrors, asks specifically if bloggers should talk about companies where they have a financial investment, any kind of part-time or full-time role, or if they should become friends with those they cover. Though broad, her questions likely resonate with many of us involved in blogging and reporting in general, and it's very likely you'll find a wide array of answers, depending who is polled. But each of us comes in with specific likes and dislikes, or personal history, which impacts everything we do, and displays our underlying bias, financial or not.

First, she asks, "Should bloggers cover companies they invest in?"

I almost immediately want to say no. But in actuality, investors in a company usually know it very well, especially if it's an early-stage situation, where they will know it better than the general public. It's no secret they'll likely be more positive on the company, but if they're fair and disclose the relationship, you may learn a great deal.

Good examples of people who talk about companies they are invested in include Fred Wilson of AVC, and Mark Cuban of Blog Maverick.

Second, she asks, "Should bloggers continue blogging once they join boards, take day-job positions with a company, or start/buy a company?"

Again, disclosure is needed. There are many official company blogs that are written by employees, openly. There are other blogs, like Mini-Microsoft, written anonymously, by an employee who is not an approved representative of the company who has unique insight as a full-time employee.

In a more close to home case, Adam Ostrow, CEO of ReadBurner, stopped blogging about ReadBurner on Mashable when he helped acquired the site. (See also: Did ReadBurner Acquisition Cause Conflict of Interest for Mashable?) When I joined the team to help as an advisor, I spelled out my hope to be transparent, and will disclose the role any time I get close to talking about the space.

Finally, she asks, "Should bloggers make friends with people from the companies they cover?"

I think this is absolutely human nature. I have a tendency to be positive on this blog. I talk about companies I like, services I use, and others I have big hopes for. In the process of investigating these services, often I trade a lot e-mails and phone calls with entrepreneurs, which can get to knowing them well or considering them friends. Most of the time, it's not the same kind of friend you can watch a baseball game with or catch a movie, but you do end up rooting for them and may at times gloss over some bugs in hopes they'll suceeed. (See also: My Double Standard for Web Services and Does Negativity Deliver Credibility? If So, That's Nuts.)

Being friendly can lead to a more collaborative environment, where you can both get information early, but also lend a helping hand to those who need it. I've never shied away from playing an informal QA role for services that need aid, and I want to instill a level of trust with those I do engage so they know they can trust me with confidential data.

Beyond these questions, my biases are everywhere, and they impact how I write and my opinions, which do show up. I happen to prefer Apple Mac OS X to Windows, even with the occasional glitch that impacts my Apple experience. I happen to be LDS and wasn't too excited about the rumors spread last week. I like sports, I tend to think Cal is better than Stanford at just about everything, even when it's clear I'm wrong, and I do have friends in the blogosphere - some of whom I've done podcasts with or traded e-mails with or phone calls. I will link to them more often, I will interact with them on social sites more often, and I will comment on their posts more often. (Cyndy and Duncan included)

On rare occasions, interactions with people behind services also results in free stuff, which for some, could lead to bias. I have free t-shirts from Disqus, FriendFeed, and Browzmi, for instance, all which came after I wrote about them a few times. I have a world-famous CenterNetworks sticker, and my babies have schwag from ReadBurner, Shyftr, NewsCred and other places (largely because I asked for it). I also represent standard demographics. I'm male in my early 30s. I live in California, in the Bay Area specifically. I work in the tech sector for a private company, and have since 1998. I have two young kids. Each of these things impacts my view of the world and what I like or don't like.

Rather than setting hard and fast rules about bloggers going out of their way to avoid topics they likely know well, or asking them to be friendless automatons, we should ask them to be more transparent and clear if they are acting with real bias. It's that which will make the difference between trusted and untrustworthy - and enable bloggers to look in the mirrors comfortably again.