Is the Use of a Pseudonym Reason to Fire a Blogger?

The Wall St. Journal's Nick Wingfield wrote about Randall Kennedy, an InfoWorld blogger who used a pseudonym when interviewing sources for his blog. It's an interesting article, "The Second Life of a Tech Blogger."

Famous writers throughout history have used pseudonyms, including Benjamin Franklin, Walt Whitman and Samuel L. Clemens, to name a few. There's a grand tradition. Stephen King has published books using a pseudonym.

Of course, some of those named above are known for their fiction, not their reporting. But Franklin and Whiman wrote articles and reviews -- including some reviews of their own work -- using pseudonyms.

Today, they would be publicly fired for that.

Even the FTC expects bloggers to disclose tangible relationships with companies they blog about.

So, my question: should a blogger be fired for using a false name in researching and reporting opinion? Let me know what you think. (Of course, let me know if you don't want me to use your real name.)

Prediction #12: Online Credibility Will Continue To Be Important,

Online credibility will continue to be important, but new FTC rules requiring bloggers to disclose the receipt of free samples, gifts and cash payments will get confusing because many who don't blog are not required to make similar disclosures. Currently, tech reviewers at newspapers get free samples but don't need to disclose that fact (though Walt Mossberg and others do…on their websites and blogs). Theater reviewers often get free tickets while many freelance travel writers get all their travel "comped." Yet the FTC does not require these folks to disclose gifts unless they're bloggers. We actually think it makes sense to disclose any type of relationship with an organization being discussed because credibility is important for bloggers and non-bloggers. While it's good to see a government agency understand the need to keep pace with technology, we need clearer rules that ensure equal footing so that reviewers disclose relationships whether or not their work appears on a blog or in print.

Are Your Friends' Tweets for Real or Advertising?

Next month, new FTC rules will go into affect that mandate increased transparency among payments to bloggers in exchange for mentions -- because the FTC feels gifts and payments to bloggers is basically a new form of advertising.

Of course, companies can provide gifts and payments to bloggers but still can't control the actual content, tone, timing, etc.

Meanwhile, the New York Times ran an interesting article about sponsored tweets, "A Friend’s Tweet Could Be an Ad." Startups like Ad.ly, Like.com, Izea and Peer2 offer ways for celebrities and regular people can insert sponsored statements and get paid for doing so.

From a Tweeter's perspective, I certainly understand the desire to monetize one's following. And from a marketer's perspective, I certainly understand the desire to tap the credibility of people so as to conduct a word-of-mouth initiative.

But it raises some key questions.

For example, some services ensure that any sponsored tweet includes either #ad or #sponsor. But it's not clear that every service does that.

Credibility is important, but it's not clear, yet, what the impact of including sponsored tweets will have on followers. Even without sponsored tweets, there's been some controversy, including around Guy Kawasaki and certain mainstream celebrities, who uses tweets prepared by others including personal assistants.

And the impact on marketers is also unclear. Will people resent those companies that are using Twitter in this obvious, harder sell way? The Times quotes Peer2 co-founderJoey Caroni, who said, “We don’t want to create an army of spammers, and we are not trying to turn Facebook and Twitter into one giant spam network. All we are trying to do is get consumers to become marketers for us.”

I understand that goal, but that is asking a lot...to get consumers to become marketers for them.

If those services don't require some designation that a tweet is sponsored, I would expect the FTC to start requiring disclosure here.

But I also think this approach, while it generates a way to make money from having a strong followers, is more of an old-style, offline, one-way sell because it does not truly engage followers. From that perspective, I think sponsored tweets is really a Web 1.0 approach.

Bloggers and Journalists Need to Improve Transparency/Credibility

According to surveys on the perception of different careers (journalists, car dealers, etc.), journalists often score low – and bloggers will soon face the same if they don’t increase transparency about who they are and any potential conflicts of interests (free gifts, employment, etc.)

A couple of years ago, a political blogger famously talked to Bill Clinton without disclosing that she’s a blogger, and captured him saying something he shouldn't have, something he probably wouldn't have if he had known he was talking to a blogger.

I know, these days, everyone can be a blogger or a citizen journalist. But if you're at an event to blog about it, you should tell people you talk to that that's why you're there talking to them.

Meanwhile, the FTC's new rule on mandating bloggers to disclose paid relationships (including gifts) has generated a lot of initial buzz among bloggers.

It may be that people don't care, but I continue to think it's important to maintain credibilty. The FTC rule may not be a great rule, but at least they're trying to keep up with technology.

Yet More Reactions to FTC Rule on Bloggers Must Disclose Free Products and/or Payment

I liked the New York Times' print headline better than the online headline: "Fessing Up About Freebies" over "New F.T.C. Rules Have Bloggers and Twitterers Mulling" in the online version.

Seems like disclosure is a big issue in the fashion industry. And also with the software reviewers.

This is article also points to the discrepancy between how bloggers and print reporters are being treated.

I think the FTC will expand its regulation to include print media, too. Or at least have a good reason for not including print media.

New York Times Urges Truth in Online, Offline Advertising

Pointing out that marketing to consumer-generated (i.e., blogs) and social networking sites (Facebook, MySpace but not, as yet, Twitter) is expected to grow 20 percent in 2009, up from $1.01 billion in 2008 (which had increased 25% from 2007), the New York Times believes that "a lot of it is paid advertising masquerading as bona fide endorsements by celebrities, well-known bloggers and even ordinary people — honest comment, free from pecuniary considerations."

According to the Times, "In 1968, an F.T.C. advisory demanded that advertorials disclose that they were advertising, not editorial...The rules offline should clearly apply online. This is a matter of principle, not medium, and the new rules are not an excessive burden."

I certainly agree with that.

The Times also urges the FTC to "focus enforcement on the advertising companies," not the bloggers."

The Times also feels that "advertisers are the drivers of this new trend. The onus should be on them to ensure that blogs pitching their stuff warn readers about the commercial motivation of the endorsements."

As a blogger, I'm not sure I totally agree with that last point. I have urged clients to work with credible bloggers, who disclose potential conflicts of interest. But as a PR executive, I know we have little control over bloggers, and would not want to be held responsible for them. That said, we're just providing information or trial software for reviews. We're not engaging in some of the problem issues that the Times rightly cites (such false testimonials).

It's not clear from the Times' editorial whether its editorial board understands how bloggers work.

At the same time, we do provide trial software for product reviews to print reporters. I think there needs to be a disclosure page for tech reviewers to let everyone know their policies. The Journal has a code of conduct that's easily found, but you can check it out here. Kara Swisher, a former Journal reporter who now works for All Things D, posts her ethics policies here. And Walt Mossberg posts his ethics policy below his bio here.

I think more online and offline reporters and bloggers should post codes of conduct. Now, I don't review or endorse products here, but I have posted in my bio that if I do mention clients, I will always disclose that fact. And I do so here and on Twitter.

More Reactions to FTC Rule on Bloggers Must Disclose Free Products and/or Payment

Another day, another reaction to the new FTC rule.

This time from the Wall St. Journal: "Save Us From the Swag-Takers" by Eric Felton, who summarizes the situation this way:

"The agency declared that 'a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement.' Sounds reasonable enough, until it becomes clear just how expansive the FTC's concept of an 'in-kind payment' is. The blogger who gets a free review copy of a book and writes up his opinion of it is now being labeled by the government a commercial endorser of the book—even if he pans it. This is not how traditional media are treated, which is what makes the new rules so significant: The government has weighed in on the contentious topic of whether bloggers are journalists—and delivered a resounding No.

What's more, Felton says"

"Even newspapers with the strictest of ethics rules accept free copies of books for review. Movie, music and theater reviewers get their tickets comped. The scribblers covering sports aren't in the habit of paying skybox rates for their privileged perches at the stadium. While newspapers make no secret of these common practices, they don't plaster warnings on every book review or description of a football game. But that's exactly what the FTC is requiring of bloggers."

Felton concludes his article with an important disclosure:

"FULL DISCLOSURE NOTICE: In preparing this column, I downloaded a free copy of the new FTC regulatory guidelines. Thanks, guys!"

I agree that this is a complicated issue, and that the FTC needs a more nuanced approach. In the meantime, we prefer to work with bloggers who do disclose their policies and potential conflicts.

Reactions to FTC Rule on Bloggers Must Disclose Free Products and/or Payment

There's been interesting reaction to the new FTC rule, starting Dec. 1, that bloggers must disclose receipt of free samples and/or payment.

Check out "Blogged and Sold" by Choire Sicha in the New York Times, saying "The F.T.C.'s misguided effort to regulate online endorsements. Choire makes some good points about the challenges bloggers will face.

Also interesting article about libel laws and Twitter, "Short Outbursts on Twitter? #Big Problem." Bottom-line: don't defame, people.