Baseball, Apple Pie, and Mom101

I've said before (as have others) that the campaigns are making a mistake by focusing solely on the top-tier political blogs for money and small-potatoes political blogs for volumes of "my candidate rocks, your candidate stinks" fodder.

It started when the campaigns blew off BlogHer '07 in Chicago but fell over themselves sucking up to political types at Yearly Kos in the same city just a week later. Moms were pissed.

This week, Liz Gumbinner of Mom101 fame did what most moms do when they're going to make a decision - she paid attention to details and weighed her options. She looked through the websites of each of the candidates very thoroughly, looking for what they had to say about the issues she cares about most. And she shared her observations on her very popular blog.

And a lot of candidates are wearing egg on their faces right now.

You may not agree with her politics, but you can be sure of this: Moms (and women generally) are critical to Campaign '08. Opinion-leading moms write online and read mom-authored blogs. The campaigns need to be where the voters are. That's why we track political moms at Virtual Vantage Points.

I've said it before: Ignore the moms at your own peril.

You may already have won...

One of the best things about BlogHer '07 was the chance to meet social media PR/marketing rockstar Susan Getgood. One of the things I respect most about Susan - and something I try to emulate - is that she's taken the "participation is marketing" idea to the next level. To Susan, ADVOCACY is participation. She advocates for bloggers and tries to be a resource. To look at the future of using social media in marketing, look at Susan Getgood today.

Susan invited me to participate in a discussion about blogger-run contests and sweepstakes. So many bloggers are doing this, but are they aware of the liability implications?

Susan sought out Donna DeClemente, an expert on the subject and author of Donna's Promo Talk, for some answers and guidance. You can see their discussion here. She also asked if I'd be interested in reaching out to someone in the legal profession and talk about this from a policy perspective.

Entrepreneurship, and particuarly women's entrepreneurship, is an issue I examined in great detail while working on Capitol Hill. One of my biggest thrills was drafting legislation with people from the National Association of Business Incubators that was called the "LEADERS Act" - Linking Educators and Developing Entrepreneurs for Reaching Success. The bill never got through the Senate, but it had bipartisan support and got a lot of people talking.

Of course, the bill was drafted before the advent of the "mommyblogger based business," but one of the things I learned was many entrepreneurs (online or off) lack the basic administrative infrastructure and knowledge to ensure the sustainability of their businesses. One of the most important things to keep in mind when building a business is the advice a boxing referee gives the fighters just before they touch gloves: "protect yourself at all times." That's because in America, anyone can be sued for anything at any time. Entire blogs have been built on this premise. The fact that you're online may make things a bit more complicated, but I've never seen something like that stand in the way of an aggressive trial lawyer with a client and an axe to grind.

So at Susan's invitation I sought out someone the mommybloggers will wholeheartedly accept as one of their own, and also has the legal chops to teach us all: Stephanie Himel-Nelson, an attorney at the firm of Vandeventer Black, LLP in Norfolk, Virgina. Stephanie may be known better in the blogosphere as Lawyer Mama. Stephanie also writes for DC Metro Moms.

She writes:

Online Giveaways: Sweepstakes? Or Lottery?

Be mindful of state and federal laws. The FTC and federal authorities will carefully investigate allegations of unfair or deceptive promotions. If you are not careful to run a fair promotion, you can run afoul of the Federal Trade Commission or mail and wire fraud statutes. The attorney generals of every state are also empowered to investigate alleged violations of state consumer protection laws. Trust me, you don't even want an investigation into your online practices started. It's better to play it safe and disclose as much information about your contest as you can.

Make sure that the contest, giveaway or sweepstakes that you're conducting doesn't fit the definition of a "lottery." A sweepstakes or giveaway is usually a giveaway involving chance. Anyone can enter and no purchase or "consideration" is necessary. A lottery, however, is an entirely different animal. An animal prohibited by state and federal law, with the exception of lotteries run by the individual states. A lottery will generally have a prize, some sort of chance, but it also involves consideration, meaning money or something else of value is given by the entrant. Even requiring your readers to give you detailed consumer information can sometimes be considered "consideration," transforming your "giveaway" or "promotion" into an illegal "lottery." After all, in this day and age, consumer information has a great deal
of value.

Things you can do to ensure that your giveaway won't be seen as an illegal lottery:

1. List your rules on your site and make sure the contest is run fairly:

- How many entries are allowed per person?
- When will the contest end?
- When will the prize be awarded?
- Are there any geographical restrictions?
- Are there any age restrictions?
- What information is required for entry?

2. Provide an alternate or offline method of entry. Allow people to enter by fax or mail if they choose, without giving online information or drafting a quid pro quo blog post.

So you've listed your rules on the site; you've provided an alternative method of entry; you're sure that your contest can't possibly be considered a lottery. Are you good to go?

Maybe not.

Several states have enacted strict disclosure requirements for sweepstakes and giveaways, including California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas. If your online contest is open to everyone, you need to comply with the most stringent of these rules or exclude entrants from those states. Have international readers? Have you thought about international laws regarding giveaways and sweepstakes? If not, you should limit your contest to U.S. entrants. And don't forget to include those all important words in your contest rules: "Void where prohibited."

This information is meant to bring awareness to the topic and is not intended to be used as legal advice. If you have questions about any of the information above or related matters, please contact an attorney licensed in your state.

It's not just about ethics - it's about common sense

I was pleased to find a new "blogger outreach code of ethics" from a huge PR/marketing firm this morning. Of course, this isn't the first attempt at a code of ethics from the industry. But it's nice that people in our industry finally heard what I'm now calling Stefania's shot heard 'round the PR world.

I hope that this new ethical code doesn't just become a line of defense that a firm employs once it's caught doing this wrong. (I don't think it will - I know a couple of the people who work at that firm and they strike me as honest and generally smart.) We all know the story of the other big PR firm who got bagged and then said, "we subscribe to the WOMMA code" in its defense. It's like saying "I don't approve of my own behavior." Everyone makes mistakes, but it's really hard to position yourself as a thought leader when you're breaking your own rules.

I guess what strikes me about all this is the underlying assumption that all of the "other" ethical standards and principles we employ in traditional communications somehow don't apply because the communication is done via email. The ethical code spelled out today is essentially (I hope) a re-statement of the rules we employ when reaching out to anyone anywhere, and frankly, I hope they're simply the values that guide our lives each day: transparency, relevance, respect, accommodation, and truth.

Look, the bloggers are asking for relevance and respect. If you lack truthfulness and transparency you won't get in the door. If you can't accommodate the method of contact the blogger outlines you won't get past the spam filter and the blogger won't even be aware you reached out. And if you're not respectful of people you don't know, you're not going to succeed in any field - you're probably just a jerk.

It's really all about relevance. That's what Stefania and Mrs. Kennedy and Liz and Kelly and Kristen and Julie are really talking about. You have to spend a lot of time researching the people you identify and make sure they're interested in what you have to say, and then you have to realize that it's really their discussion and you're just trying to be a part of it. You have to do a lot of reading and linking and so on. It's not particularly difficult, but it's time consuming, and in our business time is money. If you can't spend the time to be truly relevant, you get taken to the woodshed by Stefania.

And you don't belong in this business, online or offline.

The fact is the bloggers have led this discussion all along, and I'm guessing they're pretty much over it at this point. We continue to play catch up.

where was the Post the week before?

Jose Antonio Vargas of the Washington Post files a report that notes that the faces of Yearly Kos look much more male and white than one might expect:

Walking around McCormick Place during the weekend, it became clear that only a handful of the 1,500 conventioneers -- bloggers, policy experts, party activists -- are African American, Latino or Asian. Of about 100 scheduled panels and workshops, less than a half-dozen dealt directly with women or minority issues.

A panel called "Blogging While Female," held Saturday morning, was an aberration -- an overflow room of about 75, mostly women, a few of them minorities.

While I think Vargas makes an important point about diversity, it's more about one convention than it is the entire blogosphere. To be candid, Vargas didn't find diversity because he only looked in one place at one time.

This is an important lesson for those who incorporate social media into issues management and public affairs strategies. As was discussed in a panel at BlogHer07 the week before Yearly Kos, "political blogs" are not the only online venues that discuss politics. The real diversity of opinion - and the homes for the truly diverse and substantive political discussions in which companies may want to participate - often happen elsewhere.

In fact, I'm more than a little surprised that the political media all but ignored a conference with 800 bloggers that featured a keynote from Elizabeth Edwards and launched an international political education initiative on global health and the environment.

And I have to say the program and audience at BlogHer07, with a couple of noteworthy (and outstanding) examples, appeared to skew left.

I really wish Stefania and Kelly had the time to go back to Chicago to ask the candidates the same questions they asked me.

Because we really stink at this

So I'm at the State of the Momosphere panel, offering apologies on behalf of corporate america and stuff, and Kelly "Mocha Momma" Wickham gets the microphone and asks a question that basically stumps me:

My question, then, was directed at those two marketing professionals and I asked when they would tap into the mothers of color and bring us into the fold because they are leaving us out of the loop. When will the diversity come into play?

The microphone is passed around, and Kelly never gets an answer to her question. Then Stefania issues the smackdown:

I also told them that even though I get pitches everyday at CityMama, over at Kimchi Mamas we get none. Not a one. Ever. Because people of color do not matter to advertisers.

I've already offered my personal defense: I'm not really in marketing or advertising, I do issues, blah blah blah. But it's all a load of crap. I did a quick review of the work I've done recently, and looked at the bloggers I've "pitched." With only a few exeptions, my "target lists" are predominantly white.


And frankly, Mocha Momma and Kimchi Mamas easily "make the cut" in terms of the kinds of blogs I typically look for. I use the available search and ranking tools (which aren't all that great but are all any of us have to work with), and their numbers are stronger than some of the blogs I've occasionally pitched. And as for content relevance - I only pitch the folks who have expressed an interest in a particular issue - Kimchi Mamas have discussed plenty of health issues as well as immigration. Mocha Momma has discussed some of her experiences as a teacher (she's now a high school dean). So they discuss or at least seem interested in discussing any number of issues. In short, they deserve an invitation to participate in some top-level discussions.

I really don't know why the pitch lists I and others develop aren't as diverse as the blogosphere as a whole. The short answer: we just stink at this.

Maybe it has something to do with the relentless specialization that happens in our industry. I'm the "blog guy" at my company. A number of entrepreneurs approached me at BlogHer wanting to partner with my company, explaining that "we know how to market and communicate with moms." In DC, there are "republican" and "democratic" lobbying firms. And there's a constantly growing number of boutique firms that specialize in any "core demographic" - GLBT, African-American, Latino, you name it. Some might think it's harder and more expensive to develop your own core competency when you can just outsource it.

In one way, that's not such a bad thing. For example, the writers at Kimchi Mamas share a distinct cultural perspective, and I'm sure they're proud of that. The people in my industry who might pitch them should take the time to learn more about that perspective. Those who do it best might want to do it full-time.

However, it's also a huge cop-out. It's our obligation as communications professionals to know our audience. I can't say I put together an all-encompassing discussion about health care, for example, if I haven't taken the time to include as wide a range of perspectives as possible. And this isn't the web2.0 version of "political correctness" - this is my job.

Maybe it also has something to do with the sheer size of the blogosphere and the fact that the tools we use are so nascent. I'll readily admit I don't know what I'll find when I enter keywords in technorati sometimes. Sure, I have to read more fully to get context, but most searches start with really vague keywords and you have to refine from there.

But here's the bottom line: We just haven't made a point of including as many perspectives as possible in the discussions we'd like to join or lead, and there's no good reason for it. It's not about tools, it's not about specialization, it's not about the size of the blogosphere. It's because we just haven't made it a priority to include everyone. We have the power to change that. It's not like diverse voices are hard to find online.

I'd love to hear from the moms and anyone else who cares to speak up on this issue.

An open letter to mommy-bloggers everywhere

Dear moms,

I'm the guy that Jory Des Jardins referred to as "the suit" at the State of the Mom-o-Sphere breakout panel at BlogHer07. I'm also the guy who stood up in front of you and said, "on behalf of everyone in corporate America, I humbly apologize." (thanks for laughing at that.)

I apologized because the anger in that room toward the PR industry was palpable. You can't stand the fact that we bombard you with emails asking you to write about products, and we often don't take the time to even read your blogs to see if you might be interested. In our emails we try to make you think we read your stuff, but we get enough of the details wrong to let you know we're basically trying to do as little as possible for you to get you to do as much as possible for us.

What's funny is I don't really even pitch products to bloggers. I pitch issues. I typically pitch discussions with opinion and business leaders about issues that I hope are important to you. But PR is PR, and nobody else was standing up, so someone had to apologize.

I said I try to be relevant and respectful when reaching out to bloggers - I act as though I'm a guest in your home, and I read your blog to see if you'd even be interested in what I'm pitching. Some of you applauded, which was really nice and polite. But it was clear that more than a few of you were still unimpressed, even skeptical of what I was saying to your faces. Citymama took the industry to the woodshed. Yes, I do note the irony of an industry whose purpose is to strengthen clients' reputations has such a terrible reputation of its own.

We're accustomed to pitching mainstream media - it's their job to consider what PR flacks have to say, and it's not personal. We apparently haven't figured out yet that you're not mainstream media - you're a mom with a million things to do, and your blog is your outlet, your means of self-expression, and your connection to a larger community. To you we're essentially a cross between telemarketers and spammers. To us we're just fishing for a placement, and your blog is more relevant to us than we are to you.

What's truly sad is we know we stink at this. Entire blogs have been published dedicated to how bad some of our pitches are. We're not really doing much about it, though. I really hate to add one more thing to your never-ending to-do list, but a number of you have asked me how you make it stop, and sadly that will fall on you. So I'll risk the wrath of some of my colleagues and share some ideas for whacking the flacks.

First, you have to decide if you want us to contact you at all. If you don't, the first thing to do is put a note in your "about this blog" section of your sidebar that says something like, "sorry, I don't accept solicitations from PR professionals asking me to write about their products on my blog." If you do want to hear from us, demand respect and relevance. State your terms, like "send pitches to a separate email and I'll consider them for my product review site" or "I only want to hear from you if you're talking about products that I use" or "I only accept offers to place an ad on my site." If you don't want a bunch of text clogging your sidebar, write a post about it and then offer a link to that post in your sidebar. Make sure the flacks understand the rules of your blog. If you get a pitch from someone who hasn't read the terms of your blog, then you can do with them what you will.

Of course, this isn't going to keep many solicitors from sending you bad pitches. You can take progressive disciplinary action against flacks - and this is where you get to release your inner snark.

One way to do this is to simply put the flack in timeout. Reply to the email you get saying something like, "sorry, you were rude and disrespectful to me. I'm not your tool. For the next 30 days any email I receive from your firm or your client goes to a spam filter." Of course, while this may give you some satisfaction, this may not be a big deal to a PR flack since there's so many great mommy-bloggers out there the flack can just skip to the next one.

If you really want behavior to change, you have to make sure the flack realizes there's a meaningful downside to being sloppy. In politics, there's an old saying - "sunshine is the best disinfectant." That's what I think you should do here.

Some of the best PR pros in our business are talking about how discussions are moving away from blogs a bit and into social network utilities like Facebook, and how we'll have to send pitches to facebook pages if people stop reading emails. This means that the pitches we write will be public. But here's the thing: EVERY PITCH WE WRITE IS ALREADY PUBLIC.

That's right - the standards of the PR profession essentially tell us that anything we send to you can be printed verbatim on the front page of any newspaper in the country. So why not your blog? If you get a bad pitch and it really makes you angry, say so on your blog. Call the person out. Seriously - use their name, firm, and contact information. Don't tolerate this disrespectful behavior. Exert your power as a consumer, as a parent, and as a blogger.

Many of you might feel hesitant about this. Some of you might think slapping people back is inconsistent with the civility of the mom-o-sphere. Some of you might feel this is too rude, maybe beneath you. Maybe you just want to treat people they way you'd like to be treated. However, we're not talking about 5-year-old kids. We are talking about professionals who are engaging in unprofessional conduct. There should be consequences to this.

Don't want to clutter your blog with bad pitch complaints? Perfectly understandable. Then work with your friends in the mom-o-spere to create a new "bad pitch blog" - except this one is written by parents, for parents. Bad Pitch Blog meets Consumerist meets Mom101. You'll be able to track who the worst offenders are and call them out. I'd read that blog every day. (I hope I never see my name there, but I'd still read it.)

Finally, if none of this is working, there's always the "nuclear option." PR firms pitch you on behalf of their clients. If you get something that really crosses a line, contact the director of communications of the COMPANY and tell them that their PR firm is spamming you on their behalf, and you're planning to write about it. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, will stop this faster than a call from the client saying, "What the heck are you doing? We pay you to improve our image with parents, not piss them off."

I'll close by saying thank you - I really appreciated meeting so many of you and I learned a great deal. I'll have more to say about this topic. I'll also talk about how or why PR firms don't show enough respect to communities of color in the near future, which was also discussed at the panel. Please always remember that you're the person with the power. It's your blog, it should be your rules.

Sincerely,

David Wescott (a.k.a. "the suit")

The women bloggers are talking, are we listening?

I managed to attend a good chunk of BlogHer07 this weekend, and learned a great deal. First, it was great to finally meet some of the women I've been reading and interacting with for a while now - Liz, Kristen, Julie, Catherine, Jenn, Leah, Penelope, and a few others - and to meet a lot of smart and interesting bloggers who take their writing and their role very seriously.

Second, I appreciated getting an education on the issues these women care about most and the meta-issues they're experiencing as they adopt the identity of "citizen journalist" and weigh options about monetization and commercialization.

Third, it was just cool to live-twitter a huge discussion with Elizabeth Edwards.

Finally, it was important to hear the wakeup call that Stefania Pomponi Butler issued to the marketing and PR professions. (I wasn't the person who issued the "money quote" she mentions, but I and other PR folks did meet her briefly after hearing Catherine talk about the state of the mom-o-sphere.) Mocha Momma had some important things to say as well. To be plain, many of these women are more than a little upset at the way the PR and marketing industry has treated them, and with good reason.

I'll be writing in much more detail about this over the course of the week - there's a lot to digest and share.

Welcome, BlogHer readers!

Hi there - if you've heard of my "bloging about blogging blog" from Blog Her, welcome!

I'm live-twittering the stuff I see here. It's been a great conference and I'm very grateful for the opportunity to meet some really smart bloggers.

I'll have more reflections over the course of next week. Meantime, feel free to browse. Thanks for visiting!