With Blogging Comes Responsibility: New FTC Advertising Guidelines

Yes, it's been a while. Over three months since I've written anything--although it's not to say I haven't thought of things to discuss. Let's just say I've been slow to act. Between moving into a new apartment during that dreaded September 1 time frame, starting grad school, working full time and yes, I admit, a sheer sense of laziness at times, this endeavor has taken a minor back seat. But I've decided to dive back in, so to my two loyal followers (thanks, mom and dad), sorry for the delay.

Back when I was just "thinking" of topics to potentially discuss, I stumbled across this article from the BBC in October about the tenth anniversary of Blogger which chronicled its evolution from a tool to aid in-house communication to a "personal printing press" for the masses. Interestingly enough, the Boston Globe recently explored how bloggers are now being mandated by the Federal Trade Commission to disclose to readers the acceptance of any free products or payment they've received for writing about an item. As blogs have progressed from their humble beginnings, it appears they may just need to start obliging to some journalistic standards. (The new guidelines also apply to endorsements by celebrities and those on Twitter.)

This has rubbed some bloggers the wrong way, according to the Boston Globe:

Fueling the controversy over the guidelines is the fact that mainstream media such as newspapers and magazines are exempt. Some bloggers are offended by what they perceive as an attack on their ethics. Others acknowledge the problem but chalk it up to a few bad apples.

A whole new can of worms has been opened--especially in terms of defining the role of blogs in journalism. It's clear that blogging has squirmed its way into a respected form of media in many senses and, in other ways, it still remains a tool that has steered clear of journalistic norms and ethics, maintaining its free-spirited, anything goes vibe.

But if you're looking to be heralded as a respectful contributor to media, don't you need to be held up to some respectable standards? It comes with the territory.

And no, this is not an attack on bloggers' ethics. It is exactly the opposite. It is that idea of transparency for consumers which lets them know you have nothing to hide. This is a way of upholding ethics.

During some of my intern days at a consumer public relations agency, we did blogger outreach with some of our products and for the most part, writers made it a point to disclose that the products were given to them to be reviewed and as consumers, shouldn't we all be expecting that? It's not to say that every free product received by bloggers has received rave reviews, but ethically speaking, the danger is there for that to happen if there is a lack of transparency.

This is why media outlets have Codes of Ethics. The New York Times Code of Ethics states:

Staff members and those on assignment for us may not accept anything that could be construed as a payment for favorable coverage or for avoiding unfavorable coverage. They may not accept gifts, tickets, discounts, reimbursements or other benefits from individuals or organizations covered (or likely to be covered) by their newsroom. Gifts should be returned with a polite explanation; perishable gifts may instead be given to charity, also with a note to the donor. In either case the objective of the note is, in all politeness, to discourage future gifts.

PBS' Guidelines states:

Audiences must be able to trust the information in our programs, but that trust could be jeopardized by the appearance of commercialism. At one extreme would be a perception that the program was created primarily to sell the funders' productions and services. Thus, a producer must avoid any arrangement in which an entity is paying for placement of its product or service in the program. If a producer needs to use products associated with the content of the program in the course of making the program, best practice is to cover the names of those products, but if that is not feasible, then the funders products can be used so long as they are treated no better or worse than other brands. The use of particular products in a program to demonstrate a point is an editorial decision. If products are donated, proper recognition belongs in the credits. Nothing in this rule would prevent the appearance of products in the course of reporting a story about the products themselves, nor would it violate the rule if the product appeared naturally in the course of shooting a location.

Why should bloggers be faced with anything different? Why wouldn't they want these types of guidelines if they want to be taken seriously? This is of course one of the fundamental issues of blogging--a lack of a code of ethics.

But the paradox is that blogs don't have a code of ethics because it is in many ways impossible. While anyone can start a blog, the same ease is not permitted in establishing a media company. Magazines and newspapers are exempt from the new guidelines but they are held accountable through their companies by their code of ethics. This is not a viable set up for the online world of bloggers, where the majority have no one or nothing to hold them accountable. Thus another fundamental issue: how do you enforce such guidelines on the black hole that is the Internet?

That's grounds for a whole new discussion!

Nonetheless, the new FTC guidelines are at least a step in the right direction. Yes, there will be some gray areas that need clarification but you need to start somewhere, right?

Sound Off: From the Donor's Perspective

I'm a little irked. I'll tell you why.

For those who live in the city, we're all used to the street teams that organizations use to collect random donations.

Do you have time to save the whales? Polar bears? Or children? Or what about stopping global warming?

You know the routine and when you see them on the street wearing their t-shirts and grasping their clipboards, you avoid all eye contact, play with your phone, anything to divert their attention from you.

For the most part I'm guilty as charged when it comes to avoiding these fundraising attempts but recently I caved in. Walking down Huntington Avenue, a notorious spot for street teams to linger, I stopped. Why, I'm still not sure, but the important thing is, I did.

After being pressured to make a donation to sponsor a...well, for all intensive purposes of keeping this organization anonymous, let's say I was pressured to sponsor something ridiculous like a computer...I insisted that I don't have the funds to make such a commitment, which is the truth. As much as I wanted to save the, uh "computers," I just couldn't commit but I was happy to make a one-time donation.

While I don't regret giving to a good cause, I'm a bit peeved with the treatment of donors by these street teams. I was barely thanked for my donation. It appeared that because I wasn't going to make a long-term commitment, my donation wasn't really good enough but they would take it anyway. In fact, I even had to repeat several times that I was willing to give some money as he kept badgering me to sponsor a "computer." I was about ready to withdraw my offer and leave him with nothing.

My story doesn't end here.

Over the next two weeks, as I walked down Huntington Avenue like I do every day, this same organization hounded me for more money on three separate occasions. I even ran into the guy to whom I originally gave my donation. I responded politely that I had already given money to them. Rather than receiving a "thank you" he said, "Great! Now you can sponsor a [computer]!" This happened with each run-in I had until finally, one woman said, "thank you."

That's all I needed. My anger has subsided...a little.

It is one thing to follow up with donors to see if they would be interested in continuing their support. This is absolutely necessary in nonprofit development and it was an appropriate question to ask me when they attempted to stop me. But it is another thing to completely disregard a donor's initial support and pressure them into more without even an inkling of gratitude.

It's all about the execution. Donors want to feel appreciated. It doesn't mean a song and a dance over how great they are for forking over some cash. It is simple recognition that the donor has given what they are capable of giving and no matter how small the amount, it is helpful to the organization.

If my money isn't making a difference, why donate?

I take into consideration that the response, "I've already donated," is probably heard on a frequent enough basis by street teams, if they even get a response at all, and the possibility that it is an outright lie people tell to be left alone is high. Fair enough. But that is the risk that is taken when using this type of fundraising technique. Therefore, the golden rule should be to thank every person that offers such a response because sometimes it is the truth and it is a bigger risk to irritate donors.

So, to the woman who actually thanked me for the donation I made, I thank her for her gratitude.

I'm ready to step off of my soapbox now.

The Holocaust vs. Rwanda: Perceptions of Genocide

It's a sad reality that the phrase "Never Again," which rose from the ashes of six million lives lost during the Holocaust, is, in many ways, an empty one. Although there has not been such an industrial, systematic attempt at wiping out an entire group of people since WWII, there have been many genocides that followed and, in some instances, are still continuing.

So, it needs to be asked: What makes Cambodia, Rwanda and currently, Darfur, so much different than WWII? Why, despite all of the lessons learned and policies passed, has the world been so slow to react to other acts of genocide?

In July I finished reading an extremely intense book that really got me pondering that very question along with the different perceptions of genocide. "We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families" is an in-depth examination of the 1994 Rwandan genocide that delves into the personal stories of survivors in addition to peeling away the many layers of political red tape and cultural unrest that led up to the genocide and hindered the recovery process after its devastation. But it also puts the reader face to face with the complete lack of response from the rest of the world.

Written by Philip Gourevitch, the book covers a lot of ground and I have to admit it may take a second read to truly grasp a better understanding of Rwanda. But, nonetheless, it opened my eyes to some of the problems surrounding international aid as well as perceptions of genocide in general.

The most noticeable factor when examining these mass killings, at least to me, is the developed Western world versus the underdeveloped third world. The Holocaust was so shocking and appalling to the world not only because we had never seen anything like it, but also in a sense because the Western world views itself as such a civilized society. The Holocaust was barbaric, repulsive and inhumane--surely something a cultured and refined people would never even dream of, never mind actually carry through.

Then there is Africa. A place where tribal and ethnic groups span across the massive continent living a very different way of life than many Westerners. Unfortunately, these tribal lives can sometimes be viewed as barbaric or uncivilized to our culture when really, it is simply just another way of life--neither better or worse--than our own.

But it may be that very mindset that changes how people perceive the Holocaust versus Rwanda or even present day Darfur. When ethnic or tribal clashes lead to something as devastating as 800,000 murdered in only 100 days in Rwanda, it is sometimes seen as just another day in Africa. A lack of understanding on the Western end leads to a dismissal of human life. It is viewed as just one tribe killing another tribe which then brings retaliation and a vicious cycle ensues. There is no rationalizing with such savagery so it is best is to leave them to their own devices:

"Except for the names and the landscape, it reads like the same story from anywhere in the world: a tribe in power slaughters a disempowered tribe, another cycle in those ancient hatreds, the more things change the more they stay the same...The generic massacre story speaks of 'endemic' or 'epidemic' violence and of places where people kill 'each other,' and the ubiquity of the blight seems to cancel out any appeal to think about the single instance. These stories flash up from the void and, just as abruptly, return there. The anonymous dead and their anonymous killers become their own context. The horror becomes absurd."

Hitler's "Final Solution" was no less absurd so it is distressing to see complete indifference to the other attempts at ethnic cleansing. Gourevitch notes that despite the stark contrast between the Holocaust and Rwanda, they both tell disconcerting tales about the capabilities of human behavior, which should raise a red flag for all of humanity:

"It has become a commonplace in the past fifty years to say that the industrialized killing of the Holocaust calls into question the notion of human progress, since art and science can lead straight through the famous gate--stamped with the words "Work Makes You Free"--to Auschwitz. Without all that technology, the argument goes, the Germans couldn't have killed all those Jews. Yes it was the Germans, not the machinery, who did the killing. Rwanda's Hutu Power leaders understood that perfectly. If you could swing the people who would swing the machetes, technological underdevelopment was no obstacle to genocide. The people were the weapon, and that meant everybody."

Gourevitch's observations came years before Darfur's crisis erupted but they are still just as relevant today as they were in 1998 when the book was published. The mantra "Never Again" still rings loud after over sixty years and efforts such as the Genocide Convention that have sprung forth from the total devastation of the Holocaust have served more as a nice piece of decor in the house of politics than as a functional tool. Its idealistic premise to protect humanity has turned a blind eye to many human lives, leaving blood on the hands of many nations and Gourevitch boldly asks, "Whose world were the drafters of the Genocide Convention--and the refugee conventions, which soon followed--thinking of?"

It certainly has not been victims of genocide.
_______________________

Speaking of Darfur, be sure to read this editorial in today's Boston Globe, written by Eric Reeves, a professor at Smith College who has devoted years to research and advocacy about the genocide.

More on Micro-Lending

To build upon what I discussed in my last post about micro-lending, I thought I'd include a new study that takes a closer look at the effects it has in helping people out of poverty. The results conclude that it may not be helping as much previously thought.

Given my background in journalism, I do like to play devil's advocate and present both sides of any story. In their working paper, U.S. economists, David Roodman, of the Center for Global Development, and Jonathan Morduch, of New York University, take a look at the studies conducted in Bangladesh about the impact of microcredit in households and conclude that although it does not do harm, there is a lack of evidence that it improves the lives of the poor.

Here's more information from Newsweek where you can also view the working paper by Roodman and Morduch.

In light of their findings I feel that this may be a testament that micro-lending is indeed a good method that just needs some tweaking and revising.

Micro Lending in Developing Countries

During my short time at a public relations agency that focused on nonprofit and mission-based organizations, I became aware of the term "micro-lending" and its effectiveness in developing countries. So, when I saw this article in the New York Times today, it caught my eye immediately. I'm not sure why I have never thought to write about this before, but it's never too late to do so.

Essentially micro-lending is the extension of very small loans meant for those in poverty to help cultivate business and entrepreneurship. This by no means is anything new and it has been the subject of many media outlets discussing the pros and cons of such a practice.

However, the article in the New York Times pointed out that while these loans can greatly help people, it is important to teach them business education. The combination of the loans and the knowledge is a more practical way to increase the amount of success people experience in stabilizing themselves financially and contributing to the rest of society.

While the story presented a couple of success stories, the major criticisms of micro-lending is that it can leave the small guy to be taken advantage of by big banks and it that there is no way to ensure that these loans are actually being used in the manners for which they were intended.

These are valid concerns and it's encouraging to see that organizations are working to improve the system. Kiva.org, a micro-lending organization operated through the Internet, reassures lenders that these loans really are making a difference:

We are constantly working to make the system more transparent to show how money flows throughout the entire cycle, and what effect it has on the people and institutions lending it, borrowing it, and managing it along the way. To do this, we are using the power of the internet to facilitate one-to-one connections that were previously prohibitively expensive. Child sponsorship has always been a high overhead business. Kiva creates a similar interpersonal connection at much lower costs due to the instant, inexpensive nature of internet delivery. The individuals featured on our website are real people who need a loan and are waiting for socially-minded individuals like you to lend them money.

Other organizations such as WomensTrust, which is dedicated to helping the women of Pokuase, Ghana through micro enterprise, education and healthcare, also make sure to detail the process for lenders states on its Web site:

We employ a group-lending model that was introduced by the Grameen Bank in the 1980s. Potential clients form their own groups of four or five women and come to the WomensTrust office for an initial screening. In order to track impact, our staff records information about their businesses, their incomes, their families, their education, and their homes.

Once the group is accepted, each woman receives a beginning loan of $40 U.S. Each group member must repay her individual loan before the whole group is eligible for its next loan. We charge 15 percent interest for each four-month loan period. That rate is well within Ghanaian banking guidelines and is set purposely high to compensate microfinance institutions for the risk they are willing to assume making uncollateralized loans to the poor and very poor. It also discourages loan clients from gaming the money— i.e., loaning it out at higher rates to others.

Each of our loan clients is issued an individual ledger book with the date and details of her loan and weekly repayments. Once a group has successfully repaid their loan in full, they are eligible for the next loan of $60 or $80 and can progress up the scale to a maximum amount of $190.

There will always be kinks in any type of system which is why I think micro-lending can have more pros than cons. It needs to have checks and balances and people who are sincere and genuine in these efforts to help people.

On the other hand, for lenders, there is the issue of return on investment (ROI), leaving some to question if this type of philanthropy may focus too much on profit. This is perhaps a bit of an oxy-moron since the whole point of investing in something is to gain something back.

If a particular project isn't advancing, I'd be questioning why as an investor. Getting a better understanding of what the challenges are and what needs to be fixed is a more feasible solution than having investors pull out their support. This, ideally, is left to the organization but it is important to keep the lender as informed as possible. I figure if someone is already investing in a project aimed to help those in need, then it is most likely not all about ROI (maybe I'm being too optimistic but I'd like to think that this is how it goes) and he or she would be willing to stick it out--especially if steps are being taken to improve the small business.

These are clearly my observances as I can't claim to know the detailed process of exactly how the relationship between the lenders and organizations work. I understand it would take a lot of manpower, time and money from these organizations to maintain that level of transparency, but again, the process can evolve as time goes on.

Micro-lending can offer some promising endeavors. It's just a matter of whether we can perfect the system. For now, we know that it is doing good in many cases and I think that's justification enough to move forward.

The Constant Battle for Women in Darfur

A while ago, I ran across this article in the Boston Globe discussing the recent study by Cambridge-based Physicians for Human Rights and the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative (HHI) which examines the long-term impact of rape and other sexual violence experienced by Darfuri women refugees. I've been meaning to bring some attention to it and while I'm a little late in doing so, I still see the importance of it.

The interesting focus of this study is not the numbers of how many have been raped or abused, (although it is no secret that the numbers are high in Darfur) but rather the effect it is having on the women who continue to live in fear every day. Eighty-eight women who fled to Chad from Darfur in order to escape the attacks on their villages, were interviewed for this study and were physically examined. While some were raped in Darfur, others were raped in Chad where they are seeking refuge.

Not only do these women have to deal with the repercussions that come with being a rape victim but they are also constantly dealing with the looming threat of sexual abuse even after. There is no relief and, as the study has found, that can have dire effects for these women both emotionally and physically.



To view the report and see the work that Physicians for Human Rights is doing for Darfuri women, click here.

Philanthropy 101 for College Students

If only these courses had existed while I was still in college:

Colleges and universities in Boston are embarking on a new trend that gives students first-hand experience in philanthropy, the Boston Globe reported today. I'm not just talking about whipping out the checkbook and signing away some money to a charity of choice. I'm talking about understanding the full scope of philanthropy from writing up mission statements to researching and evaluating organizations and then allocating the money in a responsible manner.

The Globe reported that Tufts University, Northeastern University (my Alma mater) and Boston University have all started these philanthropy courses and at least 10 New England colleges will start offering them next school year. As my eyes read over Northeastern, I stopped and thought, "Wait, how come I didn't know about this?" Well, that's because the university only started these classes last fall, after I had graduated. Bummer.

But no worries for me. I'm lucky enough to have a stint as a development assistant where I'm getting some first-hand experience on fundraising and philanthropy, albeit it's in the "real world" as a full-time job instead of in my former college lifestyle.

Regardless, I'm a little jealous. I think this is really a great opportunity because students are dealing with real money. There's no Monopoly paper money in these courses. The money itself is being donated to students in a sense. The Globe notes:

Two national foundations interested in promoting the teaching of philanthropy on college campuses began donating money for the courses across the country in recent years. The Sunshine Lady Foundation, established by Doris Buffett, sister of famed investor Warren Buffett, has given colleges $10,000 a year to disburse since 2003. The foundation’s Learning By Giving program will double next year to include 15 colleges across the country, including Tufts and Holy Cross.

The people behind these large grants are going to expect their money to be used wisely, even if it is a learning experience.

While this can open a whole new experience for students, who may or may not have had an interest in nonprofits to begin with, I think some of the real value is teaching them to be responsible with money. Understanding how an organization works and how donations contribute to helping the organization reach its mission is important. It might not seem so pertinent to students now, given they operate on tighter budget, but this won't always be the case. And as they are able to possibly make philanthropic decisions in the future, they'll have a better understanding of it all. It was also pointed out in the article that this could be a great asset for business students who will need to have knowledge of how to spend money in the most effective manner.

Hopefully, this can also serve as a way to get people interested in philanthropy at a young age, even if they won't be flexing those muscles for years to come. It can at least plant the seed for now.