Thanks for posting and as an employee of MPI, I’m sure you have an opinion. I think the entire discussion has been healthy and needed. Don’t you? I believe Maddie Grant’s case study of this issue is right on target.

What’s unfortunate is that some SMGs and others felt it was a personal attack. That was never a goal. It’s disappointing that honest questions cause hurt feelings.

Do I still feel the same way when I started this conversation?

Yes and no. As I stated on Engage365 in my second comment that I then understood Theresa’s intentions were not to “buy” social media mentions. That was after I wrote my original blog post. Unfortunately, perception is reality. The words “fair and unbiased” were trigger words for many, not just me.

I stand by my concerns about the FTC Guidelines and MPI’s SMG program. As evidenced in this FTC warning to an organization rewarding their bloggers and social media gurus for coverage of an event, the FTC expects disclosure of any material connection in exchange for social media coverage. What’s even more interesting is that in the above case, the FTC went after the event organizers, not the bloggers. That should send red flags to all meeting and event professionals who are trying to encourage word of mouth coverage in exchange for a discount, free registration or some type of gift. I’m not against the discount, free reg or gift. I am for disclosure.

If you look closely at the WEC SMG requirements, MPI expected a pre-conference, during conference and post-conference blog post in exchange for a reduced fee. I only saw two blog posts from the SMGs during the conference and only one disclosed the material relationship. I may have missed the other blog posts.

I’m going to write more about the FTC Guidelines, conferences and events because I think it is an important issue that has impact on word of mouth from those on FAM trips, hosted buyers programs and sponsored social media mentions from events. This issue is bigger than just MPI’s WEC SMGs.

@Cheryl
Great quote. Thanks for adding it!

I agree that Jenise’s post is a balanced reprensentation of this isssue. I also think this issue is one to consider for FAM trips, travel bloggers and the hospitality industry in general. Blogger Susan Getgood explains additional views on the FTC guidelines and her view that “Disclosure is a best practice, full stop, regardless of your publishing channel.” Her post Travel Blogs, Ethics & The FTC Guidelines offers another important perspective on the issue.

@Dan
MPI’s Theresa Davis responded on Engage365 blog that it was her intent that the SMGs should give credit where credit is due and call MPI on the carpet when it is due. I believe that Theresa’s intent was to have bloggers be authentic and transparent. IMO, the words “fair and unbiased” were the lightening rods and perhaps other words could have been used in their place.

http://icon-presentations.com/blog/bid/27411/MPI-social-media-guru-debate-highlights-changing-face-of-journalism

I understand the sensitivity of the ‘fair and balanced debate’, but if you have an understanding of perception within the social media community, would you ask people to called themselves something that is so potentially negative?

I bring you Fast Company’s Influencer project that has been much maligned as ego driven and manipulative. (I clicked & regretted)
See post:
“Fast Company Influence Project Pisses Off Online Influencers
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/07/social_media_tools.php”

Then, you look at the smarty pants behind the popular Old Spice campaign. They didn’t ask people to raise their hands as influencers, they did the research found the people who were in-fact influencing, they mixed in a few “regular folk” and then let them do what they do…Influence. Opinions good and bad, and some really bad (visually) but good too.
@OhDoctah vs. @OldSpice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-IHk6FKyeg

While I applaud the attempt, but people will probably beware of the GURU offering “fair and balanced” coverage of an WEC.

@Partyaficionado