DISQUS

Sorry to hear that, Mark - nothing more frustrating than knowing something could be so much different, better, however you wih to look at it.

I guess the one good thing to come from your decision time is that you know what your threshold is now, and that will help you find that job that allows you to extend it further.

At least you have the vision to spot it - many don't, and that gives you a great advantage. Good luck with whatever you decide to do, fella.

I don't think it's "bad" to be saying it at all, Brett - just realistic. I think many people have been hyping social media for so long that it's almost second nature to think of it as the be-all solution.

But it's not - it's merely an additional tool in an ever-growing toolset for individuals and businesses. I think the quicker this is realized, the better and the more "real" work can be carried out.

Great point, Angela. I think the savvy ones will be advising that integration offers most benefit, while the others (as you say) may simply be left behind. Or, at the very least, limiting their results.

Hi Claire,

I agree, and if you check out my 12for12k charity project, along with a #12for12k search on Twitter you'll see a great community of people working towards a common goal.

Hi Ari,

I would never do something that I didn't want to do myself for myself - hopefully others enjoy it as well. A bit like this blog, really.

And the book is about community in the conversation age - the tools are just the tools and will continue to change. But the community will always be there.

"Online marketing maven"? Think you must have me confused with someone else, fella ;-)

Thought you might have put the picture of your mum and Cary up? That's a sweet pic :)

<abbr>Danny Brown’s last blog post..What’s Your Threshold?</abbr>

Maybe he just has a good assistant that teaches him the vagaries of normal life? ;-)

<abbr>Danny Brown’s last blog post..What’s Your Threshold?</abbr>

I think before you even set out on any strategy or plan, it needs to have a set cut off point. Of course, once you reach that, it then comes down to how disciplined you are at sticking to these cut offs...

That's a great analogy and method to use, Suzanne. How do you decide when it goes from yellow to green? Is there a method you use or is it a more organic approach?

Nobody's really blaming the tools, Ari - merely saying they do make it easier.

I don't think either one of these can be argued with, John.

Cheers. :)

I see what you're saying, Ari, and as I mentioned in my response to JuneM, this is where perhaps an international body is needed? The web has reduced international boundaries anyway (with exception of state-controlled online use in certain countries), so let's make it easier to manage.

I'm not saying this would be easy, but I do feel that the teething pains and initial slog would be worth it in the long run.

With regards your point about the FTC blogging (or not) - I don't think that's as big an issue. After all, it's not the blogs that they would be going after per se - it's false advertising, and that doesn't need an updated FTC blog to work.

This is one of the areas that seems to be raising the biggest questions, Ghennipher.

I was speaking with a blogger last night on Twitter about this topic, and his view was that it was up to him if he discloses, not the FTC.

While technically he's correct, I just thought the viewpoint was why we need some form of regulation.

An opinion is one thing, but when it's paid for that needs to be made clear. The argument that "my regular readers know my voice" may be true, but what about the people that stumble across your site or blog and take review at face value?

It's a difficult one to work out all the nuances, but whatever it takes has got to be better than having nothing at all.

Agreed, Matt. It's the same thing time and time again (normally) - lack of interest on the home front, or education in schools.

It's a tough one for the relevant agencies or people to deal with, and not something I envy.

If it's a system that makes it more difficult for this type of thing to happen, I'm all for it.

I see where you're coming from and I agree that the burden is a huge problem for the US courts.

But, say the proposal was a success and it took a "heavy hit" on the system initially, but in the long run greatly reduced the burden, wouldn't this be worth the initial pain?

Sometimes we need to take the extra work to make it easier. If it could be done without too much burden - both physically and financially - on the current system, my instinct is to say it would be worth it.

Course, I've been wrong plenty times before... ;-)

As your business is in arbitration, I'm sure you can agree why regulation is needed - legal clauses are hard to argue against in a dispute.

There's also the possibility that the FTC will bring on a board of social media or online marketing and advertising "experts" as advisors, which will lend the whole approach validation.

These are some very valid points you raise, June, and I agree that the policy/regulation needs to be carefully put together to ensure it's as clear as possible to follow and enforce.

Where I (personally) feel it would come into most benefit is keeping companies in line, which will then filter down to the relevant arms of that company (internally and outsourced).

If a paid review is found to be false, you can "punish" the blogger and company that sponsored it (if they're guilty of requesting a positive review through enhanced payment).

Go for the source as opposed to the bottom end messengers and it would have a domino effect.

With regards international enforcement, perhaps it's time we have a universal body to deal with this? After all, nothing is truly international anymore online - it's the largest local community around.

Thanks for some interesting thoughts.

I agree, Jen - it does seem that for such a transparent medium, sometimes it seems like it's anything but. Perhaps the FTC can have a say in cleaning that up.

Hi John,

I agree that most purchases are emotional - however, the 30 minutes or so presentation is still being regulated (I'm assuming you're on about the TV infomercials?). They have to pass guidelines and remain factual, especially when "compared to the leading brand".

I think (and hope) what the FTC involvement would be is to ensure that these landing pages have facts to back up the claims, otherwise they won't get web real estate.

And that's got to be a good thing for the people they're targeting.

As Rachel mentions below, Omar, I don't think it's free speech that the FTC is going after.

As rightly mentioned by detractors of the plan, opinion (and the right to have that opinion) shouldn't be silenced. What does need regulating is the false marketing and sales pitches being happily given by people and companies because there is no regulation.

While the social media space can be quick to warn off bad news, this might not necessarily reach the amount of people that a warning or censure from the FTC would.

I think that's why the move should be welcomed.

There's definitely the need to remain individual. But how far do you take this individualism?

Do you think, "Psht, I'll say what I want and damn the rest", even if it's hurtful and degrading to another party?

Or do you think, "Okay, I can still have my voice but am I really comfortable with what I'm about to say"?

I think there's a line, and although it may be fine, it's one worth considering before opening up to the world.

Good point, LJ - while you may feel you've deleted an error, someone somewhere still has it. And they might not always have your best interests at heart.

Thanks Beth - always wanted to be a storyteller ;-)

I think this is where the offline connections will prove to be an even bigger draw than the online ones. It's pretty hard to disguise lies when you're eye-to-eye with someone - not so difficult when it's just an avatar.

Agreed, Frank - while social media and all the claims of transparency are a great lead-off point, we still need to take responsibility for confirming what we're told.