I think about disclosure or talk about it with someone almost every day. Often it is in regards to whether or not I am able to disclose something because it has to do with advice I am giving clients, which happens all the time if you write about the field in which you work. If I am able to do so, then the question becomes whether I should write about it. Rather than just thinking about it on my own, I thought it best to organize a conversation among those who care about this issue here in San Francisco and put together a last minute Social Media Club roundtable at CNet’s headquarters for Wednesday October 25, 2006 from 6:00-8:00 PM. Thanks to Joel Sacks for helping secure the space at the last minute. While it will probably be a small turnout, it looks like it will be a great bunch of people who will have a lot to say on this subject.

The issue of disclosure came to the forefront recently with the Edelman problems with the Wal-Marting Across America blog and then two other ‘flogs’ that were being written by Edelman employees. The thing is, I did not want people to think I am just calling out the utter failure of the Social Media consultants at Edelman to do the right thing because I work as an independent contractor with Fleishman Hillard, a competing PR agency who used to do Wal-Mart work (I was never involved with that account). Look how much text I had to use to disclose that one portion of my interest in it. Then consider the 20 or so minutes I have spent editing that disclosure to make sure it sounded right, addressed the important points and fit into the story. I have a lot to say on the Edelman story, but so much else has already been said. I think I will be talking about it for a long time to come, because their failure to be transparent and authentic is a huge lesson for corporations which hopefully won’t be repeated, but most likely will.

My newfound emphasis on the topic of disclosure, however, came from my friend Mike Arrington’s little dustup with traditional journalists at the Online News Association conference which Jeff Jarvis writes about here and Mike writes about here. The subsequent post by Nicholas Carr called ‘A glass house‘ really struck a deep chord with me. I know Mike and I don’t believe he is purposely trying to deceive anyone, but he does have a competitive streak and many other interests across the Web 2.0 landscape which puts him in a precarious position. From my discussions with many people, there are no truly easy ways to make disclosures and there is no standard accepted practices for how to disclose and when to disclose. As I have consulted my clients over the years, it is often the perception of impropriety that is the problem not the actions themselves.

In speaking with Scott Rafer last week at the Dogster party, he reminded me of another important bit - sometimes there are interests that people can not disclose because they are not allowed to talk about the relationship they have for legal or other security reasons. To his point, it is indeed a very gray area which needs some more light shed on it for everyone of us to understand better. It is also, as my friend and colleague Stowe Boyd has pointed out previously, a problem in dire need of a solution.

This is why I immediately resolved to do something about it and began to organize a Social Media Club Roundtable for Wednesday October 25 called “Talking About Disclosure.” What I hope we get from the event is a great discussion about the best practices around disclosure of interests in pursuit of a common understanding of how to properly apply the principles of transparency and authenticity. The conversation has already begun, with great articles written by Jason Calcanis (older but relevant post), Shel Holtz, Matthew Ingram and Todd Defren. We want to bring that conversation into real time, with a focus on the solution. Also, we want to move from conversation to action, so we are hoping that we can produce a set of guidelines to recommend as best practices for people to use, which will ultimately be a part of the pledge we ask members to make when joining Social Media Club. We also will address WOMMA’s lack of action on the Edelman fiasco which is a point Shel Holtz makes in his post - though I don’t know what we can do differently.

Lisa Stone brought our attention to a post by a former Edelman employee on Blogher at our workshop yesterday in which Lisa points out some of the key requirements around disclosure that need to be addressed by a blogger.

What kind of commitment should bloggers make to their readers? I’m one of the people who thinks every blog owes its readers four answers, whether the blog is a corporate blog, a news blog or a personal diary:

1. Who are the bloggers?
2. What are the bloggers doing?
3. Why are the bloggers doing this?
4. Why do I — the reader — care?

The Wal-Mart blog flunks every question:

Finally, in the pursuit of full disclosure (which may come back to bite me in the ass for doing so too early), we have begun to work on a new service called Disclosr which will simplify the process of making disclosures for professionals who produce Social Media. The service will be available for free for all Professional members of Social Media Club and for a nominal subscription fee for non members. It will leverage the understanding we jointly develop of best practices for disclosure at the heart of the service. That still won’t cover all the gray areas that Scott Rafer pointed out last week, but it will get us further than not doing anything. There probably is not enough money in that business to be a really profitable standalone business, but as a public benefit that furthers the advancement of Social Media, it fits perfectly with our mission of supporting ethics.

In the end it comes down to the same thing I have been telling publishers and broadcasters for the past 12 years - don’t ever squander the trust you have with your audience by not being completely truthful. The public (aka audience) will revolt if you do and they will speak up and call you on it. Even though there are a number of assholes in the world with their personal axes to grind who may attack for the sake of being able to do so, most people won’t buy into that crap - particularly if you have continuously proven your trustworthiness over time while building a great relationship with your audience.

If Mike Arrington does have a conflict of interest, whether real or perceived, it is usually revealed by comment #5. The difference between Blogging and traditional journalism is that Mike then engages in real conversations to explain why the commenter may be wrong and admits when they are right, making a correction or clarifying the original statement. This is what often happens when having a conversation with real people - the story is much bigger than we are able to get across in the time we have to speak, so it sometimes takes a few rounds of back and forth to get to all the important points. I am not an apologist for Mike, he can handle that himself quite well, I am just trying to point out that Blogging and other forms of Social Media is conversational and there is more to it than just perceiving someone has evil intentions.

Wheww, I actually have left out many other important points that are worthy of discussion and will bring up when we get together tomorrow. I am sure you could probably add a few dozen more, particularly when we get to talking about real world situations. So please add to the conversation here in the comments and join us at CNet’s Headquarters in San Francisco on Wednesday October 25, 2006 from 6-8pm. Please do RSVP on Upcoming so I know how much soda and beer we need to bring to keep the conversation flowing…

PS - I had been speaking with Mike Arrington about participating, and he agreed to do so - in addition to inviting other journalists and interested parties. After waiting for over a week for him to respond to my emails, voicemails and text messages after initially saying yes and being enthusiastic, it doesn’t look like he is coming. Or then again, perhaps one of his readers or other friends will point it out and he may write a post on Crunchnotes.

[10/25 update - Mike Arrington was sick and dealing with the financing on Edegeio which is why I did not hear back from him - he actually saw the post himself and was kind enough to write up something this afternoon on TechCrunch and will hopefully be joining us this evening.]