55 Secret Street

The FTC, Bloggers and "Freebies"

Shoes from a press event that I attended - but did not write about. 

There has been a big storm brewing ever since the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ruled that bloggers - and only bloggers (ahem, "traditional news-gathering organizations are exempted") must "clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products" even though they "stopped short of specifying how bloggers must disclose any conflicts of interest."

First, let me state clearly that I have never and will never take any payments for product reviews or posts.  That is not only unethical, it places editorial control in the hands of whomever is paying and if there is one reason I started 55 Secret Street and my other blogs, it was for editorial freedom.  I have always been clear about my mission and goals for 55 Secret Street, but for the sake of clarity - and compliance with this FTC ruling which takes effect on December 1, 2009, I will spell it out here and post an official Privacy Policy, along with an Ethics & Disclosure statement. A link to these statements will permanently appear on my "About" page and in the header of all Anovelista Media blogs.

I worked in magazine publishing as a writer and editor (on staff and freelance) from 1990 until 2005 when I started my first blog, Anovelista.com. When I started this blog in June 2006, it was with the intention of continuing what I was doing as a magazine editor and writer. Despite the notorious low-pay and the precarious nature of the publishing business, writing about beauty, fashion and lifestyle is something that I have always loved.  If I did not love it, I would not do it.

Drinks from a press event that I attended - and did write about.  The drinks were delicious and I didn't pay for a thing...

Long before the existence of blogs, I received plenty of free things (review items and otherwise) - far more than I have ever and will ever receive as a blogger.  I have attended countless press events held by every major cosmetic and entertainment company you have ever heard of: cocktail parties, galas, breakfasts, luncheons, dinners, yacht rides, spa visits, movie screenings, "listening" parties for new albums - they all qualify as press events.  The purpose of these events is to celebrate the launch of a new fragrance, shoe, hair product, nail polish or lipstick, to announce a new spokesperson, a new initiative, introduce a new brand or store.  At the end of these events, more often than not, each editor in attendance receives a gift bag containing the product that was introduced or occasionally, a gift certificate related to the brand.  Even with all of that, there is no guarantee of coverage.  I have attended many press events where I did not write about the product or service for one reason or another.  As a magazine editor, that reason may have been the editor above me nixing the idea.  As a blogger, I may decide to go to meet the professionals behind the brand with future articles in mind.  

A free lipstick or a fabulous press event has never and will never make me gush over a product that I don't like - or doesn't fit the blog.  If I agree to attend a press event, it is only because I believe the product, service or event being celebrated is relevant and interesting to my readers.  There are also instances where I may like some items - but not others - from the same brand.  I don't feel the need to trash any brand to prove how objective I am, therefore, you are not going to see a negative review here for the sake of a negative review.  Instead, I strive to write honestly about things that interest me - things that I think will interest you as well.  All along, I have organically disclosed where and/or how I came across something, whether I bought it or received it in a gift bag.   I touch on topics that are not pretty and even uncomfortable, but I believe that it contributes to the experience.  I  believe that readers who are familiar with my blog already know this and respect this about me, but I wanted to be clear.  

The point of starting this blog in the first place was to have the freedom to feature exactly what I liked (things that don't always make money for me) and not have to ask an editor above me for permission to write about it.  Sometimes, that entails working with public relations professionals who represent quality brands and services.  These PR professionals send me the exact same products and invite me to the exact events they invite magazine editors to.  The smart firms are selective and respectful to bloggers.  I purposely avoid invitations breathlessly promising  "goodie bags and free cocktails!"  because if you have to say that, it means a.) You think bloggers are a bunch of idiots who will be forever grateful to you for a free gift and/or b.) Your product sucks and you'll take any coverage you can get - even from lowly bloggers.  I'm not interested.

I also work with several affiliate programs that represent quality brands that also appeal to the 55 Secret Street reader.  I can't imagine you haven't figured this out already, but every advertisement that you see on this blog is derived from my affiliate relationships, not unlike the advertisers you see every month in print magazines and newspapers.  When I am writing stories, if there is an opportunity to use an affiliate link I will absolutely do it. If you see a post on this blog, I took the time and energy to do it because I thought it was worth your while.  You can usually tell if a link is an affiliate by hovering over it (it will usually show a code).  If you see a post that features a product from one of my advertisers, I am most likely using one of their links.  I also have "Coupons, Codes & Deals" pages for 55 Secret Street and Revenge of the Curves that feature these affiliate links.  These pages are similar in nature to the "advertorial" pages you see every month in print magazines. 

I am not doing anything differently as a blogger than I did as a magazine editor except I work out of my house or a Starbucks, I don't get paid anything except the small revenue from the ads you see on this blog (not enough to pay my rent...) and I occasionally buy products that I talk about and review.  I never have and never will guarantee coverage to any company (if I am pressed, I never work with them again) and I am a stickler about working only with public relations firms and companies who know that and respect it.  

However, with this FTC ruling targeting bloggers (in every category - not just beauty and fashion), it suggests that when companies start a campaign promoting a new product and send out press releases and product samples to magazine editors and bloggers for review (hoping for coverage of course) the products the magazine editors receive are legitimate "review products but the same exact thing for a blogger is a "freebie."  I find that ironic, especially since it is because of the power and rapid growth of blogs that "traditional news-gathering organizations" in every category were forced to develop blogs of their own.  I have no problem with transparency and disclosure, but I do have a problem with being lumped in with, ahem, "cloggers" who don't write (they cut and paste press releases verbatim) and who actually brag about going to a professional event on Twitter like it's a game.)  This is a big deal because there are powerful lobbies who want to get rid of the  independent nature of blogging all together.  One CEO of a nascent company that built their business on the backs of beauty bloggers suggested that beauty brands should not work with bloggers - many of whom (like myself) have long established relationships with many brands and PR firms) - but go though them only.  How is that for independent? On this planet, those bloggers would be called employees!

According to Richard Cleland, assistant director, division of advertising practices at the FTC, it is not true that bloggers will be subject to an $11,000 fine and that the FTC is "focusing on advertisers." Nevertheless, I do not want to distract from the creativity and effort I put forth, so I am finalizing Anovelista Media's Ethics & Disclosure Statement and Privacy Policy which will appear in the header of each of my blogs.  It is my intention that the statements act as an unobtrusive solution to comply with this ruling without tacking on a distracting statement at the end of every single post.  More often than not, I state how I came across a product organically within the post, but if I don't, it is likely that I was made aware of (and given) the product by a public relations firm or the company itself.   The only time this isn't true is when I write straight shopping posts with no text (only item descriptions) or if I write about a small, independent company with an impressive item that I think you should know about.

If you have any questions for me, feel free to leave it in the comment section.

Yay or Nay: Alexander McQueen Shoes

Lawd have mercy help me somebody... Alexander McQueen from Racked via Fashion Toast.

In the words of the esteemed film critics Blaine Edwards and Antoine Marryweather, "Hated it!"

You MUST click here to see the rest of this madness at Fashion Toast. Go on, click!

Lindsay Lohan + Ungaro? Not Perfect Together.

Lindsay Lohan's debut as Ungaro's new Creative Director? An unmitigated disaster. Don't let anyone tell you any differently:

Lindsay, it’s time to get serious about reviving the acting career. After just one season, one show, Mounir Moufarrige’s Lindsay-plus-one experiment is off to a troubled start. Lindsay Lohan, the house’s “creative director,” and designer Estrella Archs (above with Lindsay taking a bow at the end of the show. Doesn't she look thrilled?), (who probably got the job in part for her willingness to sketch in Lohan’s shadow, and probably took it for its high-profile heritage), made their joint debut on Sunday in an effort that was, quite simply, an embarrassment.

As for the clothes, they looked cheesy and dated, as has often been the case chez Ungaro during the post-Emanuel revolving door of designers. Hot pink, orange and flashy, with an overworked heart motif relentless in its execution, the collection displayed none of the promised younger side Lohan was supposed to deliver. Nor in a million years would one guess that the lineup was designed by one young woman and “creative directed” by another. Glitter heart pasties all around, ladies? [Women's Wear Daily]

The Emanuel Ungaro show on Sunday may go down in history as the final gasp of celebrity madness. Emanuel Ungaro was a couture king of drape and shape. When a swathe of white dress was covered with a white fur stole, there was some attempt to move from teen night out to a couture elegance. Yet will this collection of hearts but with no soul be enough to entice young women who could probably find these looks anywhere? [Suzy Menkes in The New York Times]

First of all, there was not a single gown in the collection. Not a one. Which was very un-Ungaro-like. And there were a lot of skintight mini dresses, also very un-Ungaro-like. You know, come to think of it, the whole thing was very un-Ungaro-like.

Emanuel Ungaro learned how to be a designer directly under Cristobal Balenciaga, and whether you liked Ungaro’s work or not, the man knew what he was doing when it came to clothes. And now the house, built on the name of a man who had a knowledge of design and construction that just simply cannot be taught, is (partially) under the direction of Lilo.  [Fashionista]

The show opened on an up note, with a strapless fuchsia plissé minidress—two Ungaro signatures rolled into one—and Archs turned the house's polka dots into a charming enough heart print on colorful sequined jackets. So far, not so bad…but it wasn't destined to last.

This quickly devolved into a bad joke of a fashion show, one with questionable color combinations, "bad eighties" draped silk jackets and drop-crotch pants, old-fashioned and ill-judged fur stoles, and, yes, tasteless sequin pasties. To top it off, the fabrics and the construction lacked the finesse you expect from a famous Avenue Montaigne brand. To be fair, Archs had just about a month to design the collection. But both she and Lohan (if she sticks around long enough) will have to work a lot harder next time to impress the editors and buyers who witnessed this disappointing debut. [Style.com]

Celebrity fashion designers have, until now, been a mostly American phenomenon, with lines targeted to department stores under labels by Jennifer Lopez, Gwen Stefani and Justin Timberlake, among many others. But Ms. Lohan’s arrival at a 45-year-old Paris house known for $1,500 dresses and a tradition of couture craftsmanship is entirely different, something akin to a McDonald’s fry cook taking the reins of a three-star Michelin restaurant. [New York Times]

Ungaro’s chief executive (and mastermind of the media coup), Mounir Moufarrige, put on a brave face and greeted guests including jewelry designer Jade Jagger. The house’s owner, Asim Abdullah, was defiant. Either Ms. Lohan’s name reignites Ungaro, or “we go down in a blaze of glory,” said Mr. Abdullah. “Or unglory.” [WSJ: Heard on the Runway]

Evening ensemble, ca. 1990–92
Emanuel Ungaro (French, born 1933)
Gray silk crepe and gray silk chiffon

The Lohan collaboration is not only ill-advised, it is a complete lack of respect for Ungaro's legacy.  I wish Lindsay Lohan all the best in her continued recovery from alcohol and drug addiction and the revival of her acting career.  I don't have anything against her, don't follow her antics, don't care really.  But I have the utmost regard  for artists and their craft in every genre - writing, painting, singing - and sketching, designing and constructing garments.  Yes, it's true - and it is often stated as a disclaimer - that fashion design is not "rocket science."  However, everything does not have to be rocket science to be respected.  We will never have another Ungaro, another Balenciaga, another Valentino or an Yves Saint Laurent, in part because the "money men" (and they are most often men) are too blinded by dollar signs and desperate for any "buzz" to make a buck.  Why does "Ungaro" need to go after a younger audience, for instance? What is wrong with the 30ish, 40ish women who can A.) afford the label and B.) appreciate and respect the label's heritage? I think that cavalier attitude - especially one that doesn't mind going down "in a blaze of glory or unglory" - is a disgrace.

Um....

This is some bullshit right here. 

That is all.