Influence This

If we publish, we promote. There's no avoiding it.

If we have assistance, increasingly, it has to be willingly given (or subcontracted), and the willingness has to be properly defined with waivers and contracts.

We cannot --or should not-- snag or take an image of a famous person or character, and exploit it without permission for our own profit and fame.

Take broadly smiling Borat, for example. Or to be more precise, do not take Borat.
https://ipandmedialaw.fkks.com/post/102h2vi/borats-subsequent-litigation-lawsuit

Edward H. Rosenthal, blogging for for Frankfurt Kurnit Klein + Selz PC   discusses a variety of copyright-related claims brought by the actor Sacha Baron Cohen against a Massachusetts based Cannabis dispensary which used his image as the Borat character on a billboard, in total disregard for Mr. Cohen's rights, reputation, and feelings.

Motorists glimpsing the billboard might be given the false and misleading impression that Mr. Cohen willingly and probably profitably endorsed the dispensary's product.

As Edward H. Rosenthal points out, "No matter how this one turns out, it is very risky to make commercial use of a celebrity's image...."

For what it is worth, it is probably risky to profit from any photograph or video taken of an unwilling subject.

Most authors have blogs specifically for marketing/promoting our works.

David O. Klein  of   Klein Moynihan Turco  LLP  has some very good advice about using blogs and social media for marketing which is well worth reading.
https://kleinmoynihan.com/promotional-marketing-concerns-associated-with-online-and-mobile-media/

Beware of posting fake or paid reviews of your own work. Or of someone else's work!

Proper disclosure will protect the blog or website owner from the appearance of deceptive marketing. Bloggers are not expected to be paid spokespersons.  Is this a concern for hosts of blog tours?  Presumably, it is not, if the hosts are not paid, but what if they are paid?

Mr. Klein's focus is not an authors, but he summarizes the most interesting updates too the FTC's  Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising. 

Authors must disclose clearly and quite prominently what the author stands to gain in connection with writing/posting same.

Also, "The guidelines also make clear that fake testimonials are strictly prohibited and, when using an authentic testimonial, the blogger or writer must not edit or change it from the original in any material way."

What does that do to the long-standing tradition of taking the most fulsome "snip" from a lengthy review?

Not many authors can afford to hire an influencer, but, if one does so, one must do it right. 

Marcus Lee  blogging for  Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP offers six great tips for engaging an influencer.

https://lewisbrisbois.com/blog/category/labor-employment/top-6-legal-issues-for-influencer-agreements

And also three things to consider if hiring a model
https://lewisbrisbois.com/blog/category/labor-employment/three-things-to-consider-before-hiring-models-for-your-marketing-campaign

Finally, from the UK, legal blogger Astrid Arnold representing Stevens & Bolton LLP  shares a bit of good British news for someone who contributed mightily to the development of a movie, but did not get credit or a fair share of the writing royalties.
https://www.stevens-bolton.com/site/insights/articles/getting-the-right-credit-on-imdb
  

All the best,

Rowena Cherry 

SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/  http://www.rowenacherry.com

Get Your Draws On

Summer time, and the drawings are easy. Or are they? 

Disclaimers first, which is always a good policy. I am not a doctor, not a lawyer, and do not have stock or any other interest in United Airlines or CVS. I do have a tiny holding in Kroger stock. I have run promotional free draws in the past, with very good legal advice, in order to promote my books. 

The random draws were not, in my opinion, particularly valuable for selling my books, partly because, to be legal, a sweepstakes cannot require a purchase or any valuable consideration.  With "Insufficient Mating Material" we had a poorly concealed chess piece drawn into the cover art. Contestants could see the cover without buying the book, and I am sure they did.

For a draw, sweepstakes, lottery, free raffle etc to be legal, the organizer has to post the full rules somewhere; the start and end times and dates have to be public; the prize must be specified; the process for the randomness of the selection of the winner(s) has to be explained; if there is some skill or activity in order to qualify, it must be set forth; it must be clearly stated that contestants are not required to purchase or do anything beyond filling out the entry form and submitting it in one of at least two methods; more than one method of submitting an entry must be advertised and permitted. 

"No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited." These six words are absolutely vital.

Legal opinion seems to be divided on whether or not a requirement to follow someone on a social media platform (or blog) or to subscribe to a newsletter, or to join a free membership or loyalty program counts as a "valuable consideration".

 

Legal blogger Irwin Mitchel LLP, writing for a British audience, offers some very thorough advice on private lotteries, incidental lotteries, free draws, for profit draws, customer draws, raffles and such extreme draws as raffling off ones house for one British pound sterling.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e38407ac-31f8-45c5-87fa-509de9a53e4e

 

Original: 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/documents.lexology.com/6ec0a697-0006-40dc-b114-987eddebf5c1.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAVYILUYJ754JTDY6T&Expires=1622373978&Signature=z%2FpW49l7DjNBGTjXup0p9CyWUw8%3D

The original is an aws document, and for some reason, the url changes, so it is probably better to click the link on the lexology page.

Blogging on Gambling Law, for the USA law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP, Sonia Church Vermeys, Erin Elliott, and Marckia L Hayes discuss gambling in Nevada.

One has to log in to Lexology to read it:

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d3c8777e-f46d-4158-9182-c6a482708304&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2021-03-31&utm_term=

 

Gambling law review:   https://www.lexology.com/indepth/the-gambling-law-review

Not all the BHFS LLP articles are for Lexology pro members only, so it is worth clicking through for some interesting info on igambling, lotteries, and sports betting.

https://www.bhfs.com/insights/alerts-articles/2021/wire-act-ruling-a-win-for-igaming-and-lotteries-status-quo-for-sports-betting-for-now

And also, on mandates for experimental vaccines:

https://www.bhfs.com/insights/alerts-articles/2021/can-employers-mandate-covid-19-vaccines-likely-not-yet-given-current-fda-emergency-use-authorization

Which all wraps up nicely with the current proliferation of sweepstakes to incentivize what (so far) cannot be mandated:

CVS vaccination sweepstakes:

https://www.cvs.com/immunizations/covid-vaccination-sweepstakes?cid=redir-covid-vaccination-sweepstakes

Kroger vaccination sweepstakes:

https://www.kroger.com/health/pharmacy/sweepstakes

United Airlines vaccination sweepstakes:  Unvaccinated may also enter.

https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/travel/your-shot-to-fly-sweepstakes.html

 

United Airlines' Probably Exemplary Terms and Conditions:

https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/travel/your-shot-to-fly-sweepstakes.html#terms

 

Be sure to read all the terms and conditions, and especially remember those all-important six words: "No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited."

Happy Memorial Day weekend!

All the best,

Rowena Cherry, SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/  http://www.rowenacherry.com

EPIC Award winner, Friend of ePublishing for Crazy Tuesday

Grabbing Attention

Cory Doctorow's latest LOCUS essay expounds upon the "arms race" for our attention in the media. He compares the "race" between the purveyors of memes and the consumers of them to the evolution of our immune response in reaction to the mutations of pathogens.

Arms Race for Your Attention

A fresh meme—for instance, the exciting new game everybody's playing—hits the "attentional soft spot" by deploying "cognitive traps" that lure the target into an "escape-proof limbic dopamine loop." Most people do eventually escape, though, as they build up resistance to the allure. So the forces clamoring for our attention have to escalate their intensity and develop new tricks.

By comparing old-style advertisements to those we see today, Doctorow illustrates how much harder we are to captivate than earlier generations of audiences. I'm reminded of how tame the TV commercials of my childhood in the 1950s and early 60s were, in contrast to those on the networks nowadays. Viewing some of those old commercials on DVDs of vintage TV programs vividly highlights the difference. Although I wouldn't go back to the 50s unless a time-twisting genie offered to compensate me with wealth beyond the dreams of avarice, in some ways that really was a more innocent era. Of course, nowadays we can fast-forward through commercials, so the ads have to become really flashy and cool-looking to snag our attention and keep us from skimming past them. As for Facebook ads, the scam e-mails that flood our in-boxes, and phone solicitations (which appear positively quaint compared to the Internet messages), does anybody actually respond to any of those appeals? Strange as it seems to me, SOMEBODY must, or the would-be sellers wouldn't keep producing them.

Doctorow also remarks that the battle for our attention is waged for more serious purposes than selling stuff and hooking people on games. It has political applications, too. So it's important to keep our "immune systems" healthy.

As for us authors, how can we best attract the attention of potential readers—in polite ways that don't backfire by turning them off? I've never paid for an Internet ad (although I've accepted the offer of free ads on a review website, where at least people visit voluntarily and are interested in finding new books). Since I ignore those kinds of things myself, why would I expect potential buyers of my books to respond to them? I don't want to become one of the scammers (which is the only issue discouraging me from trying that "boost post" strategy Facebook keeps nagging me about). On the other hand, if I don't promote myself in some way, nobody will know my books exist. When e-books were a novelty, being an e-published novelist was enough to attract attention. When my former publisher Ellora's Cave, the pioneer of erotic romance for a female audience, was practically the only game in town for the erotic paranormal romance subgenre, being one of their authors distinguished a writer from the throng, at least in a modest way. Now it's become a prime example of Doctorow's thesis that potential audiences invariably develop resistance to each new "attentional soft spot."

Margaret L. Carter

Carter's Crypt

Social Networking Is Not A Promotional Tool - Part 2 Comparing Services by Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Social Networking Is Not A Promotional Tool
Part 2
by
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
Comparing Services  

Here is Part One on Social Networking

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2011/04/social-networking-is-not-advertising.html

A few months ago, someone on a Facebook Group of Screenwriters (serious beginning professionals with accomplishments to their names) asked what use TWITTER might be, and how to work with Twitter. 

A whole lot of people on the group had experiences with Twitter to relate and opinions about how effective the time spent on Twitter might be, plus hints and clues about how to get the most screenwriting info out of Twitter.

I tossed in a couple of answers, and someone tossed a question to me: "What is Google Plus?" 

Oh, boy, how this world of social networking is exploding so fast! 

Even those working hard to sell screenplays don't know what's happening in social media, even though it is reported on TV often and in depth!

I've been on Google+ since it was by Google's invitation only. 

So I put a link to my G+ page
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JacquelineLichtenberg/posts

And my twitter:
https://twitter.com/JLichtenberg

And the questioner went and looked at it and noted some differences from the way Facebook presents information about people. And I answered that.

So the person who asked me looked up the stats and commented: the stats reveal Gplus has 300MM users compared to FB 1.2 BB   AND FB users spend 6 hrs a week or month vs Gplus 7 minutes...

That's about true.  G+ is much FASTER to use, somehow.  You get more done in 7 minutes than in an hour on Facebook.

My opinion, as you all know, is pro-Twitter.  I follow many video producers, actors, writers, directors, and production companies, Indie film promoters, just a lot of people in The Industry and the Indie segment of the film industry. 

But the Sime~Gen fans have created a Group on Facebook, so I also spend a lot of time with Facebook as well as Google Plus.

Here's the explanation of the comparison I wrote for the Screenwriter's Group on Facebook.

-----------QUOTE-----
I don't think it's worth while to compare Google+ to FB.  Both are just tools.  Your reward will come from your need for that tool and your ability to employ that tool to accomplish your purposes. 

One neat thing about G+ is that it can be set to use the same login as you use for your blogger.com blogs, for your gmail and other google tools.  And as with FB you can use that google login on other sites.  That neat thing is it's main drawback.  Lots of exposure to things you'd rather not be exposed to.  But for a professional, it can be worth the risk.

Many people I know are on both G+ and FB and cruise through those and several other social sites at whim.  Both are just TOOLS -- how rewarding the experience is depends on who you know not what you know. 

As a professional writer, I go where the people who want to talk to me are -- it is my responsibility to make the effort to accommodate the habits and preferences of my customers, without regard for my own. 

There are more people on FB, but G+ lets you connect easier with people you don't know but who want to know you. 

In socializing, it's more about quality than quantity, so the fact that FB is bigger is why I'm here and why my fans are gathering on the SimeGen Group here.  The fact that there are large numbers of writers on G+ is why I'm there.  Also there are lots more image-oriented people on G+ and writers are always evaluating images for cover potential.

G+ has been handling images better, but FB has caught up during their launch of more advertising in your stream.  FB interfaces with lots of other social media products so you can aggregate posts by making those connections.  Post an item on your tumblr blog and set tumblr to post that item on FB, Twitter, etc -- but G+ won't allow that cross-posting (yet.) so posting to G+ is a separate operation.  That's a huge drawback.  Also my blogger blog auto-posts itself on FB. 

My point here is that you don't choose ONE or THE OTHER -- you establish a core presence where it's convenient for you, then connect to all the other networks where your own customers tend to hang out with their friends.  Your objective is to do the most connecting with the least time/effort on your part as possible.  Efficiency is the watchword in social-media.

FB limits the number of friends you can have (outside of your "Page" as a celebrity one-way communication).  G+ has no such tiny limit, which makes it valuable to me.  On FB I have just over 1K connections, but on G+ in half the time I have acquired 7K followers.  I have about 2200 followers on Twitter.  But as with FB only a few dozen actually TALK BACK when I say something.  I treasure those commentators because they really think!  

Both G+ and FB allow for Groups and Communities where you can meet and talk to people who aren't connected to your stream and don't see your general posts.  Each community on G+ has its own rules (just like FB) and a focused interest.  The NaNoWriMo folks are huge on G+ and they are a kick and a half! 

I suspect my problem is that I just love PEOPLE -- lots of them all talking to each other.  I sit back and marvel at the rich harvest of story-ideas! 
------END QUOTE---

So my advice to people who want to use social media to promote their work is don't do that.

Use social media as a source of your work, not a destination.

Then people who want to talk to you will appear.  You will get to say what's dear to your heart, and they will run off and repeat that while pointing their friends at your work.

Draw your story ideas from the subjects, ideas and attitudes bandied about among your primary audience, then tell them you have this new novel or whatever available in such a way that it's clear you understood what they meant. 

Don't tell them you took their ideas (which you didn't, but that's hard to explain).  Tell them their ideas.  They will recognize their own ideas, and run around espousing this ultra-clear statement of their own ideas by someone they barely know -- "I couldn't have said it better myself."

Even more, when you do it this way -- your readers will see confirmation and maybe even vindication in your restatement of their ideas because you can utilize SHOW DON'T TELL as the mechanism for explaining these very abstract matters.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com