Social Media Experts Jaffe + Verdino Victimized
What do Joseph Jaffe, Greg Verdino, Chris Brogan, Geoff Livingston and Aaron Strout all have in common aside from being regarded as social media thought leaders? They are generously supporting a good cause by donating consulting time to help raise money for Team in Training, the fundraising arm of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.
And at least two of them are victims of their own advice.
While this is clearly done for the best intentions, each one of them has failed to perform the basic due diligence any well-regarded social media expert would recommend to clients in selecting a social media partner. In this case the auctioner is not following the specific, prescribed eBay procedure for Charity auctions, which could not only reduce the amount of money she is hoping to raise, but, as eBay is one of the largest social media sites on the planet that everyone (including my 73-year old mother) has visited, it makes the social media ‘experts’ sound like hypocrites. 
As an established brand, would you trust your reputation to someone who cannot demonstrate basic expertise and experience?
What follows is in NO WAY intended as a slight upon any of the participants as several are my friends IRL. I am blogging about this incident because it serves to illustrate how important it is to ask questions before leaping into any project involving Web 2.0 tools. The importance of selecting the right vendor, including what to look for and the questions to ask has been commented on by Joseph and Greg. Whilst this situation might seem different, the issues and consequences are the same. By trusting their personal ‘brands’ to a third party in this way, they potentially expose themselves to unforeseen or negative outcomes due to their partner’s inexperience and clear lack of familiarity with the charity auctions on eBay, the eBay community, its rules of engagement and enforcement of those rules.
So please consider this post a friendly poke from a VERY experienced eBayer with more than 1000 auctions successfully transacted over the last 8 years. I’ve undertaken a substantial amount of charity fundraising for small to large organizations and I have learned the hard way that eBay enforces every one of their rules to the letter.
Let me explain. Every seller on eBay is required to read their Rules for Sellers. The auctioner’s inexperience with the social community of eBay is clearly identified by her lack of feedback “0″ as well as the eBay ‘newbie’ icon 
However, pleading ignorance is not an option. And if the ‘experts’ had done what they propose for clients, they might have realized this themselves. Here are the rules as laid out on eBay about Charity or Fundraising Listings
Charitable fundraising is a highly regulated area subject to numerous state and federal laws. eBay allows sellers to list items and collect proceeds (in whole or in part) on behalf of nonprofits either with eBay Giving Works (the dedicated program for charity listings on eBay) or without eBay Giving Works (as long as the listings meet our specific guidelines for charitable solicitations).
Violations of this policy may result in a range of actions, including:
- Listing cancellation
- Limits on account privileges
- Account suspension
- Forfeit of eBay fees on cancelled listings
Sounds rigid and scary. Most sellers with charity listings use the former route, which eBay seems to prefer, and they list through eBay’s Giving Works as eBay donates their fees as part of the deal (in this instance we are talking probably $100+, which would have been nice to donate to her fundraising cause instead of ‘donating’ to eBay as the auctioner is currently doing). She could have had all the listings cycle through her Donation Account on her Seller Page that would show current and past eBay Giving Works listings, pay donations directly to the charity and download tax receipts. Listing this way also ensures the non-profit is a 501(3)c or similar, which gives potential buyers peace of mind.
Because the auctioner is naively trying to use eBay to support her fundraising activities, she choose to list her auctions directly, a process subject to the following:
Sellers may only list items for charity without eBay Giving Works if they:
- Are soliciting on behalf of recognized tax-deductible charitable organizations (for example, 501(c)(3) status or equivalent with the IRS).
- Receive advance written consent for the solicitation from the benefiting nonprofit.
To verify you received permission, you must include a scanned copy of the consent in your listing. It must appear with the nonprofit’s letterhead, signed by an officer and include the nonprofit’s tax-deductibility status as well as your name or eBay user ID, dates of event/listings, and donation amount (percentage of the final sale price). It must be large enough to be easily legible, and it must appear as a picture rather than a link.
To her credit, she updated the auctions a few days later with this letter. I wonder if eBay pinged her that she was in violation of their policy? Regardless, if they canceled her auctions, she’s out the listing fees and she would have to pay again to have her auctions re-listed, depleting the potential fund-raising total.
This letter she posted is NOT signed by an officer nor does it include the nonprofit’s tax-deductability status. It also does not list the dates of the event or the donation amount — all this makes it appear “dodgy” to those with experience in this area. Every of her ‘social media guru’ auctions are directly violating eBay’s policy and are likely to be pulled — yes, eBay is that frighteningly diligent.
For those not experienced in this area, the impact of a charity auction being pulled on their perception of the participants is likely to be negative. And no, I haven’t said a word to eBay — just using my blog to poke my colleagues so they can fix the problem before it tarnishes their reputation because frankly, they should have known better.
With stats showing more than 60 million uniques per month, spending on average 2 hours per visit, Ebay IS arguably the poster child for engagement and social media. Social media thought leaders need to follow their own advice when experimenting with social media in which they themselves are not ‘expert’ or experienced and find someone who is a bona fide expert. To not follow their own counsel is at best slightly embarassing, but at worst could be damaging to their individual brands. It is my fervant wish that this situation only results in a few blushes but may act as valuable example to us all on the importance of following our own counsel.
I appreciate the thorough blog post. However, I do want to clarify a few things:
1) I have written permission from eBay customer service to do the auction through this method.
2) After I received a couple of notes that the auction may not be listed properly, I proactively reached out to eBay again to ensure that the were OK with these listings. That was six days ago, and I once again received a response that they were OK.
3) Each of the social media experts involved in this program did ask me if the method was approved, and based on the written permission I received, I was able to say yes.
4) I have a request into LLS and TNT for an official sealed letter with an officer signature, with the non-profit ID, and was given that letter from the local LLS office in the meantime. I figured it would be more responsible to post that than nothing.
5) If I made any mistake, it was not getting this letter first, however that should not be a reflection on those involved. It should be a reflection perhaps on an error that I made, in my enthusiasm to raise money for a legitimate cause.
5) In the end, the goal here is simple – raise money for leukema and lymphoma research. If anything, even if the auctions were for some reason removed, this exercise was great for bringing light to a cause that needs more support. I would prefer that they don’t as that would be disappointing not only to me, the participants and the organization — and especially since I have twice received approval from eBay. But in the meantime, I’m keeping my eye on the prize — which is doing good for others.
Nice assessment, however, Glad to see that in the end you’re supportive of the cause. With hope others will see this prior to doing a charity auction and will avoid some of the bump that I have.
Jennifer Leggio
June 2, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Hi Lori,
Have re-read this several times and don’t understand what Joseph, Chris and company have done wrong, unless it is to support a cause that appears not to have dotted all the regulatory i’s for eBay.
It’s great to let people know how to evaluate the legitimacy of a charity, but it’s equally important sometimes to jump in and help when you spot a worthy cause. I have supported several online giving campaigns that I learned about through Twitter, and I took a chance in each case that they were legitimate and that my contribution was going to help someone in need. If they’re lying to me for $5 or $10, shame on them, but I can’t keep that nagging doubt from letting me help out when others are in need.
Maybe I’m naive for saying this, but less established causes without the organizational experience to understand all of the legal nuances of charitable solicitation also lack much of the administrative overhead that keeps large percentages of donations from reaching people in need.
Joel
socialized
June 2, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Lori – thank you for your post. Here are a few initial thoughts/responses:
1) I love eBay and I do agree that it is one of the original communities/forms of social media. However, I wouldn’t assume that just because folks like Joe, Greg, Geoff, Chris and I are well-versed in social media that we would know the ins and outs of charity auctions on eBay. That’s mainly because unlike Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn (places that we might advise clients to set up accounts) many of us don’t use eBay for work related purposes – at least I don’t – I shouldn’t speak for the others on this front.
2) Jennifer is trying hard to do a wonderful thing here (and I know you point that out several times in your post). That’s the reason I was happy to participate. Based on my conversations with her, it sounds like she made “best efforts” to do due diligence up front (this also isn’t her main specialty). In retrospect, I’m sure she would love to have had your recommendations of how to work with eBay’s charitable arm up front.
3) It looks like all five auctions are up and well so I don’t think anything has been canceled that I can tell.
For future reference, your post provides some excellent advice for setting up charity auctions. I will be sure to bookmark it on deli.cio.us so that I can keep it handy.
Best,
Aaron | @astrout
astrout
June 2, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Thanks for responding.
The story is a metaphor for what is happening in general to businesses trying to engage with social media.
If social media is to mature and evolve, some of the wild west approach will be replaced by more structure and rules, like what has happened on eBay.
If social media is to be adopted by more big business, it needs to be clear the person navigating the channel on behalf of the brand IS an expert with the rules of that community. The excuse that ‘my vendor’ (social media ‘expert’) did not know the rules will not be an option, the lawyers will make sure of that.
Jennifer — it sounds like you are continuing to do the right things. Suggestion would be to create an addendum to your auction with the note you posted above (perhaps abbreviated). Image is everything. Ebay is an established community where members often enforce the ‘rules’ by complaining directly to eBay and the auction gets pulled. Having your explanation on the auction would ward off the militant charity crowd (I am saying this as one who learned the hard way!).
Kick the tires (or tyres) before you take your brand into the class 5 rapids of social media. Whether it is seemingly ’safe’ like a charity auction on eBay or perceived more risky (like Twitter is to many corporate types). And if you are a ’social media guru’, make sure you are seeking advice from people who specialize in the community before committing your client’s brand. Just kinda ironic in this case.
Lori Laurent Smith
June 2, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I find this post to be a bit out of sorts and I don’t real;ly agree with you in any fashion. Sorry, not sure whether you are just trying to look smart or you have a bone to pick, but in either case, no one’s brand was hurt, and this is not like the domain name issue that Shel Israel went through.
There is an old saying “Pick Your Battles.” This is not a smart one, especially given the charitable nature. We’re just trying to help, not market.
geoliv
June 2, 2008 at 5:17 pm
I’m still trying to unpack where the lawsuit comes from, but also trying to square where “friendly poke” aligns with the lines about hypocrites and ability.
Seems like if I had the opportunity to point out how a charity experience was perhaps in jeopardy of not reaching its intended goals, I’d probably address that with the participants.
That said, your blog’s your blog, and you do have some points that you’re making about who you bring to the picnic. At least gives me something to think about.
For the record, my selling record on eBay is pretty flimsy. Good, but not very large.
chrisbrogan
June 2, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Geoff — you are welcome to your opinion. I don’t have a bone to pick. I am smart, so I can’t ‘help sounding smart’.
You state: ‘no one’s brand was hurt’ — how do you know that? I actually came across the auction first. And, being a long-standing member of the eBay community, the auction looked fraudulent. I wondered if it was a scam. Do you think that is positive for a brand?
Put it in another context: what if you were approached for this on behalf of your firm’s top client’s brand? Would you have been so , ‘yeah, whatever…it’s for charity’ or would you have asked many more questions and watched it like a hawk?
I *get* that you are trying to help, for which you should be applauded. But I think you are missing the bigger point here.
Lori Laurent Smith
June 3, 2008 at 2:08 am
Chris — thanks for the comment.
Let me be clear: I was not questioning the ability about any of the social media experts participating in the auction. I have a great deal of respect about what you and others in this space are doing.
All I’m trying to point out is that everyone, even the experts, needs to be diligent and ask many, many questions when their brand (or their client’s) is participating in social media.
Lori Laurent Smith
June 3, 2008 at 2:59 am
[...] was just victimized by a blog post titled “Social Media Experts Jaffe + Verdino [...]
socialized » Not-so-well-known social media expert victimized
June 3, 2008 at 9:31 am
no one mentioned this except you;. that is my point. glad you are this smart.
geoliv
June 3, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Gotta agree with Geoff, not sure what the purpose of this post is. And as Jennifer explained in the comments, she’s talked to eBay and apparently they are ok with everything.
And on top of that, all the auctions have bids, so it seems the ‘eBay community’ is ok with it as well.
Looks like Jennifer did and is doing a fine job, and I congratulate her and Joe, Chris, Aaron, Geoff and Greg for how well things are going!
mackcollier
June 3, 2008 at 5:00 pm
“You state: ‘no one’s brand was hurt’ — how do you know that? I actually came across the auction first. And, being a long-standing member of the eBay community, the auction looked fraudulent. I wondered if it was a scam. Do you think that is positive for a brand?”
Sorry, I missed this reply of yours. I’ve been on eBay since 1996, and you are correct that there are a ton of scammers on there.
However…
In this case, one person is auctioning off the services of five real people. And doing so in 10-day auctions. If someone was going to try to scam, picking 5 popular bloggers is about the worst way to go about doing it. In fact, auctioning off the services of ANY real person is something that a scammer would definitely stay away from. All someone has to do is contact the people being ‘auctioned off’, and ask them if it’s legit. And I believe that each blogger also wrote a post on their blogs promoting the auctions.
You have a point about Jennifer’s ebay ID having no feedback. But since you are active on eBay, you know that it’s quite common for charity auctions on eBay to be run by someone with zero feedback, since the people conducting the auctions usually join eBay just so they can list the auction.
I think you raise some valid points in general about being careful when letting someone else represent you. But I’m not sure we agree on whether or not those points are relevant in this case.
mackcollier
June 3, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Joel – I overlooked your comment as a trackback. Thank you for taking the time to post your questions.
My response is posted on your site and we will continue the conversation there (which also addresses your question about whether comments and blogs are part of the conversation).
http://www.socializedpr.com/not-so-well-known-social-media-expert-victimized/#comments
Lori Laurent Smith
June 5, 2008 at 10:24 pm
mackcollier – Thank you for taking the time to comment twice and read the thread. I agree that the overall charity idea is wonderful and did not want any part of my comments to detract from the work that everyone is doing.
Social media and community is, as we all know, built around trust, openness and authenticity. As a longstanding and very active member of the eBay community as well as professional marketer for top-tier non-profits, I am very familiar with how charity auctions *should* look and sound.
To your point, even with ‘newbies’, charity auctions are typically listed through Giving Works because the amount donated can scale from 10 – 100% of the proceeds. Giving Works donates the listing and final value fees to the charity. Perhaps most importantly, Giving Works offers specific templates with all important iconic elements that allows community members visual authentication that the auction is for a legit charity, even if the seller is new.
These auctions are not listed using eBay Giving Works, which raises a red flag. Then the money collected is requested to go to a hyperlink, which might not be legit, rather than Paypal. As I stated previously: it just looks dodgy, especially when someone comes upon something like this first within the community. Yes it can be immediately verified, but first impressions are what count, particularly when we are trying to be authentic, open and building trust.
At any rate, I do hope that the auctions do well and raise much needed funds for this good cause through Jennifer’s admirable physical effort.
Lori Laurent Smith
June 5, 2008 at 10:55 pm