For marijuana businesses, it can be extremely challenging to utilize social media to its fullest marketing potential. Historically, social media companies have erred on the side of caution when establishing their community guidelines, siding with the feds’ prohibition of marijuana. However, a recent statement from Instagram could indicate a change in that company’s stance on marijuana advertising.

The critical language was noticed by Ganjapreneur after a recent Leafly report on the ongoing Instagram impersonation of Kiva Confections, a popular California-based edibles company.

As Leafly reported, a fake account using Kiva’s name suddenly began abusing people in comments and direct messages. Kiva contacted Instagram and successfully had the internet trolls’ account shut down. However, it was through this exchange that Instagram revealed some potentially critical changes to its existing policy on cannabis as it relates to advertising.

The statement reads in full:

Instagram does not allow people or organizations to use the platform to advertise or sell marijuana, regardless of the seller’s state or country. This is primarily because most federal laws, including those of the United States, treat marijuana as either an illegal substance or highly regulated good. Our policy prohibits any marijuana seller, including dispensaries, from promoting their business by providing contact information like phone numbers, street addresses, or by using the “contact us” tab in Instagram Business Accounts. We do however allow marijuana advocacy content as long as it is not promoting the sale of the drug. Dispensaries can promote the use and federal legalization of marijuana provided that they do not also promote its sale or provide contact information to their store.

As Ganjapreneur points out, the emphasized portion above leaves out any mention of “websites.” Therefore, “without listing your location’s contact info, you can drive customers to your website where your contact info, daily deals, and updated menus are all prominently displayed.” In other words, as long as companies don’t advertise or promote the sale of cannabis, they should be in the clear.

Instagram’s omission signals a progressive push for the social media platform, which was bought by Facebook in 2012. Facebook’s community standards specifically prohibit content that promotes marijuana sales–even in states where it’s legal–but Instagram has a history of not enforcing its vague policies uniformly.

“What’s so interesting is that you’ll see posts from other companies or users and it’s naked women and paraphernalia and guns and cash,” Kristi Knoblich, co-founder of Kiva, said. “But all the posts we had on our real page were about education. Things like how to keep edibles away from kids, how to store and lock your edibles, pointers and tips for how to use safely. The nature of what we were posting didn’t have anything to do with promoting sales, illegal use, shipping or distribution.”

Hopefully, Instagram’s updated guidelines will ensure more breathing room for legal companies looking to grow their businesses with innocuous marijuana posts.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Instagram Change its Marijuana Marketing Policy? appeared first on Law Street.

Bud Light, produced by beer giant Anheuser-Busch, is apologizing after controversy broke out over one of the beer’s labels. The brand has been using a number of slogans as part of its “Up for Anything” marketing campaign; however, one sparked a lot of controversy–the phrase that posited Bud Light as “the perfect beer for removing ‘no’ from your vocabulary for the night.”

Bud Light….the perfect beer for marketers about to lose their job. #NoMeansNopic.twitter.com/dLWtDSMhXQ

— Jeff Barrett (@BarrettAll) April 28, 2015

There was a lot of backlash in response to this slogan, as many who saw it thought that it was an inappropriate, if inadvertent, nod to rape culture. The phrase “no means no” has become a popular rallying cry for those combatting the incredibly prevalent problems of rape and sexual assault. So for Bud Light to hint that its product takes away, in any way, the ability to say “no,” struck plenty of negative chords.

Moreover, there are plenty of other things that people should say “no” to if they’ve been drinking–driving, to name just one. This slogan indicates that people drinking Bud Light would engage in activities they normally wouldn’t–and that doesn’t exactly scream responsible alcohol consumption. While Bud Light’s slogan was supposed to be light-hearted, and presumably indicate that its beer would lead to a fun night where its consumers were open to new experiences, this slogan completely missed that mark.

Twitter users took to the social media platform to express a wide variety of reactions, ranging from disgust to mocking.

Sorry AB. NO does mean NO. No matter how much beer. #SoWrong #BigFail http://t.co/OXBbwQd4uq

— Rep. Stacey Newman (@staceynewman) April 28, 2015

Stolen from reddit: “No” always means “No”…especially if the question is: “Do you want a Bud Light?” #terribletagline#UpForWhatever

— TheRealLouisWeiher (@LouisWeiher) April 28, 2015

Bud Light has stopped production of the bottles featuring the slogan in question, although it won’t be recalling the ones that are already on the shelves. The bottles are sold in packs with mixed labels, meaning a 12-pack may contain a few offensive labels, just one, or none at all. Logistically speaking, a recall would have been difficult, which is understandable. Also in response to the backlash, Alexander Lambrecht, Vice President for Bud Light, released a statement:

The Bud Light Up for Whatever campaign, now in its second year, has inspired millions of consumers to engage with our brand in a positive and light-hearted way. In this spirit, we created more than 140 different scroll messages intended to encourage brand engagement. It’s clear that this particular message missed the mark, and we regret it. We would never condone disrespectful or irresponsible behavior. As a result, we have immediately ceased production of this message on all bottles.

It’s good that Bud Light made the call to remove the slogan from its labels, but the fact that it took such a concerted backlash to do so is a bit concerning. While we shouldn’t expect everyone to have an encyclopedic knowledge of every current social movement, “no means no” has been a pretty visible one. The fact that a single Bud Light marketing executive didn’t think of the overall implications of their label is pretty surprising. Bud Light did the right thing by apologizing–hopefully in the future it gives a little more thought to what message it is sending to consumers.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bud Light Removes “No From Your Vocabulary” in Misguided Campaign appeared first on Law Street.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, commonly referred to as ISIS, has been making some interesting moves lately. Namely it’s gotten into the movie business.

Last night, ISIS released a video “warning” the United States about what would happen if we send troops to Iraq to combat its growing influence. The graphic video is below, should you be inclined to watch it.

For those of you who choose to skip over the video, here’s a brief summary. The beginning features a lot of gratuitous explosions, eventually it shows American soldiers struggling, then we get treated to some fuzzy shots of the White House. Eventually, the “title” of the movie flashes on the screen: “Flames of War: The Fight Has Just Begun” and then the words “Coming Soon.”

This is, of course, just a few weeks after ISIS released videos depicting the slaughters of American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff.

Terrorism is a very difficult thing to define — there are still academic arguments over how exactly to delineate terrorist groups from other actors. But at its most basic form, terrorism does have to include some kind of “terror” — that’s the whole point. It often targets non-combatants, such as civilians. It’s often, but not always, aimed at democracies where the members of the democracy have the ability to appeal to their government. ISIS did not kill James Foley because it wanted him to die, it killed James Foley in an attempt to incite “terror” in the American public. That’s all the intent it needed right there. Again, this is not meant to serve by any means as any sort of dispositive definition, but more as context for my next statement: the video released last night by ISIS was downright brilliant.

The whole point of terror is to scare, intimidate, and coerce. And with that trailer, ISIS was able to do just that, at minimal cost. It didn’t break any laws, it didn’t kill anyone, it didn’t have to go on a violent campaign. ISIS literally had a couple guys with decent computer skills sit there and do that, and then leaked it to the internet. While one could argue that it wasn’t a terroristic act in the strictest sense, it was certainly a facet of a larger campaign. ISIS has figured out how to reach as many people in its goal audience as possible. It’s literally creating clickbait for social media. Not to be glib about the fact that ISIS is one of the largest terrorist threats to the U.S. right now, but it’s literally employing Buzzfeed-like tactics to scare the American populace. And, the scariest part is that it seems to be working.

ISIS hasn’t just mastered social media when it comes to releasing creepy videos, it’s also using it in other ways. It’s created message boards and chat rooms for recruiting purposes, including in the United States. Given that a handful of western-born fighters are known to be among ISIS’ ranks, the kind of access it has is scary. It’s also dipped into other tactics that seem to be more out of a business/PR handbook than a terrorist group’s goals, including an online store that sells clothing and memorabilia.

ISIS knows what it has to work with, and its tactics are scarily modern. The group sort of flies in the face of what I think many people think of when they think of “terrorist.” Many in the U.S. see terrorists as radical, backward people. And don’t get me wrong, ISIS is beyond radicalized. But much more concerning than its radicalization is that it’s alarming modern. As the United States continues to develop its plan to work against ISIS, we need to keep that in mind.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Nile Livesey via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Coming Soon to Theaters Near You: ISIS appeared first on Law Street.

Attention companies using Pinterest as part of your marketing strategy: proceed with extreme caution. The popular social network, or “copyright infringement machine” as one commentator calls it, has turned into a platform where companies must tread carefully or face legal consequences.

Recently, Cole Haan, a fashion label specializing in footwear, ran a seemingly innocuous contest on Pinterest that ended up catching the attention of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The brand created the “Wandering Sole” campaign and sought to use Pinterest to market it. Thus, Cole Haan asked Pinterest users to create boards with their favorite Cole Haan images from the company’s own “Wandering Sole” board, and for the users to pin their favorite places to wander. Users who participated received the chance to win a $1000 cash reward.

win a $1,000 shopping spree from @colehaan ! share where your sole's are going to wander – http://t.co/m4cK5RCcDM

— Jennifer Chong (@jchongstudio) May 26, 2013

This contest — a popular type in the social media marketing world — may not seem detrimental; however, federal law provides that a company must make clear that it has a financial relationship with the individuals endorsing it. It seems that Cole Haan accidentally used Pinterest as a vehicle for illicit advertising. A user coming across the images pinned as part of the contest had no way of knowing that the images were in the running for a prize of $1000. In order to legally run the campaign, Cole Haan would’ve had to disclose the financial incentive.

Specifically, the FTC made four conclusions regarding the Wandering Sole campaign:

1. Pinterest users’ pins featuring Cole Haan images were endorsements. (‘Endorsement’ is a legal term of art, and the FTC has its own guidelines regarding the use of endorsements).
2. Individuals using Pinterest who saw the pins and boards relating to Cole Haan’s campaign had no reasonable way of knowing that the pins were motivated by a chance to win $1,000.
3. Cole Haan did not take appropriate steps to make it clear to average Pinterest users that the pins were part of a campaign with a $1,000 cash reward.
4. Cole Haan did not instruct participants in the campaign to disclose that their activity stemmed from Cole Haan’s campaign, not their own unsolicited Pinterest activity.

Importantly, the FTC decided not to persue enforcement action despite suggesting that Cole Haan violated federal policy. Basically, the FTC wrote a letter reprimanding Cole Haan, but did not financially punish the company or pursue any legal action. This likely results from the novelty of these issues. Companies using social media sites often accidentally violate federal laws since the platforms create new user experiences that do not perfectly cohere to the world the laws originally intended to govern. This is something we are bound to see a whole lot more of until the laws catch up with technological innovation.

—

Imran Ahmed is a law student and writer living in New York City whose blog explores the legal implications of social media and the internet. Contact him via email here.

Featured image courtesy of [afunkydamsel via Flickr]

Imran Ahmed

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York. Contact Imran at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are You Sure You Want to Pin That? appeared first on Law Street.

In recent years, social media has become intrinsically linked with daily life. From dining to retail to business to politics, almost every public figure or company uses some sort of social media. Whether it’s Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Youtube, or one of the many other options, social media isn’t just for individuals anymore, it’s for businesses, too. It’s estimated that 73 percent of Americans who regularly use the internet are involved in social media and networking in some capacity.

Working in social media is actually a viable and legitimate job for many people right now. An AOL jobs post from January 2014 projects that this year a Social Media Strategist will make about $61,000, require a bachelor’s degree, and points out that “the more social media followers a company has, the more their products and services are recognized.”

So, how are law firms doing with this? Well, a firm called Good2bSocial tried to answer that question this winter. Good2bSocial is a consulting firm that helps other companies expand their social marketing, particularly in the legal field. They worked together with AboveTheLaw to attempt to figure out how exactly the legal industry, particularly leaders in the industry, are doing with social media. The results were that big law firms are doing a pretty miserable job with it.

A white paper called “The Social Law Firm” by Good2bSocial was released last December, and followup articles have been released since then. The white paper itself requires a (free) subscription to Good2bSocial’s site, but if you don’t feel like reading the entire thing, I’ve summed up some important points below.

The study essentially analyzed the social media practices of the Am Law 50. It was conducted through surveys and questionnaires and an analysis of existing social media sites for each of the firms.

The study pretty much finds that while many law firms use social media, and use it extensively, they don’t use it in the most efficient or creative ways. The use of social media is described as a “token effort,” because law firms create social media sites to say that they have them, and so that they’re searchable, but don’t take advantage of the potential that those sites offer. Good2bSocial points out that social media takes real strategy separate from basic marketing. While law firms are creating substantive and interesting content, they are not using social media to promote such content as much as they could be.

Law firms have gotten that social media is important, it just really seems like they haven’t begun to understand how it works. The report states that “firms continue to view social media as nothing more than a distribution channel for firm news and press releases. This alone explains why firms achieve such low levels of engagement.” Uploading a pdf link to twitter isn’t engaging, it isn’t going to foster discussion, and it isn’t going to attract more followers.

Another mistake made by law firms, according to this study, is that they don’t have platforms in place to allow for coordination and collaboration within the firm, or in-house blogs. All of these things are not only attractive concepts for clients or potential employees, but also are helpful and engaging for current employees. The study does predict that this will all change, but that change is slow going and many firms are just beginning to scratch the surface of their social media potential.

The study does note that smaller firms are doing a better job with social media, but overall the conclusion remains that the field of law in general is lacking in social media prowess.

This begs an important question, though. Should law firms even care about social media, especially big, established firms like the Am Law 50? Social media is so crucial for places like retail stores, restaurants, or other product-based businesses because these places can attract new customers through the web. Is the same true for big law firms? Will interesting social media make clients more likely to visit that firm?

Well to be honest, I don’t know. Part of me wants to say absolutely not, these law firms have their niches and their reputations on which to rely. Engaging social media probably won’t have as large of an effect on their track record, as say, a good track record. On the other hand, though, social media can’t hurt. It could attract employees who find the idea of a collaborative social media experience within in the firm interesting. And as the business world changes, clients shopping around for new law firms may be interesting in finding lawyers who are as technologically savvy as they are.

The fact that smaller law firms are doing better with social media is very interesting. It’s unsurprising, given that I would assume smaller firms are more likely to try to actively attract new business, and are more willing to experiment with different outreach techniques.

In conclusion, Good2bSocial’s rundown was very interesting, but I don’t think social media will end up meaning that much for the Am Law 50 that were analyzed. The different nature of consumers of law services rather than other products make social media less of a necessity and more of a bonus. That being said, there’s much more to be gained by instituting a robust social media strategy than to be lost, and really, big law firms should consider getting on the bandwagon.

[Good2bSocial]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jason Howle via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law Firms Are Bad at Social Media, But Does it Matter? appeared first on Law Street.