You nailed a lot of things I was grasping at, but failed to articulate. One additional breach of trust that I would add. The Kmart campaign, across all six bloggers who were selected for the paid posts, invited readers who wanted to enter the contest to Tweet it. The result was an avalanche of Twitter spam that replicated through networks of retweeting. In that sense, bloggers were not only using their own blog to reach readers, but leveraging Twitter as nothing more than a spam engine. How is that different from email spam? The fact that Vitrue is now using these spam Tweets + the contest entry comments on the original blogs as metrics to support the success of the campaign is cynically laughable.
One final note. As you've demonstrated in this post, there are very real and difficult questions about monetizing blogs that remain, and need to be openly debated. I've been really dismayed at the tenor of emotional and defensive attacks surrounding this weekend's controversy--people claiming that anyone who had an issue with the Kmart campaign was "jealous", or that anyone who questioned pay for post had a personal vendetta against Chris or the backers of Izea. These are sophomoric attempts to shut down dialog and debate, which is sadly ironic for a social media community built on opening up lines of communication and dialog. Thanks for the brilliant post.
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
Thanks. Brilliant may be a bit much: I was hoping for adequate.
Yes, it has not been our finest hour, has it?
Chris Kenton
· 1 year ago
Well, lest you or anyone think I'm being obsequious, I'll explain my "brilliant" remark. The overwhelming majority of posts I've read on this topic to date have been muddying the waters, framing this whole issue either as some kind of personal grudge match launched by enemies of Brogan or Murphy, or as a tempest in a teapot sparked by quaint adherents to an outmoded concept of media. As if the generations of media that came before the New Social have nothing to teach us about the line between advertising and editorial. We're new, we're different, we're unbound by the fetters of msm. I think you repainted the line quite clearly--maybe not definitively: there's still much to be debated. But you painted the line in a way that moved the argument to a higher level of discussion than "who's jealous of Chris?", or "who's still bashing ppp.com after 2 years, get over it". I thought that was brilliant, perhaps in the British sense.
Angel Djambazov
· 1 year ago
Hi Stowe,
Your focus on the potential ethical quandaries of a blogger being paid to post is excellent. As I have mentioned elsewhere I think by going directly to a question of ethics you skip over what should be, in my opinion, the initial established: What is the editorial purpose of the blog in question?
How a blog defines its editorial purpose impacts what readers expect from it. If the content of a blog is solely about the latest “deals” of the week and obviously marketing focused, like Shoemoney's, I doubt many readers see an ethical dilemma. It is only when a blog is news focused or creative focused that the ethical issue of potentially becoming a "shill" enters the picture.
The lengthy and self-righteous quote you site by David Churbuck assumes that every blogger is a journalist or views themselves as a "writer". The types of blogs out there have become as varied as the people or corporations that have created them.
The reason for this brouhaha I believe is twofold: ~Chris Brogan's participation. Chris has become both a leader and a personality in the space whether he likes it or not. His blog is infused with so much of his voice and personality that many readers come back for just that voice regardless of the content. It is independent, smart, vibrant, and everything corporate America is so often not. I think this is the key to the dismay. ~The bad taste left in everyone's mouth from the Pay Per Post fiasco. Apparently there are still some hatchets to be buried there. Because rather than attacking IZEA from day one people seemed to wait until someone high profile like Chris became involved in order. Thus his involvement rather than IZEA's model has become the focus of much of the dismay.
But again I ask what is the purpose of Chris Brogan's blog? To help business establish themselves within the Social Media space. Some of how they establish themselves will be through marketing. One of their many options is marketing through IZEA, for better or for worse.
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
Your comments gibe with the 'fit' between bloggers and these promotions, that Karl Long wrote about in an earlier comment.
My purpose in using Churbuck is that he is a marketing guy from a bug company, and I believe that his perspective is widely shared. The nuances and subtleties about social media and traditional media just don't resonate much with that community, I think.
As I said, this whole business model is radioactive, and when you mix a star like Brogan, and a twittermob, people are going to start to howl. The fact that companies have this as an 'option' misses the point: we all have options to do things that unethical, but in general we don't. And we shy away from things that might be marginally ethical but raise questions about our integrity. Companies will simply reject these promotions because the fallout is worse than the ink gained.
Angel Djambazov
· 1 year ago
Stowe,
You are a person that I would expect to understand that words have power. You are attributing terms like "payola", "unethical", "radioactive", "mob" it has the affect of escalating a discussion into something uglier. I noticed below you use the phrase "We can't let it happen on the blogosphere" as if this was some sort of ethical crusade between bloggers against the corporate world. Us vs them. The situation does not warrant that kind of rhetoric.
Blogs are a medium. How that medium is used is up to the blogger. If people don't like the way the medium is being wielded or don't believe the blogger is being upfront, even ethical about the medium's purpose than people have the right to move on.
This is not a crusade.
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
Baloney, That's the wisdom of the marketplace again. The marketplace can be easily coopted with money.
Angel Djambazov
· 1 year ago
Anything can be easily coopted with money. Former NASDAQ chairman Bernie Madoff is just the recent of a long list of examples. Real examples. Not ones created simply to stir up the pot. Marketplaces are dumb, crowds are dumb, mobs are dumb. The intelligence of any crowd is the square root of its number. Bloggers shouldn't have faith in the marketplace but intelligence of the reader. In the wisdom that open discussion brings through comments. Isn't that the promise of this new media?
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
The medium has an internal structure that profoundly influences the impact on those that are mediated. The medium IS the message, not just the words we say, but the way in which discourse is channeled and shaped by the tools and affordances involved.
It's not a question of faith about people's powers of discernment, but the fact that some people will come to the wrong conclusions, or be unduly influenced. And we aren't talking about a single Kmart campaign, but that way that this sort of advertising can insinuate its way into the fabric of the web, and change things for the worst.
Angel Djambazov
· 1 year ago
Well put. Introduce enough for foreign elements into a substance and you permanently change the consistency of that substance. I think the "fabric" argument when it comes to how advertising is inserted into content rather than placed to the side of content is a valid one. However that message was lost in yours and David's posts on the IZEA matter. Unfortunate because it is a topic well worth discussing.
chrisheuer
· 1 year ago
Hey Stowe - I just participated in a similar program for Sears because I dont see it as you do.
I am wondering, how this is really any different from you taking money to be a beta tester for a product, and requiring the company to allow you to blog about your experience with it? Aren't you in fact absolving them from having to ask you to write about them with such a policy, by including soft promotion on your blog, the same kind you complain about above? I suppose it is a matter of intention and perspective, do you see it as getting paid to write a post to promote a company, or do you see it as I did, as compensation for my time to interact with the brand, connect my readers with a great prize opportunity and share my experiences with the brand with everyone else (most especially with the people running the campaign).
The question is one of integrity - either someone has it and uses it or they don't - sure you can make a slippery slope argument here, and there are many (thinking about the original "posties" and some MLM folks in particular) who show no ethics and continue to hype bad products for personal benefit, but the market generally wins out in those instances and those people end up with no trust in the market.
Just one question though, are you saying Chris Brogan has no integrity and is unethical? If so, that just shows you really don't know him personally, but instead only know the personality - because if you knew him, this would not be a question at all... I would hope the same holds true for me, but c'est la vie - my only hope is I dont have to waste a lot of time this week arguing this BS back and forth with everyone as there is a lot of work to do before year end...
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
Regarding product consulting -- I never personally make a deal where I agree to write about a company's product. I do write about companies that I am working with, but I disclose the relationship in those posts. I have also -- while at Corante -- done sponsored posts. Now, I think that sponsored posts should be offset -- like in the sidebar -- and written by others, preferably by the folks at the sponsoring company. For example, I am in the Nokia bloggers program, where I get access to Nokia products. (Notably, I never really adopted them for personal use until the N95 came along, because they were inferior to others that I owned, and I said so.)
I am all for promotions that put goods in the hands of members of the web community, and I am all for promoting that in various ways on blogs, as I wrote in the post. I just am worried that promotional speak can become shilling, and that's the line we need to worry about.
The notion that the 'marketplace' for trust is self-policing is worthy of more discussion, although I have reached a point where in general I start with a healthy distrust of market forces to self-correct. Witness Wall Street and the Big Three car makers.
Lastly, I did not say that Chris is unethical or lacks integrity. On the contrary, I said that he had put himself in a situation where the appearance of propriety could have been compromised. I suggest that structural approaches to promotion on blogs -- like distancing the 'star' from the authorship of sponsored posts -- could help him, and all of us, to maintain that appearance of propriety. I believe that Chris behaved as he said he did, primarily interested in researching the experience so that he could better inform his clients about this sort of social marketing, and the pitfalls that lie in that briar patch.
karllong
· 1 year ago
Great analysis Stowe, but I think there is one other perspective to take on this, and that is blogger as promoter. I think it all comes down to what people expect of your personal brand. I promote T-Shirt companies all the time on my t-shirt blog, I have become a curator of cool shirts, and I often make some cash from affiliate fees etc. (which I generally note), but I primarily promote products I like and making money is secondary :-) It is quite possible that I will partner with T-Shirt companies I like in the future and yes I could get paid as well. I don't think the readership on Tcritic are going to be up in arms about this, i'm promoting products and that's what my readers come for. As long as I don't compromise and start promoting crap by getting paid I don't think I lose credibility.
One of the main problems with the Kmart promotion was the 'fit' between the bloggers themselves and Kmart as a company. I think 1938media and Chris Brogan both harmed their brand by promoting Kmart for pay. I don't believe that they are passionate supporters of Kmart. Would have been better off getting a bunch of Mommy bloggers and twitterers to promote it.
You're right that the 'misfit' between the personas of the bloggers and the Kmart spending spree is at issue. And if Chris or Loren had been blogging about Kmart naturally, in the past, it might have seemed less off-putting, yet the line would still be there.
ontarioemperor
· 1 year ago
I didn't see Chris' post, but I saw Loren's post and was not disturbed by it. Frankly, it's natural to expect that Loren would be talking about video equipment, and I seem to remember him saying in a seminar that inexpensive video equipment can get the job done.
banane
· 1 year ago
Hey Karl I think Chris gaffed in various ways - 1) not being transparent about the deal to his readers and 2) they're not Daddy audience members. So to me it's OK for Chris to switch up his demographic and go for Daddy-blogger material, but so much of his readers are social media consultants and the ilk, that it was a misfire by Kmart. like he's slumming it, basically.
dahowlett
· 1 year ago
Excellent piece Stowe. I'd draw attention to the Techmeme model which is one I use at my personal weblog. It's basically a block of RSS feed headlines with clickable logo links running side by side and fed via Newsgator. The model is entirely democratic for the sponsors because their 'position' within the block is entirely dependent on the frequency with which they update their stuff. It makes for an interesting dynamic. I have no control over the content but I pointed out that if it was obvious advertising then I doubt they'd get clicks. It provides extra content that I can consumer the same as any other reader and provides me with more that I can riff without having to run over to an RSS reader. Neither am I blatantly promoting anyone. Everyone seems happy, traffic hasn't suffered, they've all renewed on a 6 month rolling basis. In other words, it's a win-win-win. I really don't see why more people don't at least consider the model instead of these outdated banners.
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
I completely agree, Dennis.
karllong
· 1 year ago
Great model Dennis, how did you set that up? is it automated? BTW check out http://projectwonderful.com for an interesting auction model, would love to see a combination of what you propose Dennis with an auction model.
Whit
· 1 year ago
Hi Stowe- I think your fundamental premise that Chris sold out the Dad-o-Matic community is wrong. I might have felt the piece was out of place on Chris Brogan dot com, but it fit in perfectly for Dad-o-Matic, and was really about KMart trying to get people to give them a try again- a slice of what's going on there, a field report, if you will, of their store. I think Chris did a great job of that.
I frankly think this controversy says more about everyone's prejudice against KMart and their doubt that it has redeeming value than it actually does about anything Chris had to say.
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
That wasn't my premise. I don't think it is primarily about Kmart. I think they same thing would have happened if he wrote about Tiffany.
Bill Cammack
· 1 year ago
Actually, Whit... You bring up another important part of this situation that I haven't seen discussed yet.
Who said that it's possible for someone to split their internet presence amongst several blogs and not be held accountable across the board? Nobody's talking about the "dad-o-matic" community. The discussion is about the entire blogging community and what has been determined (somehow) to be ethical and unethical.
I think part of the problem that some people have with this situation is that you actually CAN'T separate your posting behavior on one blog from your posting behavior on another blog like some form of multiple-personality disorder. It's still the same person.
For example, I blog about video production and post-production, dating, and social media. I don't get to dismiss something I said in one category because I didn't say it in a different category. Similarly, my thoughts about dating have nothing to do with my skill as a video editor. That's not going to keep people from adding the things I blog about to my "resume" and reacting towards me based on their formulated opinions.
The issue here is whether one has a responsibility to one's followers/contacts/friends because they follow you on a blog or social media site. If so, where's the boundary of ethical behavior when it comes to getting paid for something that we spend a lot of time and energy on and offer to the public for free?
Also, who gets to decide where that boundary stands?
Mike Buechele
· 1 year ago
As long as there is disclosure and the product or service is a good fit for the community that the blogger represents, I don’t see a problem with it. I think it’s very much like a celebrity endorsement but with much more credibility since it’s disclosed. I think he’s still credible since he’s not pulling the wool over his community’s eyes. He’s not bringing vegans into a Burger King, he’s showing Kmart toys on a blog for Dads.
I also think Chris had to explain the post has more to do with growing pains of the industry than anything else. Thanks for your post. I like reading the arguments for and against
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
The fact that there is a controversy suggests that it is not a simple as that.
Mike Buechele
· 1 year ago
Thanks for responding. I wrote “more to do” not “only.” I think it is a great sign of where blogging is going, especially in this down economic times. It’s all about community and delivering content to that community that makes sense. I’m hoping that someday this new year coming that an explanation post will not be needed, and a simple disclosure sentence will suffice. I’ve met Ted Murphy and we spoke about IZEA and his vision for it. He gets it. He understands community and trust, and bloggers like Chris Brogan are helping his community understand that as well.
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
Yes but the community might not understand, because its a shift in perceptions, and one that looks questionable because its a lot like what unethical people would do.
Mike Buechele
· 1 year ago
I agree, which is why I see it as a growing pain. I think it’s similar to the very early days of TV. Shows were sponsored by a product and the stars of the show would endorse it in a skit. The content was the advertisement, but it didn’t impact the entertainment. Today, we expect to see commercials during breaks in TV shows.
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
Exactly. They are segregated form the show in a clean way.
Mike Buechele
· 1 year ago
Yes, and so are clearly marked disclosed paid posts. They are segregated from the other content. They are the commercials displaying relevant content to the community. You don’t expect to see a baby food commercial during a monster truck TV show, in the same way you shouldn’t expect to read a paid post about men’s suits on a women's basketball blog. Banner advertising had led to banner blindness and publisher inventory is losing value every day. An alternative needs to be found and I think the marked disclosed paid post is good alternative.
Zach
· 1 year ago
Might the whole issue - kindo' - be blunted by giving the proceeds to charity, buying the gifts for needy kids? Would have changed the equation - but give gifts to charity and still take the pay? Dunno. Its easy to cast stones here, and we should pause. But looking for a bell-weather, hasn't stodgy old Consumer Reports raised and held the bar here for years - bright line, no advertising, no corp sponsorship? No slippery slope.
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
I don't think you have to give up sex because sometimes sex is a sordid mess. You just need to stay back from the line.
Marc Meyer
· 1 year ago
first lets not forget that chris didn't do this on cb.com he did it on dad-o-matic, completely different vehicle, but doesn't take away from the fact that chris wrote the post as Whitney points out. I think what bothers people the most is that all of a sudden, CB, the voice of reason, sanity and all the good things that social media brings to the table has taken to shilling a product. he had never done that to this degree before. I think it caught a good amount of people off guard. People take a lot away from what Chris writes and this no doubt shocked them. A sell out? Stooping to a certain level? Don't know about that but What if Chris was paid by Apple to use whatever, would the reaction be the same? it's as much about the brand perception of Kmart as it is about Chris taking money...
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
I don't agree really. I think my thoughts will find their place in another post, however.
ontarioemperor
· 1 year ago
In my view, all of the discussion about "payola" et al lacks historical perspective.
Assume for a moment that a husband and wife blogging team suddenly began writing blog posts about cigarettes. Or assume for a moment that an entertainment blogger suddenly began writing about Chevrolet cars. While the argument "[t]he expectations of years are being overturned when a trusted blogger takes cash to write a post, or to participate in some cash-infused event and write about it" seems to argue that such behavior would not be tolerated, the fact is that it was not only tolerated but encouraged in the 1950s, when Lucy and Desi would talk about cigarettes before closing their show, or when Dinah Shore would sing her famous "See the USA in a Chevrolet." These advertisements were integrated directly into the shows, and such practices are still used constantly today (e.g. movie product placement).
What's the difference between Lucy & Desi talking about cigarettes on a TV Show, and Loren Feldman talking about K Mart in his blog?
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
That was in the era of payola: it was a commonplace. It is less acceptable now, just like smoking indoors and trying to hook kids on cigarettes.
There is still a place for celebrity endorsements -- Clive Owen wearing a Tag watch in a magazine ad -- because the placement with a gazillionaire is understood to be totally mercantile, and everyone knows he can afford any damn watch he wants. And he has sixty of them. It's a no op.
But for a opinion leader to do this raises to many questions, in today's world.
socialjulio
· 1 year ago
Hi Stowe, great post, but you did not cover one angle I feel we need to look at.
A few weeks ago I saw the video that Loren Feldman did about his K-mart experience. I clicked the tracking URL Loren had on his site and visited K-mart’s Web site. (I saw that the link had DoubleClick tags) I even added the image of the bloggers working with K-mart to my Facebook page as it was a clever campaign.
My problem with this campaign is the instructions for people to spam their friends with the Twitter reTweets.
All marketing campaigns should measure traffic to the different blog posts as well as the traffic to K-mart and Sears. But this campaign should not encourage people to spam and violate the trust of their peers.
I guest my problem is that the campaign is working. If I saw 5 messages about Kmart, it would not bother me… but when a bunch of people post the same message, it became spam. As you mentioned, Chris Brogan was transparent and I trust him. But there is a huge risk that other bloggers and publications will not be as transparent, encourage spam to improve ROI to participate in future campaigns.
One good thing that should come out of this is a new tool to block specific terms from our Twitter stream. I don’t want remove people that I follow, but I do want to block the “RT Kmart $500″
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
I agree that the twittermobbing makes it even less attractive.
ckEpiphany
· 1 year ago
Thank you for this post. I cannot endorse PPP or Magpie models as they feel unethical and against everything we preach (and therefore should practice). But other items of note:
1. I'm seeing several KMart and Sears posts today...so now when I think of these bloggers I must be honest in saying I think of them as people who would align with the KMart brand for all of $500--and yet I've never seen them mention KMart before (are they closet evangelists?).
2. Can we as responsible (and NOT easily bought) bloggers please start calling these "paid posts". Folks, this "sponsored" post flowery messaging is the oldest trick in the marketers' (and, um, politicans' ) handbooks. Sponsored is when an advertiser or organization supports an already EXISTING program (like TV programs on PBS that are sponsored by Chase Bank), like a conference (with sponsors like Google) or an event (like a walk for Leukemia that is sponsored by Aetna Insurance) That program, conference or event would have happened with ANY sponsor and the sponsor does NOT affect the content. In the KMart deal? The entire post was only written, and all of its content thereof, because KMart paid a company that used to be PayForPost (which has had to rebrand as IZEA, I guess because of the same flowery messaging principle). Thus, the truth is these are not sponsored posts. They are paid posts. Let us rise above deceitful messaging... haven't we had enough untrue messaging in our practice and politics over the last decade? (I vote "yes" that we've definitely had our fill)
3. Yes, anyone is free to sell their space/monetize their blog. That's their right and social media is about choice. But I contend there are such better ways and, as a marketer, I'm amazed at how completely devoid of any marketing creativity these paid posts are. A post that stars with "This post was sponsored by XYZ" is as far from original as one can imagine. I admit to expecting better from marketers--especially since many of these marketers are people I learn from all the time.
4. And I wonder why no one thought what it's like to be on twitter with zillions of people retweeting advertisements to win a shopping spree in our twitstreams. Did any of these bloggers think about how much noise (not value) they were creating for people who've only been loyal readers of theirs? After all, they all write about valuing people...so they must have thought about it, right?
PS: Stowe, I hope you're doing great. Happy Holidays. Yours truly, CK
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
I like plain language too. And I am certain that they did not expect the furor they seem to have created.
evanwolf
· 1 year ago
There you go again, Stowe. Another pitch for the Ethics Industrial Complex.
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
Huh?
evanwolf
· 1 year ago
sorry. didn't think a conflict-of-interest ethics-as-industry joke needed unpacking.
Jim Kukral TheBizWebCoach
· 1 year ago
The controversy was fluffed up like a 2006 Payperpost meme. I know, I started most of them back then. :) Seriously, this is a no-issue. Why? Because of disclosure. Full disclosure puts it all on the blog reader, end of story.
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
It's not so cut and dried as that.
Jim Kukral TheBizWebCoach
· 1 year ago
Well, it should be Stowe. :) Honestly, we're beyond this aren't we? Bottom line. Marketers "ruin everything", even the stuff we hold "special". It just takes time.
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
I don't think we should let them control open social discourse. That was one of the great failures of 20th century journalism: the monied took control in many cases, and in others, the editorial sensibilities of print, TV, and radio led to sensationalism and over simplification of complex issues to satisfy advertisers. We can't let it happen on the blogosphere.
Jim Kukral TheBizWebCoach
· 1 year ago
Fair enough, although I do believe it's different now. Now... the readers have actual power to change, to spread info, to make a difference. Before this social stuff, they didn't really. They could what? Stop buying a newspaper? Stop turning on the radio?
The power is truly in the people, not companies like Izea. And hey, who said we're journalists, we're not! :)
BrightGirl
· 1 year ago
Thanks for your post! It has raised a lot of valid points about the nature of ethics, especially as pertains to online advertising and I for one am thrilled to see so many people really thinking and conversing about this . As I work for IZEA, I have a slightly different perspective to share. So here are my thoughts, ideas and questions in no particular order. :)
First, KMart does not have the vetted resources that we do to put this campaign together. Many companies realize that the conversations about their products and services are increasingly happening online and want to get into the Social Media arena, but do not have the resources, or even the first idea where to start. What we do at IZEA is broker the relationship between advertiser and blogger. We are able to pre-screen bloggers to ensure that they meet the criteria of the advertiser to help make the conversations that they start more relevant. I do not find this unethical. Are Match.com unethical when they bring two people together who otherwise would not have met? How about apartment finding services or head hunters? Why does the existence of an intermediary necessarily make the relationship unethical?
In addition, at IZEA we are very stringent about transparency and disclosure in ALL of the posts sponsored through us. In addition to disclosure for all posts, in SocialSpark (the system through which the KMart campaign was run) all links are automatically no-follow which is search engine (re: Google) compliant.
KMart approached us wanting to be part of the conversation, wanting to be visible in the online world. This is smart marketing. Although maybe Chris Brogan is not exactly their target audience, many of his readers ARE. Why is it unethical for him to go to KMart and talk about his trip? If Chris had been openly raving about KMart and telling his readers that they HAD TO GO THERE NOW, this might be a different argument, but the post I read contained several not completely positive opinions. Do you think so little of Chris and his personal ethics that you believe that he would say anything for a $500 gift card (the spoils from which were largely given to charity)? Do you think he would even accept a sponsorship for a company that he felt strongly against? Isn't this contributing to the general overly-PC, overly litigious attitude that demands marking coffee cups as "hot" and cigarettes as harmful to your health. Do you really think the average consumer is that clueless as to not realize that a post clearly marked sponsored, three times, has in fact been sponsored?
On the other hand, does the addition of compensation necessarily negate any opinion he may have? If so, why is the same not true for those who review products that they receive for free or even those who work directly for a company (clearly, since I work for IZEA, all of my opinions must therefore be suspect, biased and unoriginal?). Do you think people believe that Michael Jordan really wears Haines? Do you think people voted for Obama because Leonardo DiCaprio said to? Do you fault Michal Phelps for parlaying his success to a Wheaties box cover? Would it even occur to you to ask if he actually EATS Wheaties?
In addition, isn't there also value in negative feedback? How is Kmart (or anyone for that matter) expected to improve service without first knowing the issues that concern it's customers? How do you fix something that you were not aware was broken? Not only did this campaign generate traffic and buzz for KMart, but it allowed the company direct access to their customer base to view the good, the bad and the ugly. They were granted a window into the conversation about the company and are now better equipped to respond to critics and locate brand evangelists.
And finally, I read in the comments of another post that much of this argument is moot as "the horse has left the barn". I think this is particularly apt. Social Media Marketing is not a theory and it is not the Anti-Christ. It is an increasingly viable medium that is already here. It is somewhat counterproductive to ignore it or devalue it or to wish it away. I think we would all be better served if we could work together trying to create and agree on a code of standards and ethics for this new medium, based on the parameters OF the new medium, that we can all follow.
Thanks again for your thoughtful post!
All the Best, Carri Bright IZEA Communications
Chris Kenton
· 1 year ago
I know very clearly how to relate Michael Jordan to Haines. He's an athlete. He's talking about underwear. I know it's just a celebrity endorsement for a commodity product. When I followed Chris's tweet to his post on Kmart, I had never seen the Dad-o-matic site before. I was a frequent reader of his social media blog, and I followed him on twitter because his tweets add substantial value to my understanding of events and issues in my industry. That's his brand. When I followed one his tweets, fully expecting to land on something substantive, I landed on the Dad-o-matic site and gave it my full attention. "Wow. Something new from Chris. Must be good." When my first experience of it turned out to be a paid post, I was surprised, but read along anyway. My disappointment was that clearly, in his tone and his delivery of that post, he was tenuous about what he was writing. Despite the clear disclosure, despite the donation to charity which I applaud, his discussion of Kmart was completely at odds with the style and value of content that led to my trust in following his tweet, and since I wasn't a previous Dad-o-matic reader, it felt a bit cheap--my trust was leveraged to bring me to an advertisement. I understand and trust Chris's explanation, and I'll continue to read his blog because he consistently delivers value, but I don't think that kind of campaign will work for him again--at least not the way it played out for readers like me.
Bill Cammack
· 1 year ago
Hey Carri. While those are all interesting points, they do more to "cast reasonable doubt" than to make any concrete explanation why someone who feels negatively about this situation should change his or her mind.
If we can step aside for a second from the 'hot' word, "Ethical", let's look at what bloggers are followed for on social media sites and why they are popular.
Bloggers are not celebrities. Bloggers are dependent upon their reputations for gaining readers, which makes them valuable to companies because they get to utilize the bloggers' pre-fab network of thousands of followers. Celebrities have followers because of what they DO. There is ZERO relationship between you and a celebrity. Michael Jordan plays basketball, and you like it. DiCaprio is an actor, and you like it. Phelps is an athlete, and you like it. ZERO relationship. None of these people say anything to you directly. Michael Jordan doesn't have to wear Hanes. He doesn't have to pretend to like Hanes. Hanes knows that IF they can get Jordan in their commercials, people will watch them and most likely buy more $$$ worth of product than they paid Jordan to be in the commercial. Neither Jordan, DiCaprio nor Phelps gain or lose anything by someone thinking "He only said that because someone paid him". That's because their "cred" is based on what they DO and not whether they're perceived as shilling.
OTOH, fair or otherwise, bloggers' "cred" is based on trust. Their audience is the people who have chosen to listen to what they say and seek them out. They're famous (inside the echo chamber) for their personalities. They're famous for TALKING. Nobody cares if bloggers eat Wheaties or wear Hanes, because they're not athletes. What people care about is what bloggers write and WHY they write it.
If the perception is "This person will blog about XYZ if you pay them to", then 'casting reasonable doubt' isn't an effective rebuttal. Stowe already mentioned that bloggers aren't going to be inclined to write negative reviews, because they want to be chosen in the future for the same opportunies. So it doesn't matter that a company doesn't specifically request positive or neutral comments. Lack of negativity is inherent in someone taking money to write about something.
On top of that, this industry doesn't work on endorsements. It works on VISIBILITY. It doesn't matter how GARBAGE someone's videos are, as long as he has an extensive network of followers, a company's guaranteed lots of hits on their boring videos. Meanwhile, if someone else has infinitely more skill but infinitely fewer followers, they're not as valuable to the situation, because they come with way less guaranteed visibility. This is why ANY mention from a popular blogger is valuable, even a completely flat, neutral, "meh" mention... because that mention is going to go out to everyone that follows that person and has the potential to go to all of their followers as well. So, yes, as you mentioned, there IS value even in negative feedback. The company STILL gets mentioned to thousands of followers.
Now, should bloggers be able to get paid because they've amassed lots of followers? Sure. But if someone following a blogger perceives that he or she has been routed to an advertisement, they're going to evaluate whether that's what they follow that person for and make adjustments.
Having said that... IMO, I'm talking about a small percentage of the readership that cares about this at all. I think people are fans of bloggers through posts they like and posts they dislike. My point is that the people that have a problem with paid posts aren't going to be swayed by "look what actual celebrities do". Phelps can sell you Wheaties because he doesn't know you or even PRETEND to care about you. He's talking to the camera. He's saying what he's paid to say and then going on with his real life. When talking and having opinions is one's "blogging life", you can't step away from "he's saying what he's paid to say".
As far as "Why is it unethical for him to go to KMart and talk about his trip?", that's not what happened, is it? I'm sure there are lots of posts on blogs every single day about people that happened to go somewhere and experience something and talk about it. I still don't think the 'ethics' of this situation is the most important part to a blogger. I believe it's staying away from that thin line which is the potential perception of impropriety. Regardless of what honestly happened, you don't want to be perceived by ANYONE as "I took money to tell something to my followers".... Unless, of course, a reputation for that improves your position in your career. There are bloggers who would LOVE to be that go-to person that you can pay to talk about something. Those people aren't seen as "ethical" in the first place (and neither are Jordan or Phelps for hawking products), so they can do all the paid posting they want, and nobody's going to say anything about it. It's like saying Spitzer was spotted talking to a chick at a bar. Who cares?
Anyway, I agree with you that until a code of standards and ethics are agreed upon, there's really no telling what's "ethical" and what isn't. However, the song remains the same when it comes to one's reputation as a blogger. You can be paid to broadcast information to your network or you can't. Even if it's only once in a while, or in some cases only once, a very very small percentage of your followers are going to be turned off by that perception and tune out. To me, that's more important than whether something's ethical or not. Are you working AGAINST yourself and your future goals by stepping towards that line that some people are uncomfortable with?
If your goal is to be "a man of the people", then your reputation is paramount. If that doesn't matter to you, "get your money". :D
Glenn Raines
· 1 year ago
Hi Stowe -- good discussion all around on this one. I think a brand blogging promotion can be fun, viral and engaging if it follows my dog's playbook: do your business out in the open. I like what BL Ochman (@whatsnext) did with her Budget Rental Car blog promotion (Up Your Budget). First, BL decoupled the promotion from her own blog (aka: cred firewall) and created a separate Budget Rental Car-branded blog site. By doing so, she took advantage of the blogging dynamic to drive buzz, viral and engagement. Plus, the transparency was in your face. Next, she used blogads (smart content and smarter blog media placement) to drive promotion buzz and signup. Some of the participants were bloggers who posted mentions on their sites. But the promotions primary activity and content lived on the Budget side of the blog firewall... in the right context which gave it focus and punch. I suppose Kmart could have done something similar: promotion participants videotape their shopping sprees, find hidden stuff, post progress of their treasure hunt, whatever. The key thing here is that the Budget blog promotion still involved bloggers without handcuffing their own blog to it. Plus, the Budget promotion engaged both bloggers and consumers with the brand. All promotion content (via posts) was driven by the promotion's participants which gave the whole deal a real feel. So BL made her consulting fee, but stepped back and let the promotion drive itself.
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
I will have to look into that.
Mack Collier
· 1 year ago
"The lack of censorship by the vendor -- like Kmart, in the recent Chris Brogan flap -- is not a compelling factor, since lesser known bloggers will self-censor. They will say only good things so that they can continue to reap the benefits of sponsorship. This shows that one of the issues is leadership by example: even if leading bloggers can play close to the line, others will get tangled in it, perhaps intentionally. # Being transparent does not offset breaking trust with a community.
In the final analysis, it is a breach of trust with the community of blog 'readers' -- the participants in the social circles that are influenced by the blogger. The expectations of years are being overturned when a trusted blogger takes cash to write a post, or to participate in some cash-infused event and write about it."
I'm sorry, but in reading this thread, I get the subtle impression that's someone's trying to do my thinking for me. And there also seems to be an assumption that we need to 'inform' the larger community of what is 'really happening'. Maybe I am naive, but I tend to think that people are fairly smart, and can look at how someone acts, and reach their own conclusions about their actions and motivations.
Do I think that 'sponsored' or 'paid' posts are incredibly effective? In most cases, not really. But I don't think they are a sign of the Apocalypse either. I think they are one way of monetizing social content. I think this way will be improved upon, and/or a better way will come about.
But monetizing social content IS going to happen. Bloggers ARE going to have the ability to make money from the content they create. Personally, I don't see this as something we need to wring our hands over, but something we should be celebrating.
I don't think the question is should bloggers have the ability to monetize their content (if they choose to do so). I think the question is, how can we IMPROVE the process so that a BETTER and MORE EFFICIENT compensation system is created? One that rewards the content creator as WELL as adding value to the experience of the people that interact with the content.
I think this conversation needs to move forward. And instead of continually damning PPP, let's work together to come up with the best model we can.
Sound fair?
Marc Meyer
· 1 year ago
I don't think I've read a single thing from a Kmart spokesperson, not that I really expected to though. Carri, what has been their thoughts? If any. I know there were other bloggers who were in on this promotion who didn't have half the shit storm this created, but I still would be curious to see what Kmart's take on "it" would be other than..."it allowed the company direct access to their customer base to view the good, the bad and the ugly....thats rich.
Though I doubt they are "really" listening, Kmart and social media? Like oil and water.
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
I think it has blown up in everybody's faces, that's for sure.
Liz Strauss
· 1 year ago
Sure, the whole thing could have been done far better. The campaign could have used bloggers to reach out to people who are really in trouble in this economy and told some fabulous, moving stories but it didn't.
That doesn't mean it was a total travesty or that anyone sold out their integrity. Words are flying -- for public view. This isn't the playground.
Just about everyone in this scenario is human as far as I can tell and the social media as an industry is getting a little too comfortable with what it thinks it knows.
I can't imagine what corporation looking on think of this. "C'mon try social media, it will be different for you than it was for [insert the big name pounced upon next]."
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
Huh? '... and the social media as an industry is getting a little too comfortable with what it thinks it knows." You lost me. What is it that we think we know? Who is the 'social media as an industry'?
And your last sentence confuses me too.
Liz Strauss
· 1 year ago
Stowe, Apologies for the earlier comment, my computer wasn't cooperating. It is now.
I believe in the "social" of social media, but sometimes it leads us astray.
I think we agree that connecting people to people in an ehtical, authentic, and transparent relationship is how business should occur. In my mind that requires choices about how conversations are handled -- protocols and practices -- and respect.
I agree with every suggestion you offered for how this could have been better orchestrated. I also support your opinions and your ethical stand.
I also agree with you that integrity is cornerstone and payola is poison.
Here's my problem:
Do we not know how our own social media tools work?
What's the purpose when someone opens a huge question on Twitter -- a question far too large to be discussed in 140 characters? Are we not aware that corporations and businesses considering the viability of social media and value of bloggers are listening? What's the ethics there?
When we discuss the integrity of one blogger when 8 particiated, how in the world is that analyzing a campaign and not singling one out? If the March of Dimes had put Sister Helen Prejean blogging on this campaign would the response have been kinder than it was for Izea? I think so. What's the purpose served by calling people "sluts" and "whores"? Does that elevate social media writers in the eyes of the lurkers who are learning who we are?
What I meant to say is that we're better than this. At least I hope we are.
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
I haven't used those terms. I don't think they are help much in illuminating the issues. I don't understand your comment about Twitter, though; seems like a completely different issue to me.
Sarah Austin
· 1 year ago
Hi Stowe, I enjoy reading your blog and respect your opinion. However, Chris isn't accepting payola in a throwback terrestrial style. He's not a journalist. Would it make a difference if Chris Brogan distributed his work for entertainment purposes alone?
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
First of all, I am not singling Chris out for individual attention, except for the fact that his situation is the one that caught my eye. I didn't do extensive research on Feldman, or Chris Heuer's shopping experience at Sears, because I wanted to focus on the general issues here, not the specific.
To generalize your question: Would it have made a difference if a blogger distributed their work for entertainment purposes alone? If you mean a/ they wrote about it for the entertainment of others without being paid to write about the experience, well, sure it make a difference. If you mean b/ if they went for the personal entertainment of a shopping spree and didn't write about it, fine.
BrightGirl
· 1 year ago
Thanks for your response, @Bill! That really gave me a lot to think about. I can absolutely see your point (and that of others) that one of the main factors here is perception. And I think that it's valid that bloggers (whether it is fair or not) need to be mindful of that trust that others instill in them. I'm interested to know what you and others think would be a better way to approach to this in the future.
Although, I am sure that many will adamantly argue that bloggers should NEVER be paid for content, I just don't see that being a viable option. More advertisers are beginning to realize the online market is the next big thing and more WILL be spending their advertising dollars online. So, it becomes imperative for all of us to figure an amicable way forward through this inevitability. IZEA will be operating in this space and we would like to continue to do that in an ethical and transparent manner. Our goal is to be leaders and innovators in the Marketplace so that our example will become the standard. And, certainly, we do not want to do this alone. We can't! However, neither are we going away (and even if WE do, someone else will come along to take our place), so we're just going to have to figure out a way to get along. :)
@Marc Overall, KMart has been extremely happy with the buzz and participation this has garnered for them. Through this process we have been trying to impart to them how important it is for them to be engaged with their audience online. What the IZEA campaign did for KMart is get the conversation started, it is really now up to them to jump into that conversation and run with it from here. To that end, they are putting more resources to their Facebook Fan pages and they have this site http://www.sk-you.com/ specifically for feedback, polls and discussion.
All the Best, Carri
Bill Cammack
· 1 year ago
@Carri: You're welcome. :)
The reason I wanted to step away from the ethics question is that, let's say, following a code of ethics is a duty to a group or society. Blogging, however, creates a one-on-one relationship between us and our readers/viewers that's completely different from celebrities and needs to be nurtured differently. Michael Jordan loses NOTHING for being paid to be in Hanes commercials, whether he wears Hanes or not. The pitfall (and like I said before, I think it's only a few people who will go in this direction, relative to the blogger's entire fanbase) is that if a blogger gets paid to "do a Hanes commercial" in his or her blog, NOW, the question is "What is this person willing to do or say for money?".
Now, that's not an issue if you're thought of as unethical in the first place. If you're already perceived by the public as someone who will say or do ANYTHING to get some money or more hits for your website, nobody cares if you do paid posts. They're not trusting your word to begin with, so it's the same thing as Michael Jordan or Leonardo DiCaprio. We don't KNOW them, so all that's really important is whether they can play sports or act.
This is why, besides other factors of course, I feel Chris received a lot of the focus in this situation. People expect an unbiased post from Chris, because what he does is dive into Social Media concepts and applications and come up with ideas and suggestions that he hands out to the public for free. When he says "Check out someone's book" or "I'm going to CES 2009", you're expecting (fairly or unfairly) those posts to be free of influence. For the reasons already stated in this post and the comments, doing a paid post opens the door to perceptions of a blogger who's expected to be 'righteous' actually being purchasable as a spokesperson for a $500 gift card.
So, IMO, it's really more of a function of the respect that the community has for Chris and his accomplishments in Social Media that this went so crazy, rather than an indication of lack of respect for him. It's like "Gasp! :O We didn't EXPECT this from Chris Brogan! :(". Meanwhile, everybody expects Julia Roy to accept a gift card and go shopping. Why wouldn't she? There's nothing about her posting history that's positioned her as an unbiased commenter.... as similarly, there's nothing about MY posting history that indicates I won't take money from people to sell you something. I lose nothing in that exchange, because my "cred" isn't based on being unbiased. With Chris, OTOH, people don't like to wonder whether he's saying something because he got paid to say it or not... or, to be more specific, since Chris wasn't paid to say anything in particular... People don't like to wonder why bloggers with a reputation for integrity are calling their attention to products or services. People don't like to wonder "Would Chris have blogged about Kmart EVAR... if he hadn't been paid for it?". I've never read dadomatic, so I have no idea. What I'm saying is that if your reputation is built on people perceiving you as having integrity and posting unbiased opinions, doing paid posts, no matter how few, can easily poison the well for a small number of your fans.
I think bloggers absolutely SHOULD be paid for whatever they feel like being paid for. If a blogger wants to be paid for content, fine. :) Just so long as you're willing to carry the reputation that you're the type of person that can be paid to say or do things. Depending on how you've set up your online persona, this will either destroy your cred or have no effect on it. Jenae's doing "Girl In Your Shirt", which is essentially "Pay me money, and I'll wear your company's shirts and say a monologue about your company". She's not going to be penalized for this AT. ALL. because that's what she's offering. Her online persona is set up as "Pay me money and I will do XYZ". Nobody would be surprised, dismayed or even interested if she were given a $500 Kmart gift card and asked to blog about her experience. Quid pro quo. Business as usual.
So it seems to me that paid posting works best with bloggers that have nothing to lose. The implication of influence can't be avoided. Nobody's going to accept a blogger's word that he or she COULD have written a negative post after getting paid for it. That's the fox asking you to accept his word that he didn't eat the chickens. If someone actually DOES THAT, that's a different story, and it adds to that particular blogger's cred only. So until paid posting can be made to look like it doesn't go hand in hand with influence, bloggers who want/need to maintain reputations for integrity need to be strategic and careful about getting involved.
Bonnie Dean
· 1 year ago
Great post. I believe the key issue is the blogger. What kind of influence does he wield?
The quote from David Churbuck, "I would no sooner pay a blogger to mention a product or service than I would pay a reporter...", points to the blurring of lines between traditional and new media. Paying a reporter to shill for your company is unethical; should we hold bloggers to the same standards?
In some cases, yes. If you have a devout following, have achieved a demi-god status in the blogging community or identify yourself as a journalist/reporter, you are doing your audience and reputation a disservice by accepting money from a company to push their product.
My blog by no means has a large following. If I was blown over by a product or service, I'd probably write a post about it (if only because I rarely get blown away by anything on the market these days). If the company paid me to write about said product or service, yes, I would take the money, with the caveat of full disclosure and the possibility of a negative review if they fail to manage my expectations.
In the end, it's up to the individual blogger to decide. But it's nice to know that if they choose not to be transparent with their audience and the blogging community at large, transparency will be thrust upon them. Gotta love social media for keeping it real.
stoweboyd
· 1 year ago
I agree with you, Bonnie, about transparency being thrust upon people.
All Comments
One final note. As you've demonstrated in this post, there are very real and difficult questions about monetizing blogs that remain, and need to be openly debated. I've been really dismayed at the tenor of emotional and defensive attacks surrounding this weekend's controversy--people claiming that anyone who had an issue with the Kmart campaign was "jealous", or that anyone who questioned pay for post had a personal vendetta against Chris or the backers of Izea. These are sophomoric attempts to shut down dialog and debate, which is sadly ironic for a social media community built on opening up lines of communication and dialog. Thanks for the brilliant post.
Yes, it has not been our finest hour, has it?
Your focus on the potential ethical quandaries of a blogger being paid to post is excellent. As I have mentioned elsewhere I think by going directly to a question of ethics you skip over what should be, in my opinion, the initial established: What is the editorial purpose of the blog in question?
How a blog defines its editorial purpose impacts what readers expect from it. If the content of a blog is solely about the latest “deals” of the week and obviously marketing focused, like Shoemoney's, I doubt many readers see an ethical dilemma. It is only when a blog is news focused or creative focused that the ethical issue of potentially becoming a "shill" enters the picture.
The lengthy and self-righteous quote you site by David Churbuck assumes that every blogger is a journalist or views themselves as a "writer". The types of blogs out there have become as varied as the people or corporations that have created them.
The reason for this brouhaha I believe is twofold:
~Chris Brogan's participation. Chris has become both a leader and a personality in the space whether he likes it or not. His blog is infused with so much of his voice and personality that many readers come back for just that voice regardless of the content. It is independent, smart, vibrant, and everything corporate America is so often not. I think this is the key to the dismay.
~The bad taste left in everyone's mouth from the Pay Per Post fiasco. Apparently there are still some hatchets to be buried there. Because rather than attacking IZEA from day one people seemed to wait until someone high profile like Chris became involved in order. Thus his involvement rather than IZEA's model has become the focus of much of the dismay.
But again I ask what is the purpose of Chris Brogan's blog? To help business establish themselves within the Social Media space. Some of how they establish themselves will be through marketing. One of their many options is marketing through IZEA, for better or for worse.
My purpose in using Churbuck is that he is a marketing guy from a bug company, and I believe that his perspective is widely shared. The nuances and subtleties about social media and traditional media just don't resonate much with that community, I think.
As I said, this whole business model is radioactive, and when you mix a star like Brogan, and a twittermob, people are going to start to howl. The fact that companies have this as an 'option' misses the point: we all have options to do things that unethical, but in general we don't. And we shy away from things that might be marginally ethical but raise questions about our integrity. Companies will simply reject these promotions because the fallout is worse than the ink gained.
You are a person that I would expect to understand that words have power. You are attributing terms like "payola", "unethical", "radioactive", "mob" it has the affect of escalating a discussion into something uglier. I noticed below you use the phrase "We can't let it happen on the blogosphere" as if this was some sort of ethical crusade between bloggers against the corporate world. Us vs them. The situation does not warrant that kind of rhetoric.
Blogs are a medium. How that medium is used is up to the blogger. If people don't like the way the medium is being wielded or don't believe the blogger is being upfront, even ethical about the medium's purpose than people have the right to move on.
This is not a crusade.
Bloggers shouldn't have faith in the marketplace but intelligence of the reader. In the wisdom that open discussion brings through comments. Isn't that the promise of this new media?
It's not a question of faith about people's powers of discernment, but the fact that some people will come to the wrong conclusions, or be unduly influenced. And we aren't talking about a single Kmart campaign, but that way that this sort of advertising can insinuate its way into the fabric of the web, and change things for the worst.
I am wondering, how this is really any different from you taking money to be a beta tester for a product, and requiring the company to allow you to blog about your experience with it? Aren't you in fact absolving them from having to ask you to write about them with such a policy, by including soft promotion on your blog, the same kind you complain about above? I suppose it is a matter of intention and perspective, do you see it as getting paid to write a post to promote a company, or do you see it as I did, as compensation for my time to interact with the brand, connect my readers with a great prize opportunity and share my experiences with the brand with everyone else (most especially with the people running the campaign).
The question is one of integrity - either someone has it and uses it or they don't - sure you can make a slippery slope argument here, and there are many (thinking about the original "posties" and some MLM folks in particular) who show no ethics and continue to hype bad products for personal benefit, but the market generally wins out in those instances and those people end up with no trust in the market.
Just one question though, are you saying Chris Brogan has no integrity and is unethical? If so, that just shows you really don't know him personally, but instead only know the personality - because if you knew him, this would not be a question at all... I would hope the same holds true for me, but c'est la vie - my only hope is I dont have to waste a lot of time this week arguing this BS back and forth with everyone as there is a lot of work to do before year end...
I am all for promotions that put goods in the hands of members of the web community, and I am all for promoting that in various ways on blogs, as I wrote in the post. I just am worried that promotional speak can become shilling, and that's the line we need to worry about.
The notion that the 'marketplace' for trust is self-policing is worthy of more discussion, although I have reached a point where in general I start with a healthy distrust of market forces to self-correct. Witness Wall Street and the Big Three car makers.
Lastly, I did not say that Chris is unethical or lacks integrity. On the contrary, I said that he had put himself in a situation where the appearance of propriety could have been compromised. I suggest that structural approaches to promotion on blogs -- like distancing the 'star' from the authorship of sponsored posts -- could help him, and all of us, to maintain that appearance of propriety. I believe that Chris behaved as he said he did, primarily interested in researching the experience so that he could better inform his clients about this sort of social marketing, and the pitfalls that lie in that briar patch.
One of the main problems with the Kmart promotion was the 'fit' between the bloggers themselves and Kmart as a company. I think 1938media and Chris Brogan both harmed their brand by promoting Kmart for pay. I don't believe that they are passionate supporters of Kmart. Would have been better off getting a bunch of Mommy bloggers and twitterers to promote it.
rest of my thoughts here:
http://experiencecurve.com/archives/brands-in-s...
I frankly think this controversy says more about everyone's prejudice against KMart and their doubt that it has redeeming value than it actually does about anything Chris had to say.
Who said that it's possible for someone to split their internet presence amongst several blogs and not be held accountable across the board? Nobody's talking about the "dad-o-matic" community. The discussion is about the entire blogging community and what has been determined (somehow) to be ethical and unethical.
I think part of the problem that some people have with this situation is that you actually CAN'T separate your posting behavior on one blog from your posting behavior on another blog like some form of multiple-personality disorder. It's still the same person.
For example, I blog about video production and post-production, dating, and social media. I don't get to dismiss something I said in one category because I didn't say it in a different category. Similarly, my thoughts about dating have nothing to do with my skill as a video editor. That's not going to keep people from adding the things I blog about to my "resume" and reacting towards me based on their formulated opinions.
The issue here is whether one has a responsibility to one's followers/contacts/friends because they follow you on a blog or social media site. If so, where's the boundary of ethical behavior when it comes to getting paid for something that we spend a lot of time and energy on and offer to the public for free?
Also, who gets to decide where that boundary stands?
I also think Chris had to explain the post has more to do with growing pains of the industry than anything else. Thanks for your post. I like reading the arguments for and against
Assume for a moment that a husband and wife blogging team suddenly began writing blog posts about cigarettes. Or assume for a moment that an entertainment blogger suddenly began writing about Chevrolet cars. While the argument "[t]he expectations of years are being overturned when a trusted blogger takes cash to write a post, or to participate in some cash-infused event and write about it" seems to argue that such behavior would not be tolerated, the fact is that it was not only tolerated but encouraged in the 1950s, when Lucy and Desi would talk about cigarettes before closing their show, or when Dinah Shore would sing her famous "See the USA in a Chevrolet." These advertisements were integrated directly into the shows, and such practices are still used constantly today (e.g. movie product placement).
What's the difference between Lucy & Desi talking about cigarettes on a TV Show, and Loren Feldman talking about K Mart in his blog?
There is still a place for celebrity endorsements -- Clive Owen wearing a Tag watch in a magazine ad -- because the placement with a gazillionaire is understood to be totally mercantile, and everyone knows he can afford any damn watch he wants. And he has sixty of them. It's a no op.
But for a opinion leader to do this raises to many questions, in today's world.
A few weeks ago I saw the video that Loren Feldman did about his K-mart experience. I clicked the tracking URL Loren had on his site and visited K-mart’s Web site. (I saw that the link had DoubleClick tags) I even added the image of the bloggers working with K-mart to my Facebook page as it was a clever campaign.
My problem with this campaign is the instructions for people to spam their friends with the Twitter reTweets.
All marketing campaigns should measure traffic to the different blog posts as well as the traffic to K-mart and Sears. But this campaign should not encourage people to spam and violate the trust of their peers.
I guest my problem is that the campaign is working. If I saw 5 messages about Kmart, it would not bother me… but when a bunch of people post the same message, it became spam. As you mentioned, Chris Brogan was transparent and I trust him. But there is a huge risk that other bloggers and publications will not be as transparent, encourage spam to improve ROI to participate in future campaigns.
My message to @TedMurphy: http://twitter.com/SocialJulio/status/1059044739
Images: http://cli.gs/KmartSpam and http://cli.gs/SearsSpam
One good thing that should come out of this is a new tool to block specific terms from our Twitter stream. I don’t want remove people that I follow, but I do want to block the “RT Kmart $500″
1. I'm seeing several KMart and Sears posts today...so now when I think of these bloggers I must be honest in saying I think of them as people who would align with the KMart brand for all of $500--and yet I've never seen them mention KMart before (are they closet evangelists?).
2. Can we as responsible (and NOT easily bought) bloggers please start calling these "paid posts". Folks, this "sponsored" post flowery messaging is the oldest trick in the marketers' (and, um, politicans' ) handbooks. Sponsored is when an advertiser or organization supports an already EXISTING program (like TV programs on PBS that are sponsored by Chase Bank), like a conference (with sponsors like Google) or an event (like a walk for Leukemia that is sponsored by Aetna Insurance) That program, conference or event would have happened with ANY sponsor and the sponsor does NOT affect the content. In the KMart deal? The entire post was only written, and all of its content thereof, because KMart paid a company that used to be PayForPost (which has had to rebrand as IZEA, I guess because of the same flowery messaging principle). Thus, the truth is these are not sponsored posts. They are paid posts. Let us rise above deceitful messaging... haven't we had enough untrue messaging in our practice and politics over the last decade? (I vote "yes" that we've definitely had our fill)
3. Yes, anyone is free to sell their space/monetize their blog. That's their right and social media is about choice. But I contend there are such better ways and, as a marketer, I'm amazed at how completely devoid of any marketing creativity these paid posts are. A post that stars with "This post was sponsored by XYZ" is as far from original as one can imagine. I admit to expecting better from marketers--especially since many of these marketers are people I learn from all the time.
4. And I wonder why no one thought what it's like to be on twitter with zillions of people retweeting advertisements to win a shopping spree in our twitstreams. Did any of these bloggers think about how much noise (not value) they were creating for people who've only been loyal readers of theirs? After all, they all write about valuing people...so they must have thought about it, right?
PS: Stowe, I hope you're doing great. Happy Holidays. Yours truly, CK
The power is truly in the people, not companies like Izea. And hey, who said we're journalists, we're not! :)
First, KMart does not have the vetted resources that we do to put this campaign together. Many companies realize that the conversations about their products and services are increasingly happening online and want to get into the Social Media arena, but do not have the resources, or even the first idea where to start. What we do at IZEA is broker the relationship between advertiser and blogger. We are able to pre-screen bloggers to ensure that they meet the criteria of the advertiser to help make the conversations that they start more relevant. I do not find this unethical. Are Match.com unethical when they bring two people together who otherwise would not have met? How about apartment finding services or head hunters? Why does the existence of an intermediary necessarily make the relationship unethical?
In addition, at IZEA we are very stringent about transparency and disclosure in ALL of the posts sponsored through us. In addition to disclosure for all posts, in SocialSpark (the system through which the KMart campaign was run) all links are automatically no-follow which is search engine (re: Google) compliant.
KMart approached us wanting to be part of the conversation, wanting to be visible in the online world. This is smart marketing. Although maybe Chris Brogan is not exactly their target audience, many of his readers ARE. Why is it unethical for him to go to KMart and talk about his trip? If Chris had been openly raving about KMart and telling his readers that they HAD TO GO THERE NOW, this might be a different argument, but the post I read contained several not completely positive opinions. Do you think so little of Chris and his personal ethics that you believe that he would say anything for a $500 gift card (the spoils from which were largely given to charity)? Do you think he would even accept a sponsorship for a company that he felt strongly against? Isn't this contributing to the general overly-PC, overly litigious attitude that demands marking coffee cups as "hot" and cigarettes as harmful to your health. Do you really think the average consumer is that clueless as to not realize that a post clearly marked sponsored, three times, has in fact been sponsored?
On the other hand, does the addition of compensation necessarily negate any opinion he may have? If so, why is the same not true for those who review products that they receive for free or even those who work directly for a company (clearly, since I work for IZEA, all of my opinions must therefore be suspect, biased and unoriginal?). Do you think people believe that Michael Jordan really wears Haines? Do you think people voted for Obama because Leonardo DiCaprio said to? Do you fault Michal Phelps for parlaying his success to a Wheaties box cover? Would it even occur to you to ask if he actually EATS Wheaties?
In addition, isn't there also value in negative feedback? How is Kmart (or anyone for that matter) expected to improve service without first knowing the issues that concern it's customers? How do you fix something that you were not aware was broken? Not only did this campaign generate traffic and buzz for KMart, but it allowed the company direct access to their customer base to view the good, the bad and the ugly. They were granted a window into the conversation about the company and are now better equipped to respond to critics and locate brand evangelists.
And finally, I read in the comments of another post that much of this argument is moot as "the horse has left the barn". I think this is particularly apt. Social Media Marketing is not a theory and it is not the Anti-Christ. It is an increasingly viable medium that is already here. It is somewhat counterproductive to ignore it or devalue it or to wish it away. I think we would all be better served if we could work together trying to create and agree on a code of standards and ethics for this new medium, based on the parameters OF the new medium, that we can all follow.
Thanks again for your thoughtful post!
All the Best,
Carri Bright
IZEA Communications
If we can step aside for a second from the 'hot' word, "Ethical", let's look at what bloggers are followed for on social media sites and why they are popular.
Bloggers are not celebrities. Bloggers are dependent upon their reputations for gaining readers, which makes them valuable to companies because they get to utilize the bloggers' pre-fab network of thousands of followers. Celebrities have followers because of what they DO. There is ZERO relationship between you and a celebrity. Michael Jordan plays basketball, and you like it. DiCaprio is an actor, and you like it. Phelps is an athlete, and you like it. ZERO relationship. None of these people say anything to you directly. Michael Jordan doesn't have to wear Hanes. He doesn't have to pretend to like Hanes. Hanes knows that IF they can get Jordan in their commercials, people will watch them and most likely buy more $$$ worth of product than they paid Jordan to be in the commercial. Neither Jordan, DiCaprio nor Phelps gain or lose anything by someone thinking "He only said that because someone paid him". That's because their "cred" is based on what they DO and not whether they're perceived as shilling.
OTOH, fair or otherwise, bloggers' "cred" is based on trust. Their audience is the people who have chosen to listen to what they say and seek them out. They're famous (inside the echo chamber) for their personalities. They're famous for TALKING. Nobody cares if bloggers eat Wheaties or wear Hanes, because they're not athletes. What people care about is what bloggers write and WHY they write it.
If the perception is "This person will blog about XYZ if you pay them to", then 'casting reasonable doubt' isn't an effective rebuttal. Stowe already mentioned that bloggers aren't going to be inclined to write negative reviews, because they want to be chosen in the future for the same opportunies. So it doesn't matter that a company doesn't specifically request positive or neutral comments. Lack of negativity is inherent in someone taking money to write about something.
On top of that, this industry doesn't work on endorsements. It works on VISIBILITY. It doesn't matter how GARBAGE someone's videos are, as long as he has an extensive network of followers, a company's guaranteed lots of hits on their boring videos. Meanwhile, if someone else has infinitely more skill but infinitely fewer followers, they're not as valuable to the situation, because they come with way less guaranteed visibility. This is why ANY mention from a popular blogger is valuable, even a completely flat, neutral, "meh" mention... because that mention is going to go out to everyone that follows that person and has the potential to go to all of their followers as well. So, yes, as you mentioned, there IS value even in negative feedback. The company STILL gets mentioned to thousands of followers.
Now, should bloggers be able to get paid because they've amassed lots of followers? Sure. But if someone following a blogger perceives that he or she has been routed to an advertisement, they're going to evaluate whether that's what they follow that person for and make adjustments.
Having said that... IMO, I'm talking about a small percentage of the readership that cares about this at all. I think people are fans of bloggers through posts they like and posts they dislike. My point is that the people that have a problem with paid posts aren't going to be swayed by "look what actual celebrities do". Phelps can sell you Wheaties because he doesn't know you or even PRETEND to care about you. He's talking to the camera. He's saying what he's paid to say and then going on with his real life. When talking and having opinions is one's "blogging life", you can't step away from "he's saying what he's paid to say".
As far as "Why is it unethical for him to go to KMart and talk about his trip?", that's not what happened, is it? I'm sure there are lots of posts on blogs every single day about people that happened to go somewhere and experience something and talk about it. I still don't think the 'ethics' of this situation is the most important part to a blogger. I believe it's staying away from that thin line which is the potential perception of impropriety. Regardless of what honestly happened, you don't want to be perceived by ANYONE as "I took money to tell something to my followers".... Unless, of course, a reputation for that improves your position in your career. There are bloggers who would LOVE to be that go-to person that you can pay to talk about something. Those people aren't seen as "ethical" in the first place (and neither are Jordan or Phelps for hawking products), so they can do all the paid posting they want, and nobody's going to say anything about it. It's like saying Spitzer was spotted talking to a chick at a bar. Who cares?
Anyway, I agree with you that until a code of standards and ethics are agreed upon, there's really no telling what's "ethical" and what isn't. However, the song remains the same when it comes to one's reputation as a blogger. You can be paid to broadcast information to your network or you can't. Even if it's only once in a while, or in some cases only once, a very very small percentage of your followers are going to be turned off by that perception and tune out. To me, that's more important than whether something's ethical or not. Are you working AGAINST yourself and your future goals by stepping towards that line that some people are uncomfortable with?
If your goal is to be "a man of the people", then your reputation is paramount. If that doesn't matter to you, "get your money". :D
# Being transparent does not offset breaking trust with a community.
In the final analysis, it is a breach of trust with the community of blog 'readers' -- the participants in the social circles that are influenced by the blogger. The expectations of years are being overturned when a trusted blogger takes cash to write a post, or to participate in some cash-infused event and write about it."
I'm sorry, but in reading this thread, I get the subtle impression that's someone's trying to do my thinking for me. And there also seems to be an assumption that we need to 'inform' the larger community of what is 'really happening'. Maybe I am naive, but I tend to think that people are fairly smart, and can look at how someone acts, and reach their own conclusions about their actions and motivations.
Do I think that 'sponsored' or 'paid' posts are incredibly effective? In most cases, not really. But I don't think they are a sign of the Apocalypse either. I think they are one way of monetizing social content. I think this way will be improved upon, and/or a better way will come about.
But monetizing social content IS going to happen. Bloggers ARE going to have the ability to make money from the content they create. Personally, I don't see this as something we need to wring our hands over, but something we should be celebrating.
I don't think the question is should bloggers have the ability to monetize their content (if they choose to do so). I think the question is, how can we IMPROVE the process so that a BETTER and MORE EFFICIENT compensation system is created? One that rewards the content creator as WELL as adding value to the experience of the people that interact with the content.
I think this conversation needs to move forward. And instead of continually damning PPP, let's work together to come up with the best model we can.
Sound fair?
Though I doubt they are "really" listening, Kmart and social media? Like oil and water.
That doesn't mean it was a total travesty or that anyone sold out their integrity. Words are flying -- for public view. This isn't the playground.
Just about everyone in this scenario is human as far as I can tell and the social media as an industry is getting a little too comfortable with what it thinks it knows.
I can't imagine what corporation looking on think of this. "C'mon try social media, it will be different for you than it was for [insert the big name pounced upon next]."
And your last sentence confuses me too.
Apologies for the earlier comment, my computer wasn't cooperating. It is now.
I believe in the "social" of social media, but sometimes it leads us astray.
I think we agree that connecting people to people in an ehtical, authentic, and transparent relationship is how business should occur. In my mind that requires choices about how conversations are handled -- protocols and practices -- and respect.
I agree with every suggestion you offered for how this could have been better orchestrated. I also support your opinions and your ethical stand.
I also agree with you that integrity is cornerstone and payola is poison.
Here's my problem:
Do we not know how our own social media tools work?
What's the purpose when someone opens a huge question on Twitter -- a question far too large to be discussed in 140 characters? Are we not aware that corporations and businesses considering the viability of social media and value of bloggers are listening? What's the ethics there?
When we discuss the integrity of one blogger when 8 particiated, how in the world is that analyzing a campaign and not singling one out? If the March of Dimes had put Sister Helen Prejean blogging on this campaign would the response have been kinder than it was for Izea? I think so. What's the purpose served by calling people "sluts" and "whores"? Does that elevate social media writers in the eyes of the lurkers who are learning who we are?
What I meant to say is that we're better than this. At least I hope we are.
To generalize your question: Would it have made a difference if a blogger distributed their work for entertainment purposes alone? If you mean a/ they wrote about it for the entertainment of others without being paid to write about the experience, well, sure it make a difference. If you mean b/ if they went for the personal entertainment of a shopping spree and didn't write about it, fine.
Although, I am sure that many will adamantly argue that bloggers should NEVER be paid for content, I just don't see that being a viable option. More advertisers are beginning to realize the online market is the next big thing and more WILL be spending their advertising dollars online. So, it becomes imperative for all of us to figure an amicable way forward through this inevitability. IZEA will be operating in this space and we would like to continue to do that in an ethical and transparent manner. Our goal is to be leaders and innovators in the Marketplace so that our example will become the standard. And, certainly, we do not want to do this alone. We can't! However, neither are we going away (and even if WE do, someone else will come along to take our place), so we're just going to have to figure out a way to get along. :)
@Marc Overall, KMart has been extremely happy with the buzz and participation this has garnered for them. Through this process we have been trying to impart to them how important it is for them to be engaged with their audience online. What the IZEA campaign did for KMart is get the conversation started, it is really now up to them to jump into that conversation and run with it from here. To that end, they are putting more resources to their Facebook Fan pages and they have this site http://www.sk-you.com/ specifically for feedback, polls and discussion.
All the Best,
Carri
The reason I wanted to step away from the ethics question is that, let's say, following a code of ethics is a duty to a group or society. Blogging, however, creates a one-on-one relationship between us and our readers/viewers that's completely different from celebrities and needs to be nurtured differently. Michael Jordan loses NOTHING for being paid to be in Hanes commercials, whether he wears Hanes or not. The pitfall (and like I said before, I think it's only a few people who will go in this direction, relative to the blogger's entire fanbase) is that if a blogger gets paid to "do a Hanes commercial" in his or her blog, NOW, the question is "What is this person willing to do or say for money?".
Now, that's not an issue if you're thought of as unethical in the first place. If you're already perceived by the public as someone who will say or do ANYTHING to get some money or more hits for your website, nobody cares if you do paid posts. They're not trusting your word to begin with, so it's the same thing as Michael Jordan or Leonardo DiCaprio. We don't KNOW them, so all that's really important is whether they can play sports or act.
This is why, besides other factors of course, I feel Chris received a lot of the focus in this situation. People expect an unbiased post from Chris, because what he does is dive into Social Media concepts and applications and come up with ideas and suggestions that he hands out to the public for free. When he says "Check out someone's book" or "I'm going to CES 2009", you're expecting (fairly or unfairly) those posts to be free of influence. For the reasons already stated in this post and the comments, doing a paid post opens the door to perceptions of a blogger who's expected to be 'righteous' actually being purchasable as a spokesperson for a $500 gift card.
So, IMO, it's really more of a function of the respect that the community has for Chris and his accomplishments in Social Media that this went so crazy, rather than an indication of lack of respect for him. It's like "Gasp! :O We didn't EXPECT this from Chris Brogan! :(". Meanwhile, everybody expects Julia Roy to accept a gift card and go shopping. Why wouldn't she? There's nothing about her posting history that's positioned her as an unbiased commenter.... as similarly, there's nothing about MY posting history that indicates I won't take money from people to sell you something. I lose nothing in that exchange, because my "cred" isn't based on being unbiased. With Chris, OTOH, people don't like to wonder whether he's saying something because he got paid to say it or not... or, to be more specific, since Chris wasn't paid to say anything in particular... People don't like to wonder why bloggers with a reputation for integrity are calling their attention to products or services. People don't like to wonder "Would Chris have blogged about Kmart EVAR... if he hadn't been paid for it?". I've never read dadomatic, so I have no idea. What I'm saying is that if your reputation is built on people perceiving you as having integrity and posting unbiased opinions, doing paid posts, no matter how few, can easily poison the well for a small number of your fans.
I think bloggers absolutely SHOULD be paid for whatever they feel like being paid for. If a blogger wants to be paid for content, fine. :) Just so long as you're willing to carry the reputation that you're the type of person that can be paid to say or do things. Depending on how you've set up your online persona, this will either destroy your cred or have no effect on it. Jenae's doing "Girl In Your Shirt", which is essentially "Pay me money, and I'll wear your company's shirts and say a monologue about your company". She's not going to be penalized for this AT. ALL. because that's what she's offering. Her online persona is set up as "Pay me money and I will do XYZ". Nobody would be surprised, dismayed or even interested if she were given a $500 Kmart gift card and asked to blog about her experience. Quid pro quo. Business as usual.
So it seems to me that paid posting works best with bloggers that have nothing to lose. The implication of influence can't be avoided. Nobody's going to accept a blogger's word that he or she COULD have written a negative post after getting paid for it. That's the fox asking you to accept his word that he didn't eat the chickens. If someone actually DOES THAT, that's a different story, and it adds to that particular blogger's cred only. So until paid posting can be made to look like it doesn't go hand in hand with influence, bloggers who want/need to maintain reputations for integrity need to be strategic and careful about getting involved.
The quote from David Churbuck, "I would no sooner pay a blogger to mention a product or service than I would pay a reporter...", points to the blurring of lines between traditional and new media. Paying a reporter to shill for your company is unethical; should we hold bloggers to the same standards?
In some cases, yes. If you have a devout following, have achieved a demi-god status in the blogging community or identify yourself as a journalist/reporter, you are doing your audience and reputation a disservice by accepting money from a company to push their product.
My blog by no means has a large following. If I was blown over by a product or service, I'd probably write a post about it (if only because I rarely get blown away by anything on the market these days). If the company paid me to write about said product or service, yes, I would take the money, with the caveat of full disclosure and the possibility of a negative review if they fail to manage my expectations.
In the end, it's up to the individual blogger to decide. But it's nice to know that if they choose not to be transparent with their audience and the blogging community at large, transparency will be thrust upon them. Gotta love social media for keeping it real.
I had similar thoughts here:
http://thefuturebuzz.com/2008/12/17/paid-bloggi...