stoweboyd.com - Latest Comments in Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

AdamSinger — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:41:30 -0000

100% dead on...you nailed it.

I had similar thoughts here:
http://thefuturebuzz.com/20...

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

Bill Cammack — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:09:27 -0000

@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.

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

Angel Djambazov — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:49:19 -0000

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.

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

stoweboyd — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:30:18 -0000

I agree with you, Bonnie, about transparency being thrust upon people.

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

Bonnie Dean — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:49:13 -0000

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.

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

BrightGirl — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:44:38 -0000

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

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

stoweboyd — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:58:53 -0000

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.

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

stoweboyd — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:55:46 -0000

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.

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

Sarah Austin — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:39:54 -0000

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?

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

Bill Cammack — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 06:58:55 -0000

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

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

Liz Strauss — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:06:26 -0000

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.

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

stoweboyd — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:11:40 -0000

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.

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

Liz Strauss — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:02:43 -0000

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]."

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

Bill Cammack — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:10:25 -0000

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?

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

stoweboyd — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:07:14 -0000

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.

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

stoweboyd — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:02:46 -0000

I think it has blown up in everybody's faces, that's for sure.

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

Marc Meyer — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:51:05 -0000

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.

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

Angel Djambazov — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 02:18:33 -0000

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?

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

stoweboyd — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:53:00 -0000

Baloney, That's the wisdom of the marketplace again. The marketplace can be easily coopted with money.

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

Angel Djambazov — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:30:58 -0000

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.

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

Chris Kenton — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:41:28 -0000

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.

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

Chris Kenton — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:30:05 -0000

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.

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

Mack Collier — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:26:27 -0000

"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?

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

stoweboyd — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:48:06 -0000

I will have to look into that.

Re: Izea: Where Is That Line Again?

Glenn Raines — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:53:25 -0000

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.