DISQUS

Jonathan Gunson · 11 months ago

Controversy?

But this is so easy!

Chris, in the end it comes down to INTENTIONS. That is the real test. I am certain your intentions wrere in the right place when you did the KMart post. End Of Story.

Even though debate is healthy, I'm not sure what type of commentator would question your intentions -- other than those in desperate need of generating a 'story'.

So keep it coming Maestro. 'Nil carborundum illegitimi'. ("Never let the bastards wear you down." WW2 lingo.)

Jonathan Gunson

Danny Brown · 11 months ago

i wonder how many people that complained about the Izea/K-Mart post have 125x125 ads on their blogs? And usually, they're indiscriminate advertising.

Give me someone that's clear and open about their post (and as long as they stay true to their integrity) over someone out to make a fast affiliate buck anyday.

meglyn · 11 months ago

Chris,
Very well said!

Kimberlee Ferrell · 11 months ago

Bravo Chris! I am so glad you decided to take a stand on this issue.

I read your sponsored post initially, and it never crossed my mind to question your credibility. You made it quite clear that you were accepting payment. That's fine in my book. The level of trust you have established on your blogs is high, therefore it never occurred to me to think you were influenced because of the money.

Some people can handle being all sides of a business, some can't. Some can separate their priorities, others would not trust themselves to do what you did. If you can't trust yourself, what message is that sending to your readers?

Furthermore, it is quite obvious when you're reading a biased sales pitch instead of a genuine blog post. Your post was outstandingly fair and true to your voice, and your audience.

Thanks for the great insights! I've learned a lot from this post, and have quite a bit to think on.

Kimberlee

Alexis Martin Neely · 11 months ago

Chris, I don't get the folks who say this impacts their trust in you. You didn't hide anything. I see bloggers as much like radio broadcasters. Radio jocks do sponsored "posts" all the time and no one sees a problem with that. So, why this?

Alexander Schek · 11 months ago

Chris,
This is a never ending story. I know Ted for a full year now. I speak with him every other day. At the beginning, I had mixed feelings about the business model, I saw Calacanis throwing stones at him...

But you know what? By the end of the day, it is a business model. Izea has a well defined strategy. I agree with it as long as a full disclosure is available at eye-level for the reader. In your post, this is the case.

As long as we do not intentionally blur the line, everything is fine.

Come on! what about those " Advertisement" sections in magazine that almost blends with the real content?

Chris Kenton · 11 months ago

Chris. What didn't work for me about the Kmart post is that it was so out of synch with what I value in reading your typical posts. You lost credibility with me on that one post--I don't read you for an opinion on Kmart or cheap shopping--but not on your work as a social media reporter. And I think at the end of the day, that's what it comes down to--a negotiation with your readers about what they value. I appreciate that you're out there actively working to find that line for yourself, and doing so transparently so that we can all learn from it. Kudos.

Lynn from OrganicMania.com · 11 months ago

There are a lot of people on Twitter who thrive on controversy. Nothing better to do on a Saturday morning?

Your original post was very clearly disclosed - in fact, you gave far more disclosure than most bloggers.

I appreciated you sharing your rationale for doing this ...very interesting to hear.

Gina Kay Landis · 11 months ago

Chris, I think it's been very clear from your previous posts that you are a friendly businessman. No question there. And sponsored posts are business. No confusion there.

I think there's a bigger fuss about something just a little different than what this appears on the surface. All the wrangling on Twitter about popularity, contests and monetizing can get confusing unless someone knows just exactly what their goals are. Your goals are clear, as stated in your above post. If someone's goals aren't clear, they will be misunderstood or misread.

Point being, how can a businessman who has repeatedly disclosed that he is one be accused of "selling out" by doing a sponsored post? And why does it stick in some folks' craw(s)?

Disclosure is the main thing. It's like a real estate agent disclosing that they are relatives of the seller. Must be done, or trust is eroded.

No erosion here. All appears to be intact, to me.

GK

Scott Lackey · 11 months ago

Hey Chris:

Love what you're doing in social media to help people. And I support social media marketing big time.

Unlike the other issues covered above, I believe you're a brand that could have been paired with a better sponsor who would have enhanced your brand to a greater extent than Kmart. Click on my website link for my longer blog post.

Happy Holidays!,
Scott

warrenss · 11 months ago

Chris,

I really appreciate your candor and explanation of your motivations. And like Kimberlee I never questioned your credibility or that of the other Kmart bloggers. In fact, I thought it was great that a mainstream advertiser was jumping in to social media. My only criticism was that the campaign was the same on all six blogs. Since you each have different voices, audiences and personalities, I would have loved to see how Chris Brogan's contest differed from Loren Feldman's irreverent one or from Julia Roy's urban hipster, for example. Hopefully, the next one that a big brand does will give up some control and let you guys do that. In fact, I almost wrote my own post about that.

Thanks for leading the way and showing all of us how to help big brands join the world of social media with credibility, humility and realism.

Kathleen Couch · 11 months ago

As long as you disclose that you got paid for it, it is absolutely okay! Is this why the comment area won't come up?

gradontripp · 11 months ago

It's up to each of us to conduct ourselves as we see fit, but on and offline. You've stated openly, for a long time, how open and - pardon the overused phrase - transparent you are.

I didn't see anything wrong with the K-Mart post, particularly because you were so blatant about saying, yes, this post is SPONSORED. Similar to magazines having articles with "Paid Advertisement" at the top: As long as you disclose, you're doing it right.

chrisbrogan · 11 months ago

@Warren - if you think Loren and I covered it the same way, I'm flummoxed. The "go spend money and write what you want about it" was the same. Everything else? Crap, I hope I had a different take.

Heather Rast · 11 months ago

I'd like to add my name--if you didn't already know--to the list of Believers.

I believe in your work, your position, your intentions, and your judgment.

Truly, anyone uncertain or doubtful need only to read this post so that they may then see the events and your goals clearly.

Case closed.

Kitzie Stern · 11 months ago

Chris, I imagine most people are here because they are attracted to your authenticity. That's why I'm here. It's refreshing. Please don't get too caught up in the comments of those that snark. There's a lot to do, and no time to be distracted. People will always find something to complain about.
You shine on.
Kitzie Stern

katbron · 11 months ago

Wow and wow. I've followed the debate on Twitter all day. I haven't weighed in because I wasn't sure what to say. I'm baffled at the controversy. And the reason I'm baffled is because I'm a traditional marketer, new to Twitter, and saw you demonstrating a way that traditional marketers can utilize the social space and bloggers can earn their keep. I see nothing wrong - heck, you even said it was sponsored by K-Mart - some folks don't even do that. So bravo - and look at the experience we've all gained from your little foray outside the boundaries others seem to have drawn.

Karl Long · 11 months ago

This controversy is absolutely baffling to me and IMHO people are asking the wrong questions especially if they have any interest in business on the web.

First of all the competition was a brilliant and simple idea. How to make an idea spread on twitter with simple motivation. in this case the motivation to win a Kmart gift certificate. So brilliant the idea, I copied it the same day and posted this to twitter:
"@karllong is giving away 10 x $25 gift certificates for http://threadless.com - just RT this t o enter, will tweet the winners "

Now I only had 1,800 followers at the time and the result was nothing short of extraordinary. That message got retweeted or rebroadcast over 500 times, that means well over 25% the size of my network took an action to rebroadcast my message to their networks. The very first person to RT was http:///twitter.com/Coryobrien and he had 1200 people following him so I almost doubled my 'impressions' on the first hop. I also added 250 people to my twitter network.

Why did this work so well? Probably because I write the number 1 t-shirt blog on the internet (according to google) so my personal brand is totally enmeshed with t-shirts, so it's totally appropriate for me to promote T-shirts.

To be quite honest I think personal networks are the future of advertising, so forget the 'controversy' and focus on the revolution people.

warrenss · 11 months ago

Chris,

I was referring to the actual mechanics of the contest. Include the Kmart part number of the item as a comment on the blog and then tweet the contest. Those directions came from Izea/ Kmart, right. There was no individuality there. So all 6 of you ran the contest the same way. That was my only disagreement. But once again, in the bigger scheme of things, I don't see anything wrong with your post nor saying this post is sponsored.

Peter Kim · 11 months ago

Chris - I hadn't heard about the controversy until this post, so went back to read your other one. Slippery slope. Sorry if this has prevented you from participating in the other project I've been coordinating this week.

You've triggered some thinking for me about motivations and socioeconomic status. I'm looking at some of the comments on your other post, mixed with some Freakonomics re: names, comparing to the comments on this post. Clear differences. The situation at Wal-Mart Black Friday where a worker was trampled to death also comes to mind.

I don't know you incredibly well, but I'd guess there isn't a problem with you. There's a problem with our society and it's linked to advertising and promotion.

Scott Lackey · 11 months ago

Link above too my blog post on pairing brand Brogan with the best sponsor was broken.

Try this.

Meredith Gould · 11 months ago

The so-called distinction between "editorial" and "advertising" hasn't really existed for, oh, about a decade...maybe longer. My assertion is based on experience in a PR agency, negotiating media buys for advertising clients, AND being on the editorial side of a couple of magazines.

Thanks, Chris, for calling out the myth as well as being clear and open about what you're doing. This is what "transparency" really looks like.

mtlbbg · 11 months ago

So the future of online advertising is a cash giveaway? Chris, you don’t need a voice at the table to teach you that.

Being on an advisory board of the company running the promotion is one thing, but participating in it? That undermines the entire thing, regardless of how many people were told ahead of time. More importantly, explain this next part to me, because after so many years of having to follow pesky little rules and regs concerning contests and promotions, I’m a little foggy: The first rule with a brand’s agency has always been that all employees, their families and their suppliers, including the ad agency and their families, etc., are ineligible. Unless Denny Crane is working for Izea, how did Sears legal ever approve this? Now THAT would be something innovative in the world of social media: Circumventing the legal department.

Forgetting that though, wave $500 in front of anyone and they bite, for any brand. That’s not innovative, that’s a Pavlovian stunt car dealers use. Won’t matter anyway. After it’s over, Izea won’t care because they tell K-Mart “Look, everyone’s talking about you!”

@cjlambre · 11 months ago

I agree with Alexis above. Everything I have seen from you has the utmost transparency to it, you're not hiding any of your affiliations or intentions. Sponsorship or not, your opinions are still your own.

I say, keep doing what you're doing. You're educating the rest of us, we're watching and listening and learning. There are a lot of people trying to figure out how this all works going forward, and you're ahead of most of us and taking the big steps forward.

frank · 11 months ago

I can't say much and be though of as an "A list" anything ... so i don't know that i'll sway the conversation in anyones mind ... but i don't mind throwing out my thoughts :)

Chris, you put out good stuff - valuable information that helps people (including me) expand our thinking, foster new ideas, challenge us & help us grow. All the time giving us a place to talk with you and eachother.

If you were not out there trying things like this at some point you'd stop being a person who could teach us things ... you'd stop doing all the things i listed above.

I'm not that 'deep' into the journalism side of it all so i can understand that people who are really into that and want to uphold it's putity would have issues ... but at the end of the day you do some great work and share valuable information with us all the time.

who cares what the critics say :)


--
http://twitter.com/franswaa

Adele McAlear · 11 months ago

Sponsored content hits a nerve. For many, it is unseemly, even with disclosure. As a champion of social media, some may feel you should hold yourself above the petty issue of money; a virtuous proponent of a new utopia of communications. To that sub-set of people, it feels like their rock star has sold out. Like John Lennon pitching ammunition. (Admittedly, a terrible illustrative example - but hey, it's 1 am and I'm tired.)

Though I'm not it such a sub-set, I did have a knee jerk reaction upon first reading, wondering, "why is he bothering with this? What's the point?" After reading your rationale here, I now understand it from a business consulting point of view.

You did many things right. Your disclosure was impeccable. There was no mistaking what you were doing and why. The fact that you posted it to Dadomatic and not ChrisBrogan.com was also appropriate. For the theme of the content, it was a much better fit, even though it was likely to have been less widely read than your main blog. Lastly, donating much of what you bought was a great thing to do. Some might say, virtuous.

Dominick · 11 months ago

The fact that you even have to respond with a post like this makes it clear why understanding social media, marketing, and sponsored posting is so important. I don't understand what the big issue is. I'd like to think that if you had a horrible time spending the $500, you thought everything was overpriced, and you didn't get much of anything for the money you spent, you'd flat out write that regardless of whether the $500 was sponsored or not.

That's the job of any good journalist/blogger and I would think any company willing to sponsor such an opportunity would know that they are opening themselves up to possible negative review of said, sponsored services. I'd think the whole purpose of such a sponsorship would be to learn what works for a specific program or offering and what can be approved upon, because if a journalist/blogger isn't going to enjoy what the company has to offer, what's to say the general public will?

This is my area of expertise. I am first and foremost a film/movie critic and video game reviewer. I get thousands of dollars in merchandise each month to review, for free. In exchange, I offer up an honest review of each and every product. I list the good, bad, and why you should or shouldn't buy said product. The truth is expected of me by the companies I represent, but even more by my readership, who depend on me to explain the pros/cons of buying such a product.

I have written many positive, glowing reviews, and other, very harsh reviews. I am always honest and never forgiving in my opinion, even though my company has a close working relationship with the companies releasing these products. Essentially, you could say they sponsor these posts, merely because they've given me something, for free, in exchange for a review. Still, I am not afraid to give a product a bad review and know there is no hard feelings between my site and the companies I work with if I do.

I don't see how Chris' shopping spree is ANY different than this? Don't people have better things to do than make accusations when they don't even understand the entire situation? So, he enjoyed shopping at Kmart and he explained WHY it was advantageous (he was able to buy kids in need BRAND NAME toys) and save money while doing it.

What do you want from him? To say "Dang I just saved almost $200, but Kmart really sucks. Sure I got brand name stuff, but hello. It's Kmart. Sorry Kmart, you're lame?"

Then he'd be accused of lying about his experience. Either way, I see this as a no win situation.

Chris - I get you man. The haters are just that. Jealous that they didn't get $500 themselves.

@JillianAnderson · 11 months ago

@Chris Kenton: Chris' post about Kmart and holiday shopping was in his Dadomatic blog....about dad-ship - not in his ChrisBrogan blog about ChrisBrogan-SocialMediaReporter-ship. If you want the dad, read the Dadomatic blog. If you want the social media reporter, read the ChrisBorgan blog. I just don't understand the disappointment on this one....

Bruce Winter · 11 months ago

Passion is a key message, in your evangelism Chris. Eloquence and intelligence are key ingredients, in personal branding, you write about and live. It's about you Chris, not them. What matters is how you conduct your self, and we each ourselves. Integity is integral. The rest is noise and beside the point.

@kiwicarol (Carol Cooper-Taylo · 11 months ago

Hi Chris
Your integrity has never been in question with me. Those who are moaning no doubt have has ads on their blogs if not in their posts. Have they never read an advertorial? They should get in the real world and well ... get real. Keep doing what you do, I read your posts first in my reader. BTW do you have time for a life????? :)

chris brogan · 11 months ago

Thanks for all your thoughts. I'm learning from your opinions, and further, discovering the current pulse of people's perception of social media.

@Adele - you mention that my position in the social media community should put me above the discussion of money: this post hopefully clearly explains my motives, but your response is interesting. Social media people are somehow on a higher moral ground by default? Perez Hilton would disagree.

Money isn't evil. There are lots of ways to be evil around money, but the presence of money isn't evil.

@bg- you're the second person to cite a conflict of interest. I'm not in the contest. In this instance, I'm someone marketing in a third party capacity. They paid me to market and offer a contest that I'm not part of. Explain the conflict? Is it a conflict to pay for marketing? We have a huge problem, then.

Thanks to everyone for their ideas.

Charlie Wollborg · 11 months ago

I find the anti-capitalist sentiment that is prevalent in some social media circles tiring, childish and shortsighted. Finding new ways to cultivate relationships, engage customers and activate business transactions is integral to the success of businesses and the medium. Keep leading the way, Chris.

brettbum · 11 months ago

Great article. :) Couldn't have said it better myself. This will make a great case study some day when ever this social media thing finally makes it on campuses. This is not really new ground, but it is a different level of profile. Its never fun being in the cross hairs, but then again, sometimes you have to go where the cross hairs might be in order to really understand the tolerance of a system.

Exit Gonzo Journalism
Entre Bloggers
;)
Have no idea what those last lines meant, just had a vision of a bald Johnny Depp in a Cadilac for a moment.

Liz Guthridge · 11 months ago

Chris, I'm not a journalist either. At least not any more. I'm in corporate communications. I follow you and Jeremiah Owyang on Twitter, and I respect very much what both of you are doing, especially in blazing trails in new media. However, I have to say we should maintain some of the standards of traditional media, including acuracy and clarity. They're critical to ensure shared understanding. For example, Barb Gibson is the chair of IABC, the International Association of Business Communicators, not ABC, as you mentioned in this post. IABC and ABC are two completely different entities with few similarities. Jeremiah, at least in his Tweets, butchers the English language. I would respect you two more if you followed these well-established journalistic standards: fact checking and good grammar. Yes, they take time, but without them, meaning gets distorted and misunderstandings happen.

Lucretia Pruitt · 11 months ago

Well I blogged my astonishment at the kerfuffle and my position here already as you know Chris.

Personally, I think teakettle was an apt choice of description. One of the things pointed out to me by some 'MommyBlogger' friends was that that community has already dealt with this issue and moved past it.

There will always be those who blog "as a hobby" and those who make money doing it.

The issue, as has been said repeatedly, is one of honesty and transparency. If it says "sponsored" all over it, then you can read it with the understanding that the blogger in question was in some form compensated for the post. If that makes you trust their judgment on that specific topic less? Then don't bother reading it. If it makes you trust their judgment on another blog in another arena less? The issue is yours alone, my friend.

I'm wondering how much of this is an American issue though. I think of the number of a-list American celebrities that go over to Japan to hawk everything from beer to cologne for huge fees but wouldn't be caught dead doing that in the States because their fans might 'think less of them.'

Does Sarah Jessica Parker really do her hair color at home with a $7 box of dye? I doubt it. But even so, what the heck does that have to do with whether or not she's a good actress?

Whatever. My point getting lost as I find the soapbox firmly under my feet again is that you did everything by the book. You were honest, transparent, disclosed everything, and *gasp* even benefitted the readers over on Dadomatic who have a shot at getting a $500 K-mart giftcard. What the hell else do people expect? For you to be some sort of ennobled, broke, bearded version of Mother Teresa of Social Media?

Sheesh.

Internet Strategist · 11 months ago

The bottom line for me is integrity: either a blogger's opinions and recommendations are for sale or they are not. Some will recommend anything for a buck; others will not as their integrity is not for sale at any price. I keep hoping more people will realize how easy it is to tell the difference.

We tolerate advertisements in all quarters EXCEPT online where so many have been giving away what they have to offer for free. Why? How DO those who benefit from what Chris and others like him have to say expect them to eat and keep a roof over their head.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with what is CLEARLY LABELED a sponsored post. There are no bought-and-paid-for lies involved. Chris actually DID go shopping at K-Mart and REPORTED on what he did. Where is the conflict of interest in that?

My own blog is not monetized. Not one affiliate program and not one ad. That is not because I am against monetization - only because I have not chosen to do so yet because I prefer to focus on sharing and haven't wanted to take time away from that to monetize.

I do actively recommend any product or service that I come across that is deserving. When more of us are willing to do that the world will be a better place. I am sure even my recommendations - which are NOT motivated by money - rub some the wrong way.

I had actually been discussing launching something very similar for an online gift store where he would offer bloggers a free gift of their choice for reviewing the product and his service. I'm still struggling with how to approach bloggers with the idea without offending them because there IS so much negativity about anything commercial.

When more bloggers with integrity (you know who you are) will start expressing their honest opinions - paid (with disclosure) or not - and especially for small businesses, mom-and-pop stores, and those they buy services from - the world will be a better place and there will be a lot less controversy.

Christopher Penn, Financial Ai · 11 months ago

Try shilling for a student loan company ALL the time. Now there's an interesting question. We are both working hard in the social media space - why is it not okay for you to blog for money in consumer goods but it's okay for me to blog for money in education lending where arguably the customer comes out worse more often than not?

Lawrence Anderson · 11 months ago

Chris, great post. It was very balanced.

As far as the controversy goes, I am going to jump on the bandwagon and say I don't think your credibility has been hurt. You're good at what you do and I have never felt that your sponsored posts were ever sneaky or disingenuous. In fact, I really liked how you pointed out some of the things worth improving in your e-billme post.

Let the haters hate :-)

Karoli · 11 months ago

As one who wrote for PayPerPost and would still be writing for them if I didn't have other unrelated restrictions, I applauded your original post and applaud this one. There was no question that your KMart post was sponsored. It was clearly disclosed and was in no way misleading. So what?

My sense is that the tempest is one that those who want to whip Ted Murphy are stirring, for the most part. I happen to like Ted, and think his ideas have been creative and beneficial.

Your KMart post enhanced your credibility with me. As you say, if you haven't done it, how can you advise?

Jayadeep Rath · 11 months ago

Hi Chris !

The option to get influenced or not remains with the individual. The option to agree or disagree on a topic of contention even if it is from a credible source remains with the individual. We as readers can take it or leave it.

We have seen sponsorships with disclosures happening all over in the traditional media space and there is very little reason to get upset over it.

The social media space is evolving and unless newer ways of generating influence is experimented, there is less likelihood of percolation to the mainstream.

Having said that - I was wondering about the revenue streams of those people who are caught up in this non-issue at the wrong end. ..Just wondering ;-)

Joe Hage · 11 months ago

Making money online:
1) Online sales of products and services (including content)
2) Free content (paid by advertisers)
3) Free content in exchange for credibility (which can be redeemed for consulting fees, books, sponsorships, conference appearances, etc.)

Seems to me as though you fall into category number three, Chris. You clearly identified how you were compensated up front. I don't see anything wrong with that at all.

Shannon Paul · 11 months ago

You did absolutely nothing wrong. In fact, you lived up to your own guidelines that you've established as your own best practices. We should all have that much integrity.

What I find most disturbing lately, is this tendency to be overly dogmatic about social media. Dogma related to "journalistic" ethics and blanket policies (drawing a line in the sand) that trump personal relationships are leftovers from an old media culture based on a professional filter.

For consumers to filter their information through a professional filter, established guidelines written by someone in authority needed to be present. This is no longer the case. People can define their experience with businesses and individuals through a personal filter, or a social filter. The social filter is much more powerful and meaningful than the professional filter ever was. This notion, in theory, SHOULD be liberating.

The interesting thing to me is that with this newfound freedom to define things like ethics and best practices in terms of personal, individual evaluation, people go back to clamoring for the old blanket policies. Can't we do any better than that? Besides, I thought we were all making this up as we went along.

Pishabh Gulati · 11 months ago

I am very much dissappoint by this. Please henceforce cancel my subscribtion and refund my money

Patrick OMahony (pomahony2( · 11 months ago

By Chris brogan | DEC 2, 2008 Sponsored Post-Kmart Holiday Shopping Dad Style
http://dadomatic.com/sponsored-post-kmart-holid...


Chris,

About the recent trouble.

I love ya!

I don't know what you did.

I don't care what you did.

I will defend you and your journalist integrity with the last drop of my blood,
no mater how many righteous citizens call for your head.

I will continue to follow your work on the Internet,
even if no one every reads you again.

I will continue to sing your parses,
no matter how many people boo me down.

I want you to know, that you are a talented writer,
at least, that is what I think, even if no one else agrees with me.

You are the finest example of the New Internet "Man",
but a man all the same, with strengths and lots of vices.
(lots and lots of vices)

I don't what you did or why you did it.

I am sure that you had your reasons.
(at least I hope you had your reasons)


That said, I want to know how you could blemish
the fine reputation that is enjoyed by the The "Fourth Estate" on the Internet.

In fact, other than politicians and used car dealers,
journalist on the Internet are in a class by themselves.
(a low, underpaid and mostly dirty crass class, but a class all the same)

I am sure that in time, Internet journalists will equal or surpass their ink-ened brothers, in shame and hypocrisy.

Did I understand that this post is being considered a commercial endeavor?
Money?


Really Chris! Do you see anyone else trying to become rich off the Internet?

Do you hear other people saying the dirty "monetize" word.

Do you think that other people are going to try to make a living,
using their journalist skills on the Internet?

The Internet should stay the way it was intended to be.
The Internet should stay the way it started: the finest and cheapest way to distribute porn.

Oh Chris, how could you. What made you do it?

Didn't you take an oath of poverty?
(like the monks of thirteenth century?)

Didn't you take an oath to never, never soil your work for sake of mere money?

Didn't you take a pledge always to be pure and above the muddy floor of commercialism?

How can we keep pure the spirit of this wonderful season,
if disgraced journalists, like you, write about buying things at Kmart?
For what purpose? Just to give children gifts? Let me tell you: they have enough toys.
When I was a kid, I never got all the gifts that they are getting now-a-days.

Oh Chris, as I read and reread the growing avalanche of criticisms' against you,
I want to hang my head in shame for you

You had such a fine future ahead of you.
People used to read your posts.
Their day was made full, by the flowing ideas from your keyboard.

I saw that there was 347 Comments on the post directly.
There are countless comments off the post.

You were one of the bright lights in the Internet sky.
Now you are like a meteor crashing to earth, the light glowing red,
but going out all the same.

About the Christmas party. You are no longer invited!

You will get coal in your Christmas stocking this year.

You hack, you!


Pat OMahony


PS Just think of all the trouble you started, Mr. smarty pants!
People have better things to do than worry about Chris Brogan.
A lot of writers do not get 347 comments during their whole lifetime!
They would kill for 347 comments!
And you got that just on one post!
Just who do you think you are?

end

CJ · 11 months ago

What's THAT all about? You wrote a sponsored post because that's part of your job. So? You didn't hide the fact, did you?

Where in the world do these people live - what planet? I wish someone would sponsor me to simply write about what I think! Yeah, I'm jealous, but that doesn't change what you say - either I believe in it and value it, or I don't!

Jeremiah Owyang · 11 months ago

Chris

Thanks for taking this on so openly and transparently. This really answers the questions I was asking on twitter yesterday. As some of the commenters pointed out, it comes to intentions, and editorial policy. We trust you, I trust you, and as long as you're being true, then the trust continues.

stevenimmons · 11 months ago

I think the criticism is moronic. It comes from people in search of almost messianic figures to lead them through a world where they cannot form their own opinion. I trust many people that I disagree with, and I try to judge people by their standards not mine. Paid endorsement or paid opinion is a fact of life. I only object when the opinion is false and such insincerity is quickly discovered.

Kimberly Bock · 11 months ago

I don't know you very well at all. Of course, like most people that are involved in SM, after a week your name is clearly a part of the worlds internet Must See package which is probably why I have steered clear until Jeremiah posted the Tweet to give you a visit.

I have managed to secure a name that is bashed frequently, well, because I do a lot of bashing myself. Typically, if you are a Corp boy or popular model, I have doubts about, As Gunson mentioned, intent.

To ASSume that there's reason to doubt your credibility is not wise. BUT, newcomers should be wary, as I frequently teach them, of bloggers who are all about promo, nil about consumer protection.

How do we assess? Observation. To say that your intentions are to discuss Kmarts infinite lovely qualities, as a paid bias, would be ignorant of we/the consumers. But to auto ASSume the opposite would be equally ignorant.

If your habit is to be transparent and truthful, then it will be the pattern that you display in everything you do. Words are words and one lousy blog post isn't the determining factor here. It's developing an assessment by grabbing a feed, and observing you in other SM environments. Just my 2 cents worth which couldnt buy a cup o jo.

ps, if it had been Wal Mart that you blogged for, I'd cast your blog to the activist dogs as often as I could. http://walmartwatch.com/

Kmart rocks. ;-)

Thierry de Baillon · 11 months ago

Chris,
thanks for this great explanation. I was part of the people who questioned your initiative yesterday, not about trust or transparency, but about the attitude of blogs-as-a-media towards advertising and brands.
This was forgetting that blogs aren't a mature media (adult, yes, mature, not) and that all kind of experiments have still to take place. You made one, with honesty. Presence of brands and advertorials have still to be deeper questioned, but not your approach.

Betsy Wuebker · 11 months ago

How can I say this bluntly? It seems like the ladies on the corner who are giving it away for free are accusing you of working at their profession for money? And so... ???

I think if there was a huge concern about journalistic ethics - an oxymoron now if ever there was one - from within the Fourth Estate, we might have had a different outcome in the recent elections. Or at least a little parity in favorable coverage. Talking about how the coverage you produced favored one candidate AFTER the election doesn't count. We know it's an attempt to regain credibility. The notion that journalism remains unsullied by the stain of lucre belies all the ongoing fawning throughout the media. Glass houses, pots, kettles, and all that. Just sayin'.

Don't look back, Chris. "Journalism" (said with breathy reverence, looking heavenward) exists to stir up the crap. There will always be those who look to bring a leader down. Ironically, they wouldn't have known about this if you hadn't told them in the first place. :D

Shonali Burke, ABC · 11 months ago

Chris,

I said this to someone else, but it applies here as well. BRAVO. Really, there's nothing else to be said.

Actually, there is. This entire ridiculous molehill really got to me yesterday. I could NOT stop thinking about it, which is kinda weird, since I haven't met you (yet), and I can usually screen out silly nonsense quite easily. What upset me was the knee jerk reaction to your post and the innuendo that you "will blog for junk" without any valid reasons to back that up.

If there is anyone who won't blog for junk, in my opinion, it's you. And should you ever feel the need to do so, I am quite sure that you will let us know up front. What you did was smart, honest, transparent and extremely interesting from a marketing point of view. And, to boot, some kids will get neat toys this holiday season because of your generosity of spirit. I still can't figure out how all those GOOD things negatively impact your personal brand and reputation. For me, they enhanced them.

If folks are going to beat up on you for your KMart experiment, then they should beat up on WalMart's Eleven Moms, and so on. We always say we admire those who take what they love and figure out a way to make a living doing it. Er, so this is bad because...?

Certainly, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But if one has any kind of public visibility and reputation, they should make sure their arguments have at least some validity. To me, this stank of "I'm not Chris Brogan and KMart didn't ask me to spend $500, so I'm going to have a conniption." How admirably mature.

Thank you for the enormous value and insights you provide to us all. Keep 'em coming.

Shonali

Michael Smolens · 11 months ago

Chris - I read every word - looked at half a dozen links, and I think this is the clearest, most powerful blogs I have ever read, including everyone.

The subject is potentially quite controversial, and you have been dealing from integrity since I met you about 3 years ago, continued that with everything you are doing, and basically summarized your life and philosophy while also trying to educate - bravo.

Great job

Scott Purdie · 11 months ago

Hey Chris,

I think you should be freaking proud of the work you have done with Kmart.

From what i've read, you have helped a business, using social media, understand how to save their customers some cash and benefit the business in a crappy economic time, just before Christmas.

In the UK, we have a 99 year old high street store going under. They were left behind.

Well done!

Yvonne DiVita · 11 months ago

Wow. I missed all the fun. But, since I've read down the post and most of the comments and I have an opinion (find me a woman who doesn't have an opinion), here goes: The social media world is twisting our long-held beliefs about how "it" should be, and some people don't like it. "It" of course, is marketing and advertising and finding ways to connect with the people you hope to sell your products and services to.

Sponsoring blog posts, or, for that matter, blogs, is a respectable way for both a business and a blogger to create that connection. I write a sponsored blog - a petblog for Purina. I pitched it to them because I am deep in their market (I'm a woman who treats her pets like children, and I'm a former veterinary assistant, and I have always fed my pets Purina pet food)... they agreed to the sponsorship because they wanted that unfiltered voice out there talking about pets - and occasionally reminding readers about the sponsorship.

I get paid for that. I am not ashamed to say so. I work with Purina to make sure I stay true to the guidelines we set up together, and I babble on about pets. The people who visit the blog visit it to connect with me (and Dr. Larry, the vet from Purina who writes about health issues).

This model...sponsoring blog posts and blogs is still in its infancy. Those of us testing it out do so with open, honest and authentic voices. The businesses want to see how it works, whether it really has ROI (it does), and in the end, it's much less costly than anything else they do. How it will evolve remains to be seen. But, in the meantime, honest bloggers admit when they're being paid to blog - and if they are truly honest, they do not let the company sponsoring them dictate what gets written. Now, that would be a problem.

Joe Gill · 11 months ago

Chris, great job coming clean if you will. If people dont have respect for you know after thisblog, you dont need them! Everyone needs to make money and why not make it at something you are great in?

Keep trucking!

marshal sandler · 11 months ago

I hope you get paid for all your effort's ! It is very important, the starving artist crap went out with the WPA ! How about the amount of educational material you publish and don't get paid for ! I would like all my favorite bloggers get paid
for their social media platforms ! There is no discussion business, exists for profit it has no heart ! I like you personally and professionally only sponsorship will keep your creative efforts alive !

Rob Williams · 11 months ago

I don't think you compromised anything in your disclaimers. In fact, the post was still consistent with the site's goals, was it not? It wasn't just the disclaimers that make it work for me, but as a strategist myself, I totally understand your points on trying it to understand it to be able to advise better. That's what early adopters and strategists do: play with the new stuff so we can help others know if and when they should do it.

Good on you, Chris. Blog on!

Justin Levy · 11 months ago

Chris-

I'm not going to re-hash others comments because I think there has been great discussion here and elsewhere on the topic throughout today. At the end of the day, two of the things that I think matter most is that you are always completely transparent and you write what you feel.

You did nothing wrong.

Keep doing what you're doing.

patmcgraw · 11 months ago

(Everybody sing) It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas...everywhere you go...

Sorry, I am amazed by the distraction this non-event with Chris and K-mart has become.

IMHO Chris simply joined the ranks of 'paid spokesperson' and like those before him, he seems to have made it about as clear as anyone could that this was a paid/sponsored post.

No harm. No foul. And no chance I end up shopping at Kmart just because Chris had a wonderful, eye-opening experience. The reason? The Kmart stores around here are old, poorly maintained and in areas that I don't frequent (not convenient).

Which goes back to the strategy behind the tactic...does Kmart really think that social media folks are going to change my shopping/buying habits because Chris and a few others got $500 to spend at Kmart? As if that one post will outperform the millions of dollars Kmart already spends on trying to get people into its stores?!

Sorry, I don't shop at Lowe's because Gene Hackman does the voice over on the ads. And I won't select Consolidated Loans if I ever have credit problems just because Paul Michael Glaser is the spokesperson for CL.

Getting me to change my perceptions and actions takes more than that.

Dirk Singer · 11 months ago

Hi Chris,

I also first thought it was a lot of fuss about nothing, but that's until I looked at Izea and the system being used, payperpost.com.

Payperpost isn't about a blogger here or there working with a company to test out social media messages. It's a full throttle network that 'delivers' paid posts to brands. Some of the gems on site:

* "We regularly stage "Postie Patrols," when our team descends on a unsuspecting Postie (paid blogger) to have them compete for cash and prizes."

* "When you see the PayPerPost Direct widget on a blog you would like to sponsor you can quickly create a sponsored post offering within the blog itself. The widget then transmits that offer to the blogger, allowing the blogger to accept, reject or negotiate different terms."

* "Do you have a computer? Do you have a mouse? Do you have a piece of cheesecake? All you need are these three things and a credit card or bank account and you are on your way!"

That kind of arrangement really is very different to working directly with a brand. It's a way of making advertisers believe they can get word of mouth and online credibility by handing over some cash, and that does put everything in a much different light.

Stephen Hopson · 11 months ago

Wow, what a powerful, honest and in-depth account of what you're doing and why you're doing them.

You're right - if people still think you're inauthentic just because you accepted money, they can go elsewhere. Unfortunately people make money seem evil.

You feed those kids! I'm with you million percent Chris. I loved your directness - you reminded people they're getting something free at your blog. I'm doing the same thing over at mine. While I haven't yet received criticism, I suspect that given time, it could happen because the mere mention of money does craxy things to people.

In fact, if I am ever criticized for bringing on hints of entprenuerialship, I'll have them read this very excellent article.

jodiontheweb · 11 months ago

Great post Chris. As usual, leaving me with lots to think about. Keep up the good work. I am always interested to learn from what you experiment with!

Ron McDaniel · 11 months ago

In light of these things, I think you need to label every single post:
I am posting in the hopes that some day you will
a) Buy my upcoming book
b) Hire me to speak
c) Hire me as a consultant
d) Buy me a drink at a party some time
e) Recommend me to your friends that will do the same.

And don't hide it on the about page. You need to clutter up every post with a huge disclaimer at the top that makes your posts unreadable and unSEO friendly in Google.

Then, I might trust you, but I will not want to read your mess.

:)

Jim Canterucci · 11 months ago

My Saturday twitter stream was filled with rules based dogmatism and righteous indignation. Little brilliance.

My work is focused on thinking and mind set leading to innovation. I was so disappointed with those who so vehemently reacted based on a rule set that is very limited, and I wonder if, even their own.

Motivated though that there is so much more work to do in this area. Thanks to people like Shannon Paul and others here who take on that thinking when exposed. Only the light of day will open the mind.

Chris, I know you will, but I still want to say, keep on doing what you're doing.

thom singer · 11 months ago

Chris-

I saw all the mud slinging and finger pointing yesterday and was sad. You did nothing wrong. The social media battle cry is "transperency" and you were very clear that you were given $500 gift card to go shopping.

There are too many out there who think that social media is somehow purified from business. Some keep pointing out how this movement is "different". This is the same agruement people made about business during the late 90s and the dot com companies. People said that all the "rules" for stocks had changed. OOPS. not so much...in the end we had the bust. The rules of economics had not really changed.

You have a huge platform. When anyone has a platform, there will be others willing to pay for access to those eyeballs. As long as you are clear about it, you should be able to write whatever you want on your blog. If readers dont like it they will leave, and you will no longer have the platform.

In your case, I don't see those who really appreciate all you do as having any problem with your "sponsored post". What you did was tell a story about shopping with your kids. The best blogger tell stories, not just pontificate.

Keep up the good work.

thom

Ben Kunz · 11 months ago

Chris,

Sorry, but you and your fans still miss the point. Our criticism is not "out to get you" with "unbalanced" attacks. We want to help. Many of us are disappointed because your taking payment to write a glowing review of a retailer -- one that you yourself said you almost never usually visit -- reduces the quality your voice. I had the same reaction reading your Dec. 1 paid post on "eBillMe" -- the service seems remarkably convoluted yet you praised it, and I walked away from that post not thinking highly of the analysis.

If you don't accept the fact that taking payment to write an opinion lowers the value of an opinion, even if fully disclosed, then please think again. It's your voice that you're playing with ... and long-term, despite the 100 fans who will comment now that "oh Chris it's OK" on this post, you are going down a slippery slope.

Joe Magennis · 11 months ago

Jeez Chris I don't get it, you would think you tried to slip an affiliate link past us or something.

The obvious takeaway for anyone looking to succeed in this space is to build up a trusted reputation and to remain completely transparent (as you have to the nth degree). With that, any "contoversy" will merely be a learning experience and not a devastating catastrophe had you not established your reputation and trustworthiness.

Keep bringing it Chris and thanks for blazing the trails.

MagsMac · 11 months ago

Great post Chris!!

I really appreciate all of the knowledge you've shared throughout this process!

Andrew Meyer · 11 months ago

Chris,

isn't this a case of the "Empire Striking Back"? One of the threats blogging poses is that one incisive, authentic and knowledgeable person articulates the changes happening more clearly than an empire of generalist, watered-down and mostly ignorant people in the "news" industry.

I don't mean ignorant as an insult, but they've never worked in IT or Marketing or Sales. It's very hard to be incisive, authentic and knowledgeable about things you hear about second hand.

The integrity you've built up is stronger than some "tweet-stones". Keep up the good work and may the force be with you.

Andy

Jennifer Smith · 11 months ago

Great defense post, but sad you had to write it! Come on people! Did you hate your shopping experience at Kmart?? Did you threaten to beat your children if they didn't smile for the camera? Did you purchase fur, meat and leather with the $500 then sneak off to a PETA protest? If you answer yes to either of the above then I question your creditability in your post! Otherwise regardless of the money being a sweet perk, how was your content biased? If you had something against Kmart and it went against your morals to shop their, but you did it anyway and gave a shining review... then YES I just think it's sad that people would call sell out, you work hard, you were presented with an awesome opportunity, you journaled it, you gave to charity... and I'll be winning a $500 gift card of my own out of it (WINK)... you disgust me! ;)

chrisbrogan · 11 months ago

@Ben - I'm not going to rehash everything, but I'm going to correct the one bullshit line in your comment: I wasn't paid to write a glowing post and I didn't write a glowing post. I wrote what I saw after I experienced it. If you look at my writing style over the last several years, you'll see that I don't really crap on many things in general. But glowing? No. Just my thoughts and impressions. They didn't buy my words; they bought me doing the project in the first place. Only. You're fair to point out your disagreements, but your word choice in your blog post and your tweets is ridiculously slanted, and I take offense to that. Meaning, I appreciate your criticisms, but not your dogma.

@Dirk - correction: this has nothing to do with PayPerPost. Izea has two or three big projects within the company: PayPerPost is the old project from a few years ago, and it still gives some bloggers a way to make money. It's a whole different system.

Social Spark is their new project, which doesn't connect to PayPerPost. Different technology, different approach, and a whole different user base (as far as I know. I'm just an advisor, not an employee).

What *I* did was something not related to either directly. It's some kind of 'premium' opportunity, where companies seek out bloggers with a platform large enough to justify spending a bit more.

EVERYBODY ELSE - I don't especially feel attacked. I feel misunderstood. So, I wrote a post to explain myself. I'm always open to learning, and forever willing to admit my mistakes, should I feel I've made some. In this case, I don't think there's anything I'd do differently. I don't regret the work. I'm happy that I know a little bit more about the mechanics of the net.

For the most negative of my critics, I ask you this: what are you doing on the balance of positive? If your contribution to this space is merely policing bloggers when you perceive a disturbance in the force, good luck with that. I'm over here doing what I'm doing, and you can throw stones whenever you'd like.

I'm willing to learn.

Brian Block · 11 months ago

That all sounds great and no credibility has been lost I feel. It is what it is. A paid post when fully disclosed won't be treated the same way as an unpaid post by the reader as you've seen. But I wonder if the lesson for companies should be this: Work with an ethical blogger who commits to social media etiquette and transparency and the focus may shift from your product to the blogger.

Will there ever be a point when that way of thinking ends? I hope so. Maybe it comes down to whether or not the blogger is honest about his post. If he is, then it's all good. If not, then he and the paying client may be hit by it.

Rufus · 11 months ago

@Yvonne in the spirit of commercialism and self-promotion, I am a DOG who writes a blog called DogWalkBlog.com I would take food from Purina for blog posts.

On another aside, the soccer world is the same way. Anyone who is not in the sport for the "beautiful game" is a money-grubbing, soulless corporation who doesn't care about the kids. Please. I think that anyone who complains about others making money of something they perceive should be "free" just has not been successful in setting the value of their own efforts and are frustrated at their inability to do so.

You must now visit my PayPal page and give me $5.00 for reading this comment. If you think it worthless, then flush it from your brain now. If you feel you should comment on this comment, you then think it worth enough to do so and I will expect you will pay me. Otherwise, I really don't care what you think.

Thank you, Chris, for providing the space, time and effort on your blog for me to express myself free of charge. I should be paying you and will when that Purina deal comes through ;-)

Marc Meyer · 11 months ago

Early yesterday morning, I was one of the few that were right in the middle of the Twit stream going on with Jeremiah and Ted Murphy. Jeremiah was merely thinking out loud, as we all were. Ted included.. It was a high level discussion. No bashing occurred. I had to go back and read my post on this topic and tweets just to make sure. I'm not sure if there was a truly large spike in the bashing as is being perceived, but the bottom line is it's a great topic because it's new to all of us. Chris included. I asked questions on my post. Barbara Gibson brought up talking points on hers, and that's what we all should do and did. If this wasn't new ground for all of us, including Chris, he wouldn't have had to write the "why I did what I did" post. Chris will be fine. In fact, he doesn't really even need to alter what he did going forward. Not that further props are necessary, but Chris you didn't have to write this post, but that just speaks to the quality of your brand!

Jeanette · 11 months ago

I glanced at your blog last night but I was too tired to take it all in. It is ridiculous that you had-- or even felt-- the need to explain yourself. You said it was sponsored up front.

Who blogs and tweets and does not once in awhile make money from their writing? I don't know anyone who isn't promoting something. Most bloggers never say "sponsored" and many respected bloggers have ads with content driven related traffic.

Adrienne Fritze · 11 months ago

Chris ~

Thank you for being at the front of the lines testing this stuff out. It's risky being an explorer - I know as I am one who is out there taking risks too.

I subscribe to a lot of blogs and eNewseletters because I don't know it all and need to get credible information from credible sources to help me figure out how to make a living at what I do (I am an artist who also provides training and tools to other artists so they may make a decent living from their art forms).

The internet is one of those tools taking on a more dominant position in artists' lives and work - just as it is with every other line of business - so I subscribe to all kinds of information sources to help me understand, and use, the internet to strengthen and grow my business – and offer ways for the artists with whom I work to grow theirs.

Truthfully, you are the only blogger whose work I read every time it shows up in my mailbox. Without fail.

All of the artists I work with have some sort of web presence - it's a must-have in this day and age. Some of those folks have blog sites, as do I, and learning how to generate an income from what we present to the world - with our art AND our online presence - is critical in building a sustainable business for ourselves. I appreciate the Kmart experiment and the model it presents. It gives me a new idea for attracting revenue in a way that makes sense.

The other thing I am finding valuable in this conversation we’re all engaged in here is the criticism itself. I have found criticism to be a god-send for me as it gives me an opportunity to clarify my intentions and evaluate the actions I take to fulfill on the vision and mission I have for my company. Making clear and powerful statements about who I am as a business woman as well as an artist has always served me well – and responding to criticism in a thoughtful and integrity-infused way always makes me stronger.

You are doing that here – both by writing a very thoughtful response to the criticisms, and in providing a place for us all to deepen and further this discussion. This allows each of us to get clear on our own values and standards as it relates to how we will make a living from the work we do.

Thank you for modeling for me/us/your critics the most powerful way to educate and empower your intended audience [whether they be art patrons or clients who are solopreneurs trying to make a go of it in this often less-than-supportive world] – by walking your talk.

Thank you for your commitment to bring to me information that makes a difference in my life.

Thank you for experimenting on my behalf.

Thank you for your integrity in fulfilling on your commitment to your clients – those who pay you and those of us who benefit from the information you provide to us at no charge. I shall keep reading you every day you arrive in my mailbox.

My very best to you,
A.

pascal bouvier · 11 months ago

quite many comments posted here, and i have not even checked the discussions on twitter! the below should be taken with a grain of salt given that i am quite the neophyte regarding social media.

as social media has come to redefine what it means to be a journalist, what it means to be a blogger, and has created whole new genres of professionals, it may be time to redefine and/or create codes of ethics. a redefined journalism code of ethics to address the changes journalists bring about to their profession when entering the blogosphere. a bloggers code of ethics - duh, i am sure many people have thought about this one already. and a social media code of ethics. maybe the latter is the meta code of ethics by now or would fast become one. such a code would at the very least bring understanding and commonality so that infosumers understand the infoproducers world and language they are interacting with, and for infoproducers to benchmark themselves both from a container and content point of view.

Liz Strauss · 11 months ago

Am I surprised by the response to the KMart post? Not for a second.
Would I have been as brave as to be the first to try it in this current social media fishbowl? Only wish I could believe I would have been.

You're a hero to experiment so boldly. I'm fiercely proud that you did.

What a challenge you took on, Chris! I know because I did the same thing last Thursday. The problem of having to spend money and then blog it is possibly the hugest social media challenge I've had so far. It's essence of the social media risk from the company side. I couldn't control the situation. I couldn't be sure that the experience would be positive.

Though my own post doesn't go live until Monday, I already know how it feel to be facing the social media fishbowl.

Last Monday I posted about a client no one has heard of who's doing some amazing things with community building. No one thought a thing about it, though that client pays me quite well. I wonder if the response will be the same this Monday when I post about a national brand who once time gave me a $500 gift card to launch a contest and buy some stuff.

>>>>>>>>>>>
Is the problem here really that folks don't like big companies like KMart, sponsored posts, and IZEA in particular? What happened to community, connectivity, and givers get? Is that we don't want our social media friends to get too much bigger than we are? Other bloggers participated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

More and more I see that we say we want companies to connect with customers, but more and more I see that when they try a certain sector of the establishment of the social media purists look to capitalize on a fault in the attempt. It wasn't big enough, wasn't small enough, was too friendly, wasn't friendly enough, was arrogant. Since when does any conversation go perfectly right on the first attempt?

Social media is about connecting people to people in conversation around our businesses. It's a damn bit harder to be creative doing that than to be creative showing people a new product and saying "It's cool! Buy now!". Finding the ideal ways to connect people in usual conversation around product is a huge experiment in creativity, innovation, and trust. Maybe folks should quit trying to find the ways it's wrong and start working how to help companies do it right.

I'm still waiting to hear how other folks would have run the outreach better and gotten better results.

I say Bravo! Chris, little steps is how we help companies get closer to the model that works. It was fabulous that you were willing to show us "behind the curtain" how you'd go about shopping at KMart with your kids. Your post was everything I admire about you.

Authenticity, trust, compentence, and integrity aren't things we manufacture and sell. People who even suggest that they can be bought don't understand what they're made of.

Nothing anyone says will ever change that.

Jeremiah Owyang · 11 months ago

Thanks Marc Meyer

That's right, I'm just trying to understand all the short term and long term impacts this has to brands like Kmart, Izea, Bloggers, and their readers.

I certainly consider Chris a friend, and continue to respect him. He's testing out new waters, and he's being very upfront about what that means.

There certainly are some rough spots that need to be well thought through so all four parties win (both short and long). I give kudos to Chris for testing it out, being open about it, and helping us learn what works and what doesn't.

I hope people take the time to read what Chris wrote in this post, and try to understand his opinion before making a judgment.

I want to make it clear I'm supportive of Chris

Ed · 11 months ago

This taught me a lot.
No matter how much honest, helpful content you create
and share freely all year, you're out the window at the slightest blink.
I'm surprised "Brogan sucks" didn't trend on search.twitter

I'm not buying it.
I hope YOU dear reader, are bailing from this 'internet thing'.
Go back to the trenches, grind away, and shut up.
do NOT become popular for originating great thinking,
and do NOT be an asshole and give it all away freely,
day after day.
(This includes the thousands of private messages you could exchange,
while helping people for real, for free).

Short memories will be the death of us all.
If the body of a person's work means nothing in an instant,
we're all in a much more precarious situation than just
the imminent risks associated with sustainable growth under recession.

Consider this; if the current voices of the "anal-ists",
can successfully blindside you
despite the tremendous amount of high quality information
you produce all year, indeed, quite literally for years, and especially when you're known for your integrity, then we're risking it all for nothing.

If you dare work your ass off, and gain popularity, be aware
that some jealous pip squeaks will try to deny the rewards you were earning for you and your family.
Oh they'll do it under the guise of "I want openness" or
"I'm an analyst, that's what I do".

Critic, there was a way to intelligently discuss this.
You're no rookie. This was as intended.
But you screwed up;
Brogan wasn't your glass ceiling. He was you chance.

Natasha Wescoat · 11 months ago

I think that people niavely took on this role that has never even been established in social media and try to rebuke you or others for using it any other way. Any good person online watching you and reading your content realizes that you are honest and transparent with everything you offer. And OF COURSE you will only support brands that you believe in, cause you yourself are always preaching AGAINST mindless spamming, etc.

Those that don't, simply are niave individuals who are grasping onto these "mores" that they "think" were created with the birth of Twitter or blogging, and WANT to be against you.

It's the kind of thinking that promotes philosophy's like american fundamentalism. But I don't even want to go there. Been there. Done that.

Ana Lorena Hart · 11 months ago

I love to shop, but I'm generally lousy at it. I think that this is in part because I don't have kids. I strongly believe that dads and moms develop a skill for finding great deals and protecting their family's budgets; so when they speak, I listen. I want our economy to start turning for the better, and we can't do this without trusting corporations such Kmart and the likes.

I respect Chris Brogan and Jeremiah Owyang's work. I follow both of them in Twitter. I click on the links Jeremiah includes and I read everyday what Chris has to say first thing in the morning. Over time, both of them have earned my trust. Their opinion matters. I'm happy both of them are successful.

Now, here's the thing. Honestly, I probably wouldn't have thought about Kmart this Holiday season if it wasn't for Chris' hands on sponsored blog post. Also, through the trail of conversations and links, I finally connected with Wal-mart's 11 Moms Project. I try to find (and like) social media's powerful and practical sides as much as possible; and just like in the non-virtual world, one has to sort the negativity, short-sight, and cheap punches of people who can't get enough thinking-inside-the-box melodrama.

Well, all of that to say...
Chris, thank you for your insatiable curiosity, hands on approach and for giving social media a caring, brilliant, genuine and human face. Many blessings for you and your family. Count me in!
IZEA, go on, break the rules!
Jeremiah, thank you for your smart questions and useful resources.

In community,
Ana.

Brian Monahan, Expert in the R · 11 months ago

Chris,

You are a big brand and you now have experienced the wrath of Twitter and the Blogosphere. Which means you have as much clout as anyone speaking on the topic of crafting and joining the Social Media Conversation.

A lesson for big brands might be this. You cannot always foresee the fallout of even the best intentioned advertisements and marketing campaigns.

This is conversation 101, you listen, your respond, you clarify and sometimes you agree to disagree.

Chris first of all, I trust you. So yes I admit any kind of sponsored post is going to bring up the red flags for me. But you as a trusted marketer, raise the flags for me. Over time your red flags that you raise I learn to trust as long as you do me right.

So the real lesson from this uproar which I admit is that you do business the right way over the long haul, you will be successful.

A sad lesson from this uproar is the social media crowd can be a bit self righteous at times and believe they are the watch dogs and they should create a stir. What they forget when they do this is they come off as toddler throwing a baby tantrum. It is sad because grown up responsible companies need to retract and explain grown up and responsible marketing campaigns.

In the end Chris I trust you and your judgment. I also know you might make a mistake in judgment someday. I am OK with that as well. Your body of work has more than covered you.

Keep experimenting and keeping it real.

Brian Monahan, Expert in the Rough

Adam Singer · 11 months ago

that is some thread of comments...

i'll just say i never thought what you did was wrong, you disclosed it, that's all you have to do. don't let the negative people get to ya.

Jim "Genuine" Turner · 11 months ago

I think this would be a good discussion on my show on Tuesday night. I would invite your Chris and the others to be guests and we can voice our opinions with some calls and really drill deeper into this issue. If you would be interested in voicing your opinion I would be happy to moderate a discussion on my radio show Social Mediasphere (www.blogtalkradio.com/social mediasphere). Perhaps you, Jeremiah, and Barbara and anyone else that wants to give their opinion and take callers. Let me know I wold be happy to get it set up.

Brian Monahan, Expert in the R · 11 months ago

FYI,

I am a new dad and have seen your links to Dad-Omatic over the last few months but never followed them until the Kmart post.

That was my first post I read on the blog and subscribed any way. Your reputation precedes you.

Brian

Simon Salt · 11 months ago

Chris
I think that both you and Robert Scoble have over the past week become victims of your own success. Last week, on a much smaller scale Robert became the focus of a discussion on Twitter over his complaints about Direct Messages. People expected him not to complain, not to have a whinge about something he felt was impacting his ability to use Twitter the way he wanted to use it. Was he the first to complain about something on Twitter - hardly. But he received a lot of negative comments about it - why? Because he is being held to a higher standard. In the same way, if I or any one of the other millions of 'everyday' bloggers were given $500 by an organization and asked to blog about it the likely response would be, "wow, lucky sod, wish that was me". Instead when its THE Chris Brogan, people say, "well how can we trust him now?". What they are really saying, IMHO is, good grief not only does this guy get to travel the country doing cool stuff, now companies want to pay him. How am I ever going to get some of that action if the A listers grab it all. I have written about this before "Celebrity vs Influencer". The masses forget the hard work, the years of being a grunt, the fact that you spend weeks away from your family, the little stuff you miss when you are on the road. Sure you choose to do this stuff, but its an opportunity cost. Personally I say, more power to you. Without trail blazers the rest of us would still be wandering in the wilderness tripping over ourselves. You are following in the footsteps of FDR who said "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something." Chris, for the sake of businesses everywhere, keep trying things.

Carol Deckert · 11 months ago

Hi Chris,

Having been away yesterday, I missed the majority of the tweets regarding this topic, however, I DID read your entire post here. My thoughts are this: First and foremost, everyone, no matter what they attempt to make others believe, is online to make money in some form or another. By simply writing a sponsored ad, from any company, regardless of whether it's K-Mart or Macy's, should make no difference. In the blog post you covered openly and honestly that it was a PAID posting and you made your opinions known. What's wrong with that?

Did that hurt your integrity and reputation? Absolutely not, in my opinion anyway, but what it did show me was more of your ability to analyze and talk about problems and solutions in online or offline promotions.

I say, keep up the good work Chris. I enjoy reading your posts and I learn something from almost every one of them.

Happy Holidays to you and your family,

Carol Deckert
Networking Coach

Susie Blackmon · 11 months ago

As good as you are at what you do, I feel sure the controversy was instigated initially by penis envy. I would beat 'them' up for bashing you if I could, or at the very least, spank 'em.

Alan Wolk · 11 months ago

Chris: Seems your Twitter critics were asking the wrong questions.
What they should have been focused on are these two:

1. Was the promotion an effective use of $500? (e.g. Did having a paid post on your blog actually bring KMart any business? Are your (likely upscale) readers the proper target for (downscale) KMart?

2. What is a blog and how does that affect your opinion of this time of promotion? (e.g. Huffington Post, an online magazine, IMHO, is still referred to as a "blog" - if they had done something similar, would the reaction have been the same? What about something like DailyFix, which is written by a rotating cast? Does it the fact that the paid post came up on a single-author blog make it different?)

Jesse Luna · 11 months ago

Chris, you were transparent on the Kmart post being sponsored and you've followed up with this great post leading the blogging world on the discussion of sponsored posts. What more do people want?

On a different note, as an Internet marketer and advertiser, it's interesting to see the associated promotion cost on this. I think Kmart is getting a massive return on its investment on this promotion.

Josh Fialkoff · 11 months ago

Hi Chris,

I think you're getting a lot of unwarranted flack over the journalistic-ethics aspects of this project. (I say this as someone who worked in newsrooms for a decade).

You clearly labeled your post as sponsored content. You have also built up years of trust as someone who expresses thoughtful, honest opinions.

I do take issue with the strategy however.

I don't understand why Kmart isn't introducing us to longtime customers and showing us why those customers like to shop at the store.

Why would Kmart rather turn to a professional social-media expert than just average shoppers?

Granted, your good name will (and is) draw many visitors to the site.

But wouldn't good information and well-constructed opinions of normal people be attractive to people on the Web?

If the answer to that question is, "No," then I think we have to revisit the purpose of social networking.

In my view, the power of social networking is that peers can influence peers.

The days of top-down marketing are waning.

In its place is information and views generated, shared and rated by anyone with access to the Web and an idea to share.

I just wish Kmart would give its shoppers the same visibility it gave you.

Thanks,
Josh

Alan Wolk · 11 months ago

One other point: this same controversy happened last year with Joe Jaffe and the Nikon promotion. ( http://www.jaffejuice.com/2007/04/nikon_d80_blo... )The biggest ding there was that Jaffe and other marketing bloggers knew nothing about cameras, had never written about cameras, and thus the audience had no reason to give their opinions any validity.

One can assume that you've been to discount stores before and the tone of your Dad blog seems to be very much in keeping with the tone of "my shopping experience in KMart." Not sure if the other bloggers they chose also fit the bill (I'm not familiar with any of them) - but that's also a key question.

Blog Expert · 11 months ago

I definitely wouldn't worry too much about this. It seems like some people are just big babies and can't deal with it. It's basically that they are jealous of your success.

Susan Murphy · 11 months ago

I think this post should pretty much clear up any misunderstanding about how much integrity you have - this is one of the best posts I've ever read from you.

Frankly, I'm getting pretty tired of people confusing journalism with blogging.
There's no reason why we as bloggers should ever feel uncertain about giving our opinion about things. We aren't owned by giant media conglomerates - therefore we have every right to say and do what we want in our own spaces, even if that means doing things that are not necessarily going to please all the people all the time. EVEN if that means doing the occasional, sponsored, fully disclosed post that has a benefit not only to the company for whom you are advertising, but also benefits others. (Wait a minute - what EXACTLY is the issue here?)

We all benefit and learn from your presence here. Keep doing your thing, Chris!

Marr Williams · 11 months ago

To question your integrity for receiving $ from KMART when most product reviews blogs are hoping to make money (either directly or indirectly) is hypocritical and way too cynical - even for me.

Tim Windsor · 11 months ago

Chris,

You are absolutely 100% correct here:

- Commercial and editorial ideals can exist in the same operation. The same brain even.
- It all comes down to ethics and disclosure, both of which are in abundance in your case.

mitchjoel · 11 months ago

Chris has kindly agreed to be on my Podcast, Six Pixels of Separation, later today (which will get published later tonight). If you have any questions for Chris, you can either DM me on Twitter - @mitchjoel or email me your questions/thoughts on this topic: mitch[at]twistimage[dot]com.

One of the main topics is this: "trust is non-transferable".

I'll post the link here too once it is live.

Adele McAlear · 11 months ago

@Chris - oh no! I, myself, don't believe that your position in the social media community should put you above the discussion of money. But, I believe that many people do feel that way. There are most definitely two sets of standards at work here, and they are closely tied with people's perceptions of advertising and ethics. Lucretia Pruitt's post http://poprl.com/8NH makes valid points, as does CK's perspective (in comments) as a marketer on why she's less like to read a sponsored post.



Money isn’t evil. There are lots of ways to be evil around money, but the presence of money isn’t evil.

Nick Johnson · 11 months ago

Chris- People read your blog because they trust your opinions. It's your baby, you are the content. So if you were comfortable with the sponsored post they should be too... and from the looks of the comments they overwhelmingly are.
You fully disclosed the nature of the relationship with Izea/Kmart. It was completely transparent. As a former journalist from one of the nations top 10 newspapers I can say that readers rarely get the same from, so called objective, news sources. And as you point out, you are not held to the same standard by any organization. You choose to uphold it and that is even better!

Ari Herzog · 11 months ago

From "Internet Strategist" in the above comments: I see absolutely nothing wrong with what is CLEARLY LABELED a sponsored post. There are no bought-and-paid-for lies involved. Chris actually DID go shopping at K-Mart and REPORTED on what he did. Where is the conflict of interest in that?

Would the results be different if a $500 gift card was not involved? Would the results be different if it was not a sponsored post, but an organic visit to a retail store? Would the results be different if Chris did not bring his daughter who liked clothes Chris admits he didn't?

Forget social media. Focus on the company-consumer relationship, which some mentioned above. Where is the value of a KMart-sponsored shopping junket when the average consumer is not provided that choice? It's one thing if Chris won the gift card on a radio station promotion; it's different when there is a relationship the typical consumer is not privileged to, and that's where my problem lies.

Mark Drapeau · 11 months ago

This situation strikes me as similar to doctors doing medical research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Generally, this association is declared when they publish scientific papers showing results. It is not always acknowledged; for example, they might not mention it during a 12-minute presentation at a conference. Now, this association doesn’t mean that the research is necessarily wrong or biased, but it does bring the results into question sometimes, especially if other researchers have different data or conclusions. Researchers always want another grant.

Katerina Gasset · 11 months ago

Chris,
You are brilliant. I love your blog. I read every post. There is nothing wrong with sponsored content. Money is energy. It is what we do with it that is good or evil. Money is neither good nor evil.

My blog is all about paying it forward and giving and helping, however, there is no such thing as giving without the desire of payment in one form or another in return.
My goal is to gain new clients, both in coaching and in listings. The end result is that I gain a client through my paying it forward, which I do. To further that end, money will flow to me at the end of the day.

So how are all the other bloggers that are holier than thou eating and feeding their families? If you are blogging full time or near full time there has to be some compensation at the end of the day.

If we are imprisoned in a cell that shouts public service only- how many actual bloggers would there be? I think this is hypocritical in its lowest form when people judge another without due process.

Your history speaks for itself. One post is enough to send out the lynch mob? Where is the honor, integrity and appreciation for all that you provide? Sounds like jealousy too.

I am an affiliate for the clipart that I use in my blogging. My readers were asking me where I get my great clipart from. So I wrote a post with a link to the site. One person came unglued that I would actually make money if they clicked on that link. I am making a whopping less than 9 bucks on each sale and after all that I help and give, this person did not feel I was entitled.

So who is our jury on who is entitled and in what form? And what makes one qualified to be on the jury? Is this payment not allowed to be in money and only in accolades? Every blogger is getting something in return or else they would not be writing. Where service is rendered payment is due in some form or another.

At the end of the day, we all still need to feed our families and get a paycheck, more power to you for doing just that in an innovative and honest way. Thank you.

Christa M. Miller · 11 months ago

I too have been criticized by journalists--because I am a B2B writer putting out "PR fluff." (Actual criticism.) True, I have to highlight the good stuff about products that the magazine advertisers want us to highlight. But I look at my role as bringing the product to the users. It's the users' job to have a conversation about it.

As for journalistic criticism? They all need to remember that their "fair unbiased" reporting is only as good as the sources they get, the language they use, the bits of interview they choose to quote, the photos that go with their articles. Another journalist would approach the same subject in an entirely different way based on their own experiences, their own ways of getting information/sources. No article or blog post is *entirely* bias-free, in other words. It just isn't humanly possible.

Angel Djambazov · 11 months ago

The focus of much of the conversation has been about transparency in this debate. I think that is an important factor but by going directly to transparency many people skip over what should be, in my opinion, the initial question: What is the purpose of the blog?

How a blog defines its editorial purpose impacts what readers expect from it.
If a blog is about the latest "deals" of the week and obviously marketing focused I doubt many readers expect disclosure. If a blog is news focused than readers will expect the difference between editorial and advertorial to be clearly disclosed.

In Chris's case I think it is clear that his blog is focused on helping business establish themselves within the Social Media space. Some of how they establish themselves will be through marketing. Chris clearly disclosed the purpose of the article, so I think that isn't the crux of the issue for readers.

The real issue is that while Chris has been writing a business blog he has infused it with so much of his voice and personality that many readers come back for just that voice. It is independent, smart, vibrant, and everything corporate America is so often not. I think this is the key to the dismay. Despite the fact it is a business blog, readers cringe at such a unique voice being "bought" by Kmart.

Fact is the voice was never for sale. As apparent by this eloquent response that voice will remain independent and vibrant. The discussion of business methods on his blog was what was for sale. It is after all the purpose of the blog.

Lewis Green · 11 months ago

I leave Twitter on during all my office hours, and like Peter, I was completely unaware of any controversy. Here's the bottom line: Social Media is Heavan-sent. It is a tool which we Marketers and Communications pros have to monetize if it is to be a valuable tool in the business world. Companies first objective is to create revenue.

Chris, I say good for you: You get it! To everyone who seems to believe making money is a bad thing and that social media should not be used in that way, I don't know what to say. And, Ari, by Chris blogging about this originally, he opened up an opportunity to all his readers. That is being customer-centric.

Teresa Hall · 11 months ago

Hi Chris,
Bottom line: I trusted you before the sponsored post. I trust you after the sponsored post.

I think the controversy is just a great way for a bunch of folks to have something "newsworthy" to blog about. You were upfront the whole way. you donated practically everything you got (above and beyond) and you gave away a chance for someone to win 500 bucks for Christmas!

You are a true winner in my book!

Candace · 11 months ago

I've been mulling over the same idea you raise about traditional media corporate structure versus new media. Newspapers sell ads, but they have separate staff so few seem to mind (despite the possibility that the need to sell national ads has often stifled and killed-off local news and editors can still be subtly influenced by major sponsors).

So, without become top heavy and hiring separate people to manage these aspects of our blogs and other sites, how do we separate the economic function from the editorial? We deserve to be paid for our expertise and our time and effort, just like editors and journalists, do we not?

I think disclosure, as you say, is a big part of this. But I think that it will still raise a larger trust issue. People come to blogs because they are hoping for a less "corrupted" opinion on some idea or topic or product.

I think this conversation will be going on for a long time.

Ed Welch · 11 months ago

Chris:

I've struggled with this topic for a long time now - looking for a solution - that is. Any time money is mixed with opinion - something odd happens. It seems as though we're "programmed" to view that as a bad thing.

But here's what I believe might be needed - a Seth Godin type solution. You lead a large tribe and that tribe needs to hear a STORY from you that works for them and you. Maybe an interactive story where they know as much about what's going on as you do? Your critics will always look for ways to pick you apart, but make sure you treat your tribe members in a special way.

What if you were to get your tribe involved in the paid posts? Sure, we want to feel connected, important and useful - you can make it happen. Maybe when you're approached by someone to promote their stuff - you say - "I'll try it, and I'll let ____ members of my tribe try it (randomly selected off your permission assets). I'll accumulate their thoughts as well - then I'll make the post." Doing it this way - you'll be viewed in an entirely different way. It will be more like a paid "experiment" rather than a paid advertisement. And, if the people approaching you with a product don't like the risk - you wouldn't want to promote their stuff anyway. Sure, it will have a cost in time and effort, but I believe the rewards would be greater than the cost in the long run......

Just thoughts,

Ed

Meg · 11 months ago

After reading your post, reading the comments, reading a few of the related posts, and ruminating on my experience as both a blogger and someone who works within the social media AND marketing spaces, only one thought really came to mind: "Y'all don't have bigger things to be concerned about?"

The purpose of the campaign was pretty obvious to me. $500 doesn't go too far in most stores nowadays, save for maybe Wal-Mart. K-Mart and Wal-Mart are competitors, clearly (full disclosure: I haven't been into either store in years -- I prefer Target).

K-Mart wants to establish they can give you value for purchases big and small, whether you are clearing out your Christmas list, or stocking up on what your family needs to get through the winter. The number isn't the point -- it's what you can do with it. Scale the budget up or down, but K-Mart is trying to position themselves as a company that gets how much Americans need to get for their dollar. That's what it looks like to me, as a marketer.

You can quibble about amounts, writing style, the nature of the campaign until you're blue in the face, and people have been doing that with marketing and advertising for years. But the only responsibility you have is to be honest and open about what you were up to, and you fulfilled that.

Does it take away from the rest of your posts? No way. I'd assume if you did another post like that, you'd tell me it was sponsored, just like you did with this one. And if sponsored posts weren't my bag, I wouldn't read it -- I'd just move on to the next thing you were talking about.

You aren't responsible to throw yourself at the mercy of every piece of ideology your readers can come up with. If you felt fine about it, then sail on. That's what blogging is about -- personal discretion, and then others opt in or out as they choose.

Michelle / chelpixie · 11 months ago

You were crystal clear that you were doing a sponsored post and practiced what you preach. I don't see the breach of trust everyone else is up in arms about.

I don't know about anyone else, but I found it disturbing to read the comments on the Dad-o-matic post versus the actual piece.

thom singer · 11 months ago

What I have learned here is that people seem to think if you take money and crap all over the sponsor then you are cool and legit. If on the other hand you take money and say anything good, then you are somehow no longer legit.

I dont get it.

My take is that Chris took the money and then went on to write what he experienced. The fact he had a good time taking his kids to the store is not such a foreign concept to a parent. Taking my kids on a shopping spree at any store would be fun for the kids -- thus fun for the dad. That is what he wrote.

This whole thing is officially now blown out of size.

My last comment on this to anyone is:

1. Social media is not now and never will be pure of sponorship or ad dollars. There is a growing audience and thus corporations want in on it. This is not some new world order. Humans are still humans, and social media does not really change the basic nature of how business and relationships works. Different, yes...... a whole new social order...NO.

2. Bloggers are not journalists and are not tied to traditional journalistic "rules". A blog is a giant opinion page. I get to say what I put on my blog. You get to read it or not.

3. When someone with a platform as large a Chris Brogan gets on TOP.... there are always people who will want to take shots. Many will take these shots while acting like "friends". Others will just be mean spritied. This is part of the way human nature has always worked.... and this proves that social media platforms are no different than any other social structures. The difference is transparency and Chris seem to be keeping up that end of the bargain.

PS - I dont know Chris and have no reason to defend him other than I agree with him on this highly charged issue.

Jennifer James · 11 months ago

Chris --

I totally get why you did it --- now. From a consulting perspective I think it's valuable insight, especially for those of us who deal with these sorts of issues on a daily basis.

When I saw the post, I originally couldn't put my finger on why you were doing it. But I figured it was because as a dad blogger it was just one of the marketing options you offer to companies. I was cool with that. In fact, I entered your giveaway.

Then again, I had never seen anyone with your Net notoriety do a sponsored post like this before. It threw me.

That said, I always love to hear both sides of this debate. Our medium and the way in which we interact with marketers is always in flux. I do admire you for testing the waters and taking some flack for it. I'll continue to be a reader, subscriber, follower, etc because how will we ever know what works and what doesn't if the smart ones don't give it a whirl?

John Carson · 11 months ago

Hey CB,

I've logged in from vacation in the U.K. to catch up on all this. Keep up the good work.

JC.

Marti · 11 months ago

@patmcgraw, comment #59. You said the KMarts in your area are old and poorly maintained. I used to think the same thing, but the store in my area has recently been remodeled and cleaned up, something I wouldn't have known if I hadn't decided to give them a "second look" due to Chris' original post.

I think KMart is making a smart move by trying a new method of "connecting" with their customers (and potential customers, who, like you, have a negative image).

As far as what Chris did, I agree wholeheartedly with everything he said. Bloggers need to find ways to make money - as many commenters mentioned, the blogging community preaches "do what you love and the money will follow" so it is hypocritical for anyone to complain that "making money" is suddenly crude or tainted in some way. Everyone needs to make a living. It's hard to find a blog these days that doesn't have Google ads on it. Chris was honest and transparent about the gift card and the reason for the original post. Many people consider him an "evangelist" for social media. Well, even evangelists pass the hat after a sermon. There was no deception. I'm sure if he'd found the store to be dirty and poorly stocked, that is the review he would have written. His honesty is, in my opinion, above reproach.

@Alan Wolk, comment #90. "Did having a paid post on your blog actually bring KMart any business?". Yes, I went and spent a little money there, and sent my mother-in-law who spent over $100 (and had also written off KMart before I told her about my visit, which was prompted by Chris' post). And she told my aunt, who went and purchased some items. That's three customers, all going to a store they ordinarily wouldn't have. As far as your "upscale/downscale" notion, in these troubled economic times, I think saving money is no longer a class-defined option - I parked next to a Mercedes on my visit.

I support Chris in his post and rally to his defense as an honest man who is testing the waters in the brave new world of trying to find ways to connect customers and companies via social media. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact it is a bold move that I heartily applaud.

Big hugs to you, Chris!

Martin Diano · 11 months ago

I do not believe there was a need to justify your actions, Chris. If readers of your blog sensed you were working them over, they'd leave. Your readership is quite large and apparently loyal.

You reacted to the trust charge against you out of emotion. I'd probaby do the same. But the words you have been writing on your blog over the years speaks volumes about how you help people better understand social media.

I sat in on a presentation that you and Mr. Owyang gave about two years ago. There seemed to be quite a synergy between the both of you back then. Was there a falling out between the two of you? A friend might have approached you personally, rather than use a public venue about a sponsored post.

Keep up the fine work.

Martin

Alan Wolk · 11 months ago

@marti - I was highlighting questions people should have been asking. Not making definitive statements of doubt.

But glad to get an actual answer nonetheless. I personally think the Dad blog is a very good vehicle for KMart since its slant is decidedly middle-of-the-road, middle American and not coastal urban elite- the very sort of more upscale shoppers who may turn to KMart during a recession.

And to answer my own question - the post did not seem out of context on the Dad blog either the way the Nikon posts seemed out of context on JaffeJuice.

kallan · 11 months ago

Kia ora Chris.

Wow, coincidence or not, I'm with you on this.
I think you've just about said it all.

Catchya later
from Middle-earth

Alex Howard · 11 months ago

Can you imagine a world where every big brand had a blogger that responded to online criticism as thoroughly and transparently as you did here, Chris? If politicians and business leaders addressed the concerns of the electorate about trust, authenticity and representation? Unfortunately, there are very few individuals who have the experience, motivation and skill to respond to and embrace this kind of controversy, especially when your intent and actions were clearly positive and disclosed. I'm glad you've found a way to both learn from and share your insights about the social media storm that blew up around your experiment with Kmart -- but then that's always been your method here. Ask provocative questions, listen with care, learn from the experience and share your insights. Thank you for doing what you do.

Michael Martine - Remarkablogg · 11 months ago

Well, jeez, after 116 comments, I'm kind of a drop in the ocean here, but I'd like to add that it's well-known that growing your audience, reach, and influence makes it easier to make money in all kinds of ways.

If some of those ways hinder your audience growth, they should be abandoned. I don't care what the methods are, I care what the results are. And notice I didn't say "upset your audience" I said "hinder its growth."

What this means is that for some people, sponsored posts will work and for some, they won't. Results, not methods (don't confuse these with means/ends--not the same thing).

Keep exploring, Chris.

Ivan Brezak Brkan · 11 months ago

This is why I follow your blog. In depth, to the point and just damn interesting. Don't have time to pitch in my thoughts ATM, but having been on both sides of the editorial/advertorial battleground (working as a PR manager as well as a journalist) I'll share this article to both sides. They might learn a thing or two. Thank you Chris.

Dennis McDonald · 11 months ago

Arthur Godfrey did it, Willard Scott did it, C. Everett Koop did it, why can't Chris Brogan do it?

People should stop being so sanctimonious about condemning the selling of access to trusted communication channels.

As long as there is disclosure and it is possible to shut off access to advertising channels we no longer trust, it's fine with me.

Dennis McDonald
Alexandria, Virginia
http://www.ddmcd.com

Mistress Mia · 11 months ago

Just because you are for rent does not mean you are for sale.

@toddlucier · 11 months ago

New media is changing business relationships. I have a number of thoughts so I'll just list them:
1. It's the audience that matters. In this case, it's not the social media community that matters, but the viewers of the blog the content was produced for. What has the response been from readers of Dadomatic? Are they feeling put off? Misled? flummoxed? or have they enjoyed the content and appreciated the story?
2. It's about stories. Businesses need stories. Media stories aren't free. Businesses pay for exposure in the time and energy that goes into media releases and relationship-building with media. The old model needs to change because now more than ever, businesses needs their stories told online. That means there is an untapped market for video, audio, photo and text journalism. Someone has to pay for this content? What stories do the audience want to hear? How do they want them produced? How do they want to reward the content creator? Return to #1.
3. Authenticity: Chris did a great job in the article of telling a story, linking to relevant content, sharing photos, and laid out the scenario. Curious how the readers perceived the authenticity? Return to #1.
4.Sell, Sell, Sell?: Gary Vee implores his fans to buy his wine every day, in fact, multiple times a day. Does it influence the credibility of his Winelibrary.tv? Sure he shares his regular distaste for many wines and doesn't pull any punches, but couldn't this be perceived as an act by an outsider just to drive up sales volume of his wine so he can buy the Jets? Return to #1.
5. Why do we create content?I wouldn't provide all kinds of free advice if there wasn't a way to monetize it. I do it that by leveraging my content for paid presentations for which I charge a premium. Does this fact bring into question my journalistic integrity or influence the types of stories I choose to write about, the type of people I choose to interview for podcasts? I'm writing so that I get paid . . . Others choose advertising, making sales or being a paid employee - all of which could call in the credibility police. Again it goes back to point #1. Does the content serve the needs of the audience? I care about my audience and produce stuff with their needs in mind. Return to #1.

So the kernal of the matter is this. Every day we produce content for our audience. How does our audience want to pay for the content? For many audiences, moving the payment option to the wallets of someone else seems to be the best solution. Thanks Chris for being at the forefront and trying new monetization models. The Web changed the economics of the recording industry, now it's changing the economics of journalism. Are we surprised?

What does the future hold? An increasing demand for customer-focused content! Who's going to pay for it?

Jean Breheney · 11 months ago

Bravo, Chris! I read you because you're extremely clear in your point of view. You're unafraid to ask questions, and you really listen to the answers, even when they're not simply reinforcing your position. Is that anything less, because it's online, than the standard we've always expected from traditional media? Seems to me that honesty and transparency are the same powerful tools online as off -- and the same responsibilities reside with the reader to decide whom to believe.

BarbaraKB · 11 months ago

For me, it wasn't your blog posts it was the *constant* presence of K-Mart in my Twitter stream, and not just from you. Perhaps it would not have bothered me so much if it was from a store I visited and liked. But K-Mart? They've all left my city.

chrisbrogan · 11 months ago

@Barbara - yeah, that part of the campaign was a bit rough. It was killing MY tweetdeck. Ping ping ping every time a retweet. Someone said it was like the crushing crowds of Black Friday for the Internet. I feel for everyone on that part.

Heather in Beautiful BC · 11 months ago

Nice follow up Chris - this controversy is certainly snowballing, which is great for Kmart and bloggers alike.

I'm still laughing at your line: 'I invite you to go elsewhere'.

olivier blanchard · 11 months ago

Specifics aside - since the heart of the matter seems to be a question of whether or not a social media / new marketing evangelist should also plug products for a fee - let's all chill for a second.

We all have our preferences when it comes to products and brands. Some we love and some we hate - and some we are indifferent to. I wouldn't dream to compare myself to Chris as I have neither his readership nor his influence, but I have also found myself endorsing companies and brands these last few years, for several very good reasons. Some, I endorsed without being paid or remunerated in any way. Others were clients, so I suppose in some way, that makes me a bit of a shill in some purists' minds. Yet, a shill I am not, and neither is Chris.

I can't speak for Chris, but I would venture to guess that like me, he wouldn't take on a client he didn't believe in. I would also venture to say that Chris, out of sheer professionalism and integrity, if not self-preservation, wouldn't sell his name to just anyone. To suggest that he did is a little silly, to put it mildly.

When I speak of how much I love to hang out at Liquid Highway (a South Carolina-based chain of coffee shops which donate all of their after-tax profits to charity), I do so with absolutely zero compensation from LH. These guys don't pay me. I give them publicity and I endorse them because I love their coffee, enjoy spending time there, and believe in their business model.

When I speak of Hincapie Sportswear or Carolina Triathlon, however, the relationship is a little different. They both have been clients at one time or another. I have a professional relationship with these two companies that transcends my personal preference for doing business with them as a consumer. Does that make me a shill? Some of you may think so... but the truth is that I would shop there and wear their gear even if they weren't clients, and so my endorsement really has little to do with the fact that they are clients. I may be going out on a limb here, but I would venture to say that Chris' endorsement(s) might fall along the same lines.

I wonder if so many of you would have reacted the same way had Chris endorsed Apple or Nike or BMW or Cartier or Whole Foods instead. Maybe many of you can't fathom that someone as cool and visionary as Chris would say something positive about an "uncool" corporate brand like Kmart? Maybe this is more an issue of projection than ethics? Maybe your reaction stems more from your own perception of the Kmart brand not meshing with someone of Chris' integrity and forward looking tastes? Just maybe?

Give it some thought.

There is a difference between selling out (being a shill) and endorsing clients when we believe in what they are doing. The money transaction really has very little to do with it. Context and intent are what really matter.

Maybe Tiger should turn down Nike. Maybe then, he would be a better, more believable golf champion?

Take a step back and get some perspective, guys. ;)

rickbutts · 11 months ago

Don't feed these trolls.

I'm all for open debate - but sadly, too many of these dip-s**ts are using your bandwidth to annoy serious people and try to get some sort of pathetic attention for their pointless points.

Rick Butts
IMHBAO
"In my humble but accurate opinion"

Steve Tiano · 11 months ago

Chris, I don't see it as Trust with a capital T, as in ever believing anything you say. But if nothing besides getting paid ever made you step into a K-Mart AND you never went there again, I'd be inclined to not put much stock in any kind words you used about K-Mart.

Wouldn't mean you're a bad person. But all the sycophantic falling over themselves, jumping in with the "me, too" support seems to kind of miss that point a little.

Russell Thomas (3rddeadline/Tw · 11 months ago

Chris, isn't this exactly where many of us in media and social media want this industry to go??? Your experience and knowledge of the tools we all use have opened the door to where corporate types come to you (and others) for guidance on how to explore the social media world effectively. What is the issue? As long as you are honest enough to disclose how you are involved in a corporate campaign, your posts are legitimate. There is no deception and no selling out.

The previously little-known online/blogging culture has arrived onto the big corporate stage in a unique way, and like any other phenomenon that forces people to go into an unfamiliar direction, some cannot adapt as quickly as others.

Keep experimenting and pushing the envelope, Chris. It's how we all grow on this crazy thing called the web.

Kyle Judkins · 11 months ago

I really like what you are doing, Chris. I think that you can't have a full perspective on every way to monetize or work on the web without trying it out first. I also think you can do paid posts and still maintain your integrity.

Andrew Arnold · 11 months ago

Chris,

Great post.You are one of the most credible people writing about social media today and anyone who thinks otherwise needs their heads examining.

Critics ought to consider that it was your 'secondary brand' that wrote about K-Mart not the main, consultancy brand.

Shashi Bellamkonda · 11 months ago

Hi Chris,

I had to do a lot of hard work to get here ( So many pages of comments to scroll through :) ) . In my opinion there is no loss of trust or credibility and this post is a classic example of how to clarify points to the community

I am a email subscriber so i see your post as one of the first emails I get every morning, When I saw the Epay post, i did not even lookat it as a Sponsored post but read it to see if i have any use for EPay. Knowing you and credibility you have with me I am sure and expect your blog will only contain posts about products or services that you have experienced or believe in. ( sponsored or otherwise) This is tongue in cheek but if you write about anti virus software ( sponsored or not) I will buy that brand. Just like I would buy things that Kim Komando recommends.

Thanks again for being there and advising me for free when I had questions at a cost of your personal time.

Best Regards,

Shashi

BarbaraKB · 11 months ago

So, did IZEA learn from the ping ping, Chris? Sure hope so cause "that" was the annoying part in all of this for many @ Twitter.

Enriqueta · 11 months ago

Hey Chris,
I appreicate the time you took to answer critics, it's one the things that sets you apart.I am so very new to this medium, I see were an everchanging groups interacting in/on social media mediums. As somone just noted it's like in life your intentions...

I think if there was half of the transparentcy in your writing in our Goverment we would have very little to worry about. I appreciate your incite on all things Social Media, I have learned a great deal in the few short moths of reading your work...keep it up!

DaveMurr · 11 months ago

Someone shared the post from IZEA, I read it and thought - huh.. cool, more companies are trying to figure out social media. And then I saw that you were one of the bloggers who participated and my immediate thought was - cool, he's always helping people.

I guess "sponsored" is the the new four letter word.

Last I looked there wasn't a rule book for all this. If there is one someone needs to share it!

Darren Daz Cox · 11 months ago

I think that K-Mart gets points for even knowing who Chris Brogan is, they are obviously looking in the right place to re-build their brand. Heck, they could have paid him to try on socks and still seen a worthwhile return on their investment! Well done Chris!

Corinne Edwards · 11 months ago

Dear Chris -

I read everry one of your posts although I seldom comment because when you are through, you have said it all.

I read this one in disbelief. I even printed it out and made a cup of coffee and read it again - because I could not believe the flack you were getting.

I used to hear things like this in the seventies when every spritual type felt obligated to give away their services - or they would get no points in Heaven.
This is back to the "Age of Aquarius"

But now? When we need to make money - so we can spend it - so that someone has some work???

Incredible.

Stop defending yourself. It is not selling a Senate seat as we are faced with in Illinois. Just stop.

It is ridiculous.

Especially since you declared clearly that it was a sponsored post.

I think you are one of the most generous people on the Internet.

When I had a massive flood in my house after Hurricane Ike and could even think - much less write a post -

I read your article that day. You said if anyone need a post, use any of yours for just a link.

I owe you - or someone else - for the favor.

Keep up the great work. Make money.

And show us how.

mtlbbg · 11 months ago

@chrisbrogan - Never said conflict, I said undermines the whole thing. Nor did I did say you were competing for the gift cards that would be given out. I’ve said before, anyone wants to make something from their blogging efforts? Go for it.

I’m referring specifically to the initial $500 you were given to spend. Fair compensation for any blogger? Sure. But sitting on a board of the agency that compensated you to promote a promotion that it also came up with is the issue.

I asked a specific question regarding legal approval because I’ve worked for enough promotional agencies/major brands to know how restrictive they are, especially to anyone remotely associated with the agency running the promotion.

paul · 11 months ago

I believe Kmart and Sears should be blogging and engage in a conversation with their customers. I just learned that they are at http://www.sk-you.com/

Debra Legg · 11 months ago

I have absolutely no problem with the way you conducted this, Chris. As far as I'm concerned, you were above-board ethically from the beginning, and this is coming from someone with two decades in MSM.

The key for me: Transparency. Your made it abundantly clear that this was a sponsored post. That's all the disclosure I need.

Where I was concerned, though, was in other bloggers who might get only half your message (that sponsorship is OK) without catching the rest of it (the sponsorship must be disclosed.)

I see it often on Twitter: Bloggers begging for bling so they can "review it." I check the sites, and their sites never disclose that the review was in exchange for free product. Then comes another tweet stream with bloggers inquiring what to do if someone gives them a product and they don't like it. Should they review anyway? In my mind, yes, and mention the draw-backs. Otherwise, their recommendations have no credibility with me.

You, however, are not responsible for anyone who gets only half the message and subsequently says "If it's good enough for Chris Brogan, it's good enough for me." If they're not following both the principles you do -- transparency AND sponsorship -- then I won't be reading their blogs.

Heather White · 11 months ago

Your intelligence and integrity about this issue is impressive, but not surprising. It is clear why you have been the voice of social media for so long and helped to bring it to its current level of engagement. I believe others will follow your actions as a model for their behavior. These kinds of discussions showcase the amazing interaction social media allows.

Mike Marshall · 11 months ago

While you do point out that your position on the advisory board is 'unpaid', I think it's worth actually pointing out the quote from Ted Murphy on his blog that says

"In the interest of disclosure and transparency I would like to share that each of these advisors have been granted options in the company for their time and contribution. None of them are receiving any cash payment, they all benefit by moving the company forward."

http://blog.izea.com/2008/10/introducing-the-iz...

So, it's not totally altruistic here is it. You received money from KMart and you advanced a venture that you have stock options in.

KyNam Doan · 11 months ago

I am a little surprised by the assault on your credibility. You made it very clear that it was a sponsored post so I naturally came to the conclusion that you would do so for every future post.

I think that your critics have completely missed the point. You are right to have written that post because it is both a learning opportunity and what we have been demanding of businesses. I thoroughly enjoyed your post and have learned much from this new walk that they're walking.

Jonathan Fields · 11 months ago

When I came out of law school a really long time ago, I started as an enforcement attorney at the SEC, policing the capital markets. And, what I learned very quickly was that if you raise $100 million dollars and you tell people your investment objective is to spend their money on chipped beef, fancy cars and risky bets that nobody in their right minds would ever place, and they still give you their money...you're pretty much in the clear.

Because the harm is not in the act of taking money, it's in the act of taking money without adequate disclosure. The securities laws are fundamentally about transparency. Same with the FTC regs. Because it's not so much the act regulators are concerned about, it's the hiding.

So, no, I don't see any issue with taking as much money as you like, fully disclosing it, saying your piece, then letting readers weight whether they believe the money biased your content or not.

In fact, now that I think about it, why would I ever give somebody else the right to pass judgment on whether I, as a reader, get to determine the relative value or bias of someone else's content? Who appointed somebody else my guardian, my sensor. Did I elect someone and just forget?!

Last I heard, CNET was making some jack on the back of their massive library of reviews. And, you know what, I still want to read them. A lot of great bands can only afford to tour, because some beer company sponsored their tours. And, damn it, I still love their music...and I'd still love it even they drank their sponsor's beer. Artists have sponsors. Athletes have sponsors. People who create, lead, teach, inspire and inform at the highest levels get paid by others to use and promote their stuff.

And, the reason is, because if you want to ability to do great things or share in the great things created by others, somewhere in the food chain...somebody's gotta pay.

Great content takes effort. Great content changes minds. Great content changes actions, philosophies and lives. It takes a hell of a lot of work to create great content on daily basis, especially if you've got a life and a job beyond that.

So, who are we...who am I...to deny those who'd create such value the opportunity to somehow be compensated for it? Who am I to sit here and judge people like Chris Brogan for working to figure out how to serve his community, do what he loves and put food on the table for his family?

You want to ask questions, go ahead. Ask questions. But, if you want to pass judgment, how about this--come up with a better approach, figure out how to keep people like Chris delivering consistent killer content, while being able to live well in the world and support his family.

Don't just point out the issues. Provide better solutions. Do that and you earn the right to sit at the table.

Jeremiah Owyang · 11 months ago

Chris, I've blogged my thoughts on Izea, would love to hear your opinion

http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2008/12/14/u...

Bernie Borges · 11 months ago

Chris,
Your disclosure on the Kmart post is all I need. It's almost comical that people would even question your integrity. I love your point about how you give us all your stuff for free. So true! You have to make a buck as we all do. You didn't do anything questionable to make this buck.

Everyone who interacts with you on Twitter or on your blog earns a buck somehow. Most are trying to monetize the social web. Some are succeeding and many are not. Talking about legitimate ways to monetize the social web in the face of a poor economy is very healthy. Rather than skirt the issue, you're both talking about it and exploring ways to do it. You're not alone.

rockandrollmama · 11 months ago

Hey Chris,
I value the transparency you've shown, and think as this medium continues to grow and evolve, it continues to be ever more obvious that you can't please everyone. Keep doing what you're doing, brother.

As someone who went to Journalism school when the internet was a nascent creation (Graduated 02) the fascinating part of this post is your publisher/reporter analysis. I never thought about it in quite those terms, but it is the crux of the matter. I once had the privilege of sitting in a room with the late Katharine Graham while she described the internet as "the Electronic Threat" to her beloved Washington Post, and all newspapers. "No one," she said, "Has figured out how to make money in newspapers on this thing."

And companies are still trying, which is what they do. And the ones that do it transparently, and interact with folks like you who are doing the same, are the ones who will find a way, in my opinion. because they get that this is about a conversation. Thanks for the food for thought.

Laurent LaSalle · 11 months ago

There's a big difference with talking about a product without notifying others that you are doing in as an advert and making sure that their financial involvment is well known. You clearly indicated in the post title that it was sponsored, so in my mind, anyone who sees controversy in your action is delusional.

As you said, stating that one cannot be editorial-minded and manage a sponsorship is saying that humans can't separate their perspectives appropriately. Hence, if that's the case, this whole argument is useless...

Mary · 11 months ago

Okay - I sped through this post and may be missing something ... but I come here to learn how to make money on the Internet. I see that you - uh - made money. Your credibility with me has risen ...

David Jones · 11 months ago

As a PR guy, I have never once suggested that a client pay for sponsored posts on blogs. If you can't earn your way on to the blog based on a strong story, compelling pitch and value to the reader, then what's the point?

Aggregating an audience based on you and your content is a precious asset. Turning around and selling that audience and supplying them content that they don't want or expect from you leaves me cold. But that's just me. When Jaffe sold a podcast episode for an iPhone, Monty asked readers to buy him a snowblower, and Delaney asked his readers to buy him a new MacBook Pro, it eroded the respect I had for those guys.

In this case, I'm willing to believe that you're experimenting and that you always intended to give away the $500, but that's really neither here nor there. Ultimately, it's your choice, your blog, your readers. You do what you want and see what happens. Good discussion ensues and we all learn something.

mitchjoel · 11 months ago

Sometimes things get lost with words on the page. I just finished an amazing conversation with Chris that I recorded and just posted as part of the latest episode of Six Pixels of Separation. Here's Chris Brogan discussing the whole scenario and how he's feeling about it: http://www.twistimage.com/blog/archives/spos-13...

(thanks for the time Chris).

chrisbrogan · 11 months ago

@David - um, that's because you're in the "earned" media side of business. Of course you don't advocate that. That's why you're not a marketer.

I'm both. I'm special. : )

I'm a communicator. Fuck the word "marketing," the word "PR" (or the abbreviation), the word "reporter." I'm a communicator. I'm building connections and transmitting data. When the data is unduly influenced, I call it out.

JohnAtkinson · 11 months ago

The people who you care about trusting you will always trust your judgement. Please keep experimenting!

Ari Herzog · 11 months ago

Twitter messages are limiting, sometimes.

Agreeing with you that marketing and public relations and advertising and journalism and every other variant of those words are changing focus as quickly as the coming storm, I concur that impact is powerful and important.

I disagree, however trivial, with your usage of a curse in your last comment (number 155).

I respect you, Chris. A lot. You're my hero, remember?

But you're not merely a communicator. If you were just a communicator, you would not have received as many comments and trackbacks as this post received.

You're about much more than communication. You're a publisher. You said it yourself. I'd go so far as argue you're a suggester. With a single word, you can suggest and inspire people to publish their own content.

I'm all for impact. Perhaps I'm being trivial focusing on one word, but you don't need to curse to impart impact, Chris. You already have my trust.

chrisbrogan · 11 months ago

Related to cursing, it's something everyone has an opinion about. I'm sure not everyone loves it. My mom sure doesn't.

Eric Rice · 11 months ago

In the real world, no one would give a shit about the ethics, instead that it was freaking KMART, and not someplace cooler. ;)

Also, I was in a paid-to-blog program about a million years ago (2005). The arguments and drama were the same then.

History repeats, and moves on, like history does.

Ross Kimbarovsky · 11 months ago

"It is easy to follow, but it is uninteresting to do easy things. We find out about ourselves only when we take risks, when we challenge and question." Magdalena Abakanowicz (Polish sculptor).

There will always be naysayers. Thomas Fuller said it best: "No garden is without its weeds."

Shannon Ehlers · 11 months ago

Hey Chris,

I didn't read all the comments this time and I only skimmed the post to get the general idea. Basically, all you need to do is acknowledge that these people are there, and then ignore them. This post was almost too much - as if you aim to legitimize these folks. If the acknowledge and ignore trick doesn't work, try just ignoring. No need to even address this. When you are too commercial, you will know it. And you will fix it. Be well.

Shannon

David Jones · 11 months ago

@chrisbrogan

I hear what you're saying about being agnostic re "earned vs. paid" if the end goal is simply just communicating. However, influence and trust are earned on a person-by-person basis. Putting a price on that strikes me as cynical. Just think of the dollars Oprah could command for her book club and favourite things antics? She'd still be communicating, she'd still be making connections and there would be disclosure, but most people wouldn't trust her recommendations as much.

Paul Gillin · 11 months ago

You did what journalists have been doing for the past century. The difference is that you disclosed it.

During my years as a journalist, I was frequently offered all-expense-paid trips to resort destinations by technology vendors and trade organizations eager for visibility. I wasn't allowed to accept them, but some of my colleagues in the business were, and few bothered to tell their readers who funded their junkets. European journalists flocked to the events because few of them had conflict-of-interest policies.

Top TV journalists command fees in the tens of thousands of dollars to give speeches or host corporate events. Is this disclosed when they mention those same companies on the air? Not that I've ever seen.

Edward R. Murrow had to mention his sponsor in every program, but at least people knew where he stood. The key is disclosure. Your blog entry was mostly positive, but not entirely so. I thought it was credible. Someone else might disagree, but at least they know because you disclosed the circumstances. That certainly shouldn't cast doubt on everything else you say.

Thanks for fighting the good fight.

Bloggeries · 11 months ago

Why wouldn't you take part in it? You never know the true reasons why someone criticizes someone else. I saw nothing wrong and if anything was envious I didn't get one. You disclosed it; gave something away to members seems like a win win to me.

Deb@Bird On A Wire · 11 months ago

Chris, thanks for your open and honest approach to both the sponsored post and this article. Transparency is key for all of us. Especially for those of us in "trusted" positions. I'm finding you're setting the bar for what we should be doing and I like that! Thanks again. You've struck home before and you've done it again!

@mwyn · 11 months ago

Interesting. I skimmed the Dad-o-Matic post the other day and I'm now just catching up with the response to it. I'm deliberately not going back to the original post so I don't start over-analyzing and stay with my gut impression of the original, which is the one that most matters:

The original post left me feeling confused. I felt like there was an end result in mind and then an experiment was designed to take the me, the reader, through a process (a funnel?) to get to that result. I think Chris awesomely executed doing that because he's so warm, smart, enthusiastic, authentic and natural. I think it was the strategy that felt force-fitted and that left me with a feeling of "what's going on here?". In a way, Chris's disclosures added to my impression. I was in no way turned off to Chris, but did feel resistant to the process. Conversely, I'm a strategist so I see and feel things through that lens.

My gut reaction to skimming Chris's response and the comments are:

- Chris works so freakin hard and I admire him so much but maybe trying too hard can be a problem in this space?
- "Renting my audience" feels like the real disclosure. Should it have been? Could it have been?

Chris, you're a treasure so I hope you can separate the personal from the learning. This is how we learn - so thanks!

Susan Payton, The Marketing Eg · 11 months ago

Chris--
A little controversy never hurt a blogger! Still, I think the reason you've been on blast is that people keep trying to apply old rules to the new game. And they just can't. There is no rule saying you can't do a sponsored post (and as a reader, I trust you enough to do one you believe in, not just to make a quick buck).

It's like a relationship. Your readers have to know you well enough to trust your reasons in doing something. If they don't, well, they weren't committed to you anyway.

Keep doing what you do. Give people something to complain about!

Susan

Mark Krupinski · 11 months ago

Great post and conversation.

Is been interesting to watch the concept of "pay per post" evolve over the past 2 years in addition to the Community's initial reaction to it. Anyone remember Jason Calacanis at the Blog Business Summit in 2006?

Since I live in Central Florida, I always find it sad when I come across the consistent negativity around Ted and IZEA.

People always pass judgment by pointing to the "initial" launch of Pay Per Post - talk about "crowd sourcing". Yet, they completely fail to give him credit on the changes he's made and the successes he's had over the past 2 years.

It's great to see love? and acceptance? being shown his way.

Personally, I do not agree with everything he has and is still doing. But this is just part of the paradigm shift that we're all experiencing in the rise of the groundswell.

The concept's also a no-brainer for certain businesses to explore once they decide to incorporate social media.

I remember the first time I saw SocialSpark at BarCamp Orlando 2008. I thought and still think it's pure genius - I would just argue its ahead of its time.

Just like the other initiatives the Ted's brought to the table.

Anyway, great post.

BTW: I'm not getting paid for this comment ;)

Simon Kuo · 11 months ago

I agree completely about the point you make that "I'm not a journalist-I'm a publisher." Social Media by nature includes the injection of opinion, which in my opinion puts it in a different category than journalism. So the aim isn't merely presenting only facts and working hard to be objective. By nature you want people NOT to be objective-though the larger question might be how sponsorships fit into our own online identity. Are we all our public persona or are we who we are? I think people struggle because this medium crosses traditional boundaries.

chrisbrogan · 11 months ago

@Mark has a great point. The past was 2 years ago. Are you still being held to your experience level 2 years ago? Because as far as I know, that cuts down the number of people in this conversation who were even IN the social media space back then. Great point, Mark.

KarenSwim · 11 months ago

Chris, I honestly don't see the big deal. You disclosed the sponsorship which is a step that many do not take. Where's the controversy? If I follow the line of thinking of "purists" then we are only to trust those not influenced by money? We are all influenced by something, we all have biases there is no such thing as a "pure" perspective. We can only seek to be balanced and fair. Should we not trust bloggers who are influenced by relationships? Or search engines? Good golly, sometimes we create stuff out of nothing in cyberspace.

Michael Buechele · 11 months ago

This is a beautiful post. Very well thought out and communicated. I have no problem with a blogger who writes paid posts, every so often, if it's honest and fully disclosed. I like the idea that anyone, a "blogger mom" if you will, can create something like a celebrity endorsement. I keep thinking about Michael Jordan eating Big Macs on McDonald's commercials. Am I supposed to believe that a world class athlete is chowing down burgers before a big game? There is much more honesty in Chris's Kmart post. Also, I've met Ted Murphy and Ashley from IZEA, and they do get it.

dean guadagni · 11 months ago

Chris,

Well done man, well done!

1. Disclosure was provided beyond question; where is the trust issue?
2. You open the door for more bloggers to get paid (by companies) for their opinions, insights, and posits.
3. What on earth is wrong with monetizing, with disclosure, while advising a company in the process?

The people up in arms may want to check their indignation at the door. With the economy crumbling, the number of unemployed job seekers at the worst level in decades, and contraction nearly everywhere it's great to see positive efforts to support ourselves and social media being demonstrated!

Brad P. from NJ · 11 months ago

Hey, Chris. Thanks for sharing your learnings as you've run through this experiment.

I'm gonna take part of Ari Herzog's comment as an example that I want to soapbox on for a second...

Where is the value of a KMart-sponsored shopping junket when the average consumer is not provided that choice? It’s one thing if Chris won the gift card on a radio station promotion; it’s different when there is a relationship the typical consumer is not privileged to, and that’s where my problem lies.

I feel like I'm seeing two types of posts here. There's a bunch that run in Ari's style... although not as open and honest. And others that want to know what all the kerfuffle is about.

I feel like I understand what the kerfuffle's about, and I think Ari's captured it very well. People who are angry don't seem to be angry about the experimenting, or the blog post, or the contest (that I entered and didn't win)... they seem to be angry because they didn't get a chance to do the exact same thing Brogan did.

I've got no constructive response to this.

Marketing and PR tend to be, in my experience (quit your laughing), a continuous experience in which people are given special access, and then share their experience with us... the people who didn't get the access. We can all Monday Morning Quarterback here about other ways that KMart could have run this study.

Maybe Chris' card had some special code that gave him better treatment at the counter, so maybe they should have given him cash and requested that he spend it all in the store... I'm not thinking that'd get by a corporate legal team.

Maybe KMart should have just asked Chris nicely to go somewhere he doesn't usually go, and buy stuff with his own money. He won't get any special access. He can't talk to any of the store management. He should be treated like an average joe. Sure. We'd all be willing to do that, right?

I do a PodCast about Social Media and Social Action. I have done it for the love of it for 4 years. Would I take money from a company that would pay me to do my PodCast unfettered? Ummmm... YES! Would I take that money and then tell everybody that the PodCast was sponsored by some company? YES! Would people hate me if I were being paid by... Exxon or somebody? Oh, you betcha.

But I have my own code of conduct. My own expectations. My own due dilligence procedures.

And I know that Chris has his. I trust Chris' ethics. I believe that he took the card and wrote the post because he was experimenting, and learning, and eating his own dogfood. I expect him to do more things in the future that will make us question what Social Networking and Social Media are... BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT CHRIS BROGAN DOES.

Look. If I wanted to listen to somebody who does the safe thing, the tried thing, the obvious choice, I'd still be listening to radio and watching live television. I'd be investing in oil, buggy whips, and... some other thing that showed that I have massive risk aversion... something annoyingly sarcastic... imagine I had some big finish there.

Thanks for taking us along on this ride, Chris. I'm honoured that you take the time to share all the processes with us. I'm glad that I can see the successes, the trials, the failures (there have been failures, right), and learn along with you.

FULL DISCLOSURE : #iwork@novartis I work for Novartis Pharmaceuticals and have asked Chris to present at a meeting. I have also met Chris in person, think he's a nice guy, and have been rewarded and compensated by his humanity, kindness, and the simple act of remembering my name.

Julio Fernandez · 11 months ago

Chris, good post. My problem with this "marketing campaign" is the instructions for people to spam their friends with the Twitter reTweets.

Measure traffic to your blog post. Measure traffic to Kmart and Sears. But don't encourage people to spam.

My message to @TedMurphy: http://twitter.com/SocialJulio/status/1059044739
Images: http://cli.gs/KmartSpam
and http://cli.gs/SearsSpam

Tim Coyne · 11 months ago

Hey Chris.

Happy Holidays.

I completely trust you and respect you.

Tim

Craig · 11 months ago

I don't see a problem with it. People can decide who and what they want to read, they can opt in if they like on their own. This world you are going to see more of it. I know the NY Islanders have set up relationships with 10 local bloggers to court them the way journalists do. This is how the medium is developing. I think people have to give it a break. Nothing wrong with what you did, to be honest, don't even think you need to defend yourself.

FMF · 11 months ago

Sometimes good comes from bad. I "found" you as a result of the controversy and like what I've seen. I've subscribed and am excited to see what you have to say on the various issues we all face in this space.

ilinap · 11 months ago

Look, I would have done what you did too. I have been trying to teach my clients about leveraging social media so their brands can interact more with their constituents. I find I have greater credibility if I have tried something myself. I do not proclaim to be a journalist; I am opiner. I say let's stop being so prim and pure and judgmental. Your brand is still solid by me.

Funny you mentioned the Cluetrain Manifesto. I just reread it. When I mentioned it to someone whom I consider a social media player, he shrugged it off and said it was so 90s. I beg to differ!

@ilinap

Travell Perkins · 11 months ago

Hey Chris,

Thanks for pointing out paidContent.org, that site has a lot of good info on it. Really important for me as I think about revenue generation on RGB Daily. Yeah, it really has taken a year to get this thing out!

I saw one of your talks and at the end you were talking about business models. You made a reference to a crazy guy who had an idea about making money off of bloggers and how that might be a bad idea. I knew you were talking about me. You were right, that was crazy and surprisingly the business model hasn't changed, just the implementation ;) We need to do lunch sometime soon. See you in 2009.

Fan and friend,

Travell

Queen of the Click · 11 months ago

I'm not sure why people got upset since you fully disclosed yourself in italics before the post. Even if they didn't read that line, the first line of the blog said you hadn't been in Kmart in many years. I think that shows a level of honesty. You could have said, "Oh I love Kmart and they have so many great items...."

And since you are working with this company, advise them to move towards being like Target. Everyone loves Target. It has a nice feel, nice quality items, displayed well, good lighting, plenty of registers, nice employees (even in NYC).

greg cryns · 11 months ago

Hey, Chris can do what he wants to do. It's his choice.

You have a choice to trust him or not. I am not real sure you would not read his stuff because you don't "trust" him.

Recently a premier blogger recommended tipping other bloggers for their efforts. He was referring to clicking on the Adsense posts. That raised quite a storm too.

I say, bah humbug! I see a lot of jealousy out there and sometimes it just overflows half empty cups.

Just my 2 cents. Worth what you paid for it.

Tim Bourquin · 11 months ago

Nicely said Chris. Posts like this are exactly why you're THE respected leader in this space.

Keep up the great work. You've had my respect since day one.

All the best,

Tim

Sreekanth · 11 months ago

I have been working on a community blog (www.thump.in) about advertisements. ( Okay , I am from India ). My idea was to get people ( ad consumers ) to comment about ads that they see every day. Lots of people do blog on ads and its all very scattered. So I started experimenting with the thought of creating a space for ad consumers , ad creators and advertisers to interact.

But do advertisers really take notice ? As in do they trust(care) what people tell about their ads ?

kat brogan · 11 months ago

i'd give you a $5000 gift card
if i could have back the time that this bullshit took away from us
blankers

Sean Power · 11 months ago

Hey Chris.

You informed us all by letting us know it was a sponsored post. You are also eating your own dog food. I applaud, support and will continue to refer to you as a model of social media 'guru'. I would not have done anything differently.

You have my full support, and trust.

Lon S. Cohen · 11 months ago

Chris,

I think there is a difference between investigative journalism and what bloggers do-though that seems to be changing. Bloggers are not formally trained in most cases and their salaries are not paid by an organization with a mission to produce unbiased (supposedly) news. Bloggers on every level are people who have a personal brand that they have built up. Since you are an individual whom we have gotten to know through your various appearances, blogs, posts, Tweets, etc. we know you not as an organization with a mission to uphold but a personality with a message to transmit.

That we have placed trust in you and you have built up your trust to a high level allows you to "experiment" in this always changing Social Media space. I would not worry too much about the naysayers in this case. It is those who are trying to innovate that get the most criticism. Perhaps you will look back on this as a mistake in the future.

Or maybe it will be the first step in a new and important way for companies to do, as you said, exactly what we've been asking--no begging--them to do for years on the Internet. I think that you have enough trust capital to spend on these types of experiments. We rely on people like you to break barriers in new media and to herald in a new way of engaging with people and companies.

Without people like you thinking of ways to push the envelope, we'd all still be on Geocities!

Lon

Shel Horowitz--Ethical Marketi · 11 months ago

Chris, as someone who writes a lot in the trust space, both on my own blog http://www.principledprofit.com/good-business-b... and in my award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First, I personally don't have any problem as long as there's disclosure. And there certainly is, in your case.

As you point out, you have to have an income stream, and you don't have the luxury traditional journos have of being insulated from the financial end.

Shel Horowitz

Peter Klaus · 11 months ago

Excellent post and great dialogue!

I believe there's a very simple reality at play here (I've been conducting or managing online-specific editorial outreach, unpaid partnerships, and paid sponsorshipds for 10 years now).

When it comes to social media, there's a broad expectation (from the everyday public) that commentary online is of an unpaid nature.

When money is added to the mix (paid blog posts, review-for-pay, etc.), "the people" lose some degree of trust in the opinions being shared. It's human nature and no amount of explaining/justifying is going to neutralize such fears related to pay-for-play.

We can say it's unbiased until we're all blue in the face but the truth is that this construct just simply comes across as fishy to most people...and that questioning sentiment degrades the inherent benefit of editorial/PR over advertising.

For most, the expectation is that advertising is paid and editorial is not (and most consider bloggers editorial in nature even if they're not trained/official journalists).

I'd venture to guess that most of the people commenting here, including me, deal with social media all day long in a professional capacity.

We understand nuances (such as noting that particular post or piece of content is "sponsored.").

Most people do not.

My personal feeling is that money necessarily and always changes the equation and value proposition of editorial/commentary in social media (to what degree may vary based on the specifics of each situation and type of audience).

As long as everything is 100% explained (literally noting, at the top of a post, "I was compensated financially to write this piece.") and transparent to the audience, I think it's a matter or personal choice as to whether or not one wants to get involved with pay-inspired content.

Josh Peters · 11 months ago

I just can't believe people got mad at you for participating in the very thing you advocate and talk about on your blog. How dare you eat your own dog food!

Shannon Ehlers · 11 months ago

OK, um, I originally said something like "Hey, if they don't like it, forget 'em" in my first comment.

But then more comments came.

Now, after reading Peter Klaus's comment above, something has clicked for me. I *DO NOT* deal with social media all day long. I don't have anything to win or lose by posting here or by writing on my blog. I don't have any "skin in the game". I won't make a dime next year (at least that is my understanding now) from any of my online presence. I am Joe Sixpack, I am a consumer of what you are producing, and I am here because I can find an alternative to other more mainline information delivery tools.

We used to expect the news to be "objective". We used to trust people like Walter Cronkite to deliver a relatively unbiased version of events into our living room that were happening somewhere else.

That trust was carried over to the next generation of anchors - people like Ted Coppel, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw. But in the process we started to notice the left-leaning nature of news.

That leftward leaning became so obvious that in the 1980's and early 90's it gave rise to an alternate type of news and media outlet - formed in the bowels of AM radio stations, conservative talk radio became a popular relief valve for the vast number of people from all walks of life who just went to work every day and never knew that they were part of a large group, but who heard messages that resonated strongly with their experience of the eroding of objectivity in the news.

Our current crop of news anchors, as well as the mega-deals that swallowed up whole networks (GE owns NBC, Time-Warner-AOL, Disney-ABC-ESPN, etc) have made the left leaning, and the presence of money, top of mind issues. No longer can we trust our news anchors for an unbiased review of happenings.

Throughout this same period, blogging was on the rise, because here is a medium that is somewhat free from the "golden leash", the disproportionate influence of money on the editorial views of the publisher. Here was a chance to hear real, first-hand information, often from the person making the news herself. Here was a chance for fact-checking and third party verification of stories by every day people who live at or near the scene, instead of paid hacks who have been dispatched to the scene with prepared script in hand.

The idea of worldwide word of mouth, and trusted sources connected directly, and all that social media offered us was something that flew in the face of today's distilled network copy writing, news casts so similar that the stories show up at the same time in each network's program in order to allow simultaneous airing of commercial breaks, and copycat anchors (Brian Williams' eerily similar style to Tom Brokaw, the way many women mimic Barbara Walters' vocal stylings, etc).

Money might be the reason for the doubting Thomas types who keep cropping up each time you try to turn a buck, or it may also just be due to this feeling like the familiar beginning of a disappointing ride through a long, downward spiral that doesn't end well.

I'd like to think that you know better, that you won't let that happen. And for this reason, I will "stay tuned".

Shannon Ehlers · 11 months ago

D@tt im -- I spelled Koppel wrong!

Silia J. Hatzi · 11 months ago

Mr. Brogan:

How exactly does NOT getting paid for journalism or reporting ensure integrity?

And how are journalists/reporters/bloggers who are not paid for a specific article or post but still make money for writting any article or posts more "pure" if they are still dependent on that newspaper/magazine/blog for their living? Are they not influnced by their needing to not be fired, to be accepted/wanted/read by their audience (alas, seemingly at any cost- ergo our sensationalism-ridden media), to win awards, etc.? Not to mention the obvious influence that one's one personal beliefs has on their "reporting": does anyone really believe that an ardent pro-life journalist can cover an abortion story without any bias?

In my experience, if one has integrity, no amount of money can compromise it. And if one does not, money is not required to compromise one's integrity: my personal experience with so-called journalists in major newspapers has proven that they and their editors could be just as influenced as their advertising department colleagues; the only difference between the two is that they former proclaim being unbiased.

In my opinion the core issue is practicing integrity, which unfortunately is much more complex and cannot be solved simply by ensuring one is not paid for their opinions (and even that is impossible: we are all paid for our opinions albeit the currency may vary from dollars to recognition, adulation, awards, acceptance, reaffirmirmation of our place in the world, etc.).

I cannot effectively police your or anyone else's integrity. Transparency is the only reliable practice I know of which permits me to weigh my intuitive judjement of your posts against the known facts and my own experience.

Silia J. Hatzi

Shama Hyder · 11 months ago

So you tried to do the right thing and got your wrist slapped by bloggers who THINK they can judge someone else's integrity.

Here is how I look at it Chris: you provide IMMENSE value. I mean bucket fulls. Then, a company (who is actually taking your advice!), make an effort to connect with the blog-sphere. You did the right thing.

I admire your work. Please keep chugging along. : )

Hope to see you at SXSW!

Michelle Lamar · 11 months ago

Chris,
Forgive my rant but those who say you damaged your credibility are just trying to stir the pot. The problem is that on your WORST DAY, you have more talent, brains and heart IN YOUR LITTLE TOE---than most of your critics will have in their entire lives.
For God's sake, how many big shot media gurus would promote a book with White Trash Mom in the title? Okay, you and Guy Kawasaki.
Note to the asshats who are giving Brogan"the business" about K-Mart: Chris Brogan is one of the good guys. Instead of spending time tearing him down, why don't you worry about your blog, your work. Perhaps in 50 years you can be as good and as cool as Chris.

Dave Peck · 11 months ago

Well done Chris. The way you just lay it out there is why you are the man! Chris Brogan FTW!

Nicky Jameson · 11 months ago

Can't believe so many bloggers got themselves into such a tizzy over this. I found this post from here because I was responding to this post: http://www.twistimage.com/blog/archives/trust-i...
the post about Chris was referenced.

As far as I'm concerned this doesn't lower your credibility one whit. You made full disclosure.It's a pity you had to be forced into defending yourself. That one blog post can have some bloggers criticising you and questioning your motives after the totality of your total contribution... well, it's pretty telling. I'm getting really tired of all the "do nots" "must nots" and "don't ever do's" that seem to be a staple in the blogging/Social Media space.

Proxies my Mypace · 8 months ago

Can you provide more information on this? I was looking for this additional information, just bookmarked to check out the updates ;)

Advertising Detroit · 7 months ago

I think it is great. Shoemoney also did a disclosure and this is what full-disclosure advertising is about. Most importantly you got a ton of press and K-Marts name out there. Mission accomplished.

jbrotherlove · 7 months ago

Bravo, Chris. People will always have something negative to say about how you run your life and business. You handled the sponsored gig in the best way possible. Sure, in a perfect world, we all could do what we loved without caring about money. But as you stated "Someone always pays for the meal."

6.5 diesel engines · 7 months ago

International Diesel Ltd Remanufactures a complete line of diesel and gas engines including GM, ford, Caterpillar, Cummins, Detroit,Isuzu , GM 6.5, 6.2L , 6.6 Duramax, International, and Perkins We offer both immediate exchange and custom remanufacturing programs designed to minimize your downtime. Every year, International Diesel Ltd remanufactures over 5,500 diesel and gas engines of all sizes and makes, from on-highway to off-road and industrial and marine. WWW.65ENGINEPARTS.COM 1-631-737-7050

Susan Priddy · 5 months ago

Think about this: Pay Per Tweet...This explains it all! Thanks, Chris!

John Daniels · 4 months ago

I prefer http://teelook.com anyday.