Chris Brogan: I Support the Future of Sponsored Posts
Susan Payton, The Marketing Eg
· 8 months ago
I'm with you 100%, Chris. People look at PR and marketing with the lenses of the past. This isn't 1990. We're doing things differently. And yes, there are people who will take sponsored posts just to make a quick dime, but there are dozens more who would only rep a product they believe in, like you and me. I look for products that I am already an evangelist for and try to get sponsored by them. That way, it's genuine. I know whatever sponsored posts you do, I can believe in them, because I believe in you. (release white doves into the atmosphere. cue sappy music).
Charles Neville
· 8 months ago
Excellently put. Sponsored content is only going to happen more often. As long as a blogger doesn't mislead their audience, and their blog isn't all pay-per-post then I don't see a problem. Why should brands be denied a perfectly reasonable method of getting in front of people?
Mike CJ
· 8 months ago
It's a bit of a shame this all hit on the day when we were hearing about Ford and the 100 car Fiesta promotion, which I think is fantastic and part of the future of marketing.
How hard can it be? Disclose, disclose, disclose - where's the problem? I don't care if your disclosure policy is supported by, governed by or written by one organisation or another, I just want you to be honest with me when you've been paid in some way (any way) to review a product.
In time you won't need to do it, any more than the writers of Car Magazines need to tell me that they drove the car on the all expenses paid press launch in Monte Carlo. But for now, tell me everything please.
Ted Murphy
· 8 months ago
Chris, Thank you for your support. You continue to amaze me with your perspective and insight. It's never easy blazing new trails, but people like you make it worth the heart ache. The future of social media monetization is sponsored conversations and we intend to lead the way in an open, collaborative manner.
socialnerdia
· 8 months ago
Sponsored content can be great. It depends on the quality of the content in my opinion. Advertising is good for various reasons and if content can be better delivered by sponsors well then so be it. I've been to Amex Open several times and have liked the mix of articles they have in there. By the way, I think Amex Open is also handled by Crispin Porter + Bogusky, which seems to be doing a great job.
Chrisanne Sternal
· 8 months ago
Chris, Great post. Sponsored content is just another tool for businesses. As long as the disclosure is there, like you mentioned, I think it's fine.
Imie
· 8 months ago
My opinion is that everyone is a salesman. Those who think they are not are the politicians and those who are in the ivory towers!
The only difference is that there are honest salesmen and dishonest salesmen.
Keith Burtis
· 8 months ago
Chris, I ask people. "Whats your aversion to making money?" At the same time I think it is important that the Sales/Money part becomes a result of the conversations rather than the actual conversations themselves. In my work with Best Buy Remix, my intention is not to sell a product nor is it to PUSH a person to develop on our platform. It is however getting involved in the right conversations and providing relevant information where it's asked for. I have said over and over that your intentions rule the day.
If I clearly see that you are chasing me with a gun telling me I need to buy your product, or get involved with your organization I am going to run fast in the opposite direction. However, if you provide consistent, good, relevant content over time I will be more likely to get involved. If you are paid to write that content or unpaid, it makes no difference to me. (Of course Dan Ariely may disagree)
It seems unfortunate to say, but currency enables growth. This industruy can stay stagnant, or it can grow. The key is to be on the up-and-up.
@keithburtis
Kat Nagel
· 8 months ago
I don't see a problem with paid content, myself. Whether it's a blog post, a newspaper advertorial, or a ghost-written tweet, as long as I know what it is, I can make my own judgement about the reliability of the facts and opinions expressed. Disclosure is the key; if someone is paying you to write about something, say so. I do.
Karenne Sylvester
· 8 months ago
Yup.
I am not doing sponsored posts because I don't have a blog that's big enough to, yet.
I have a clear statement on the blog, right from the get-go, that says I won't do paid-for-reviews of products, however, it is my intention is to attract sponsorship of the blogs with products related specifically to my niche.
This discussion brings up the same issue I've seen again and again - what is it exactly that people have against people making money on the internet?
Madness.
It's okay for Amazon and E-bay to sell stuff, it's okay for google to make trillions of advertising but if a blogger wants to actually pay some bills and feed themselves, it makes them "bad" people?
It's okay for magazines to charge for advertising but bloggers are just meant to keep blogging as a hobby?
Pah. I want the rest of my jobs to be my hobbies.
Tyler Adams
· 8 months ago
Chris, I agree with you, but I also wonder how sponsored posts (even when disclosed) will affect the perception of posts endorsing a brand/product that aren't sponsored. Will this make us skeptical of all endorsement posts? Will a sponsored post carry the same weight of one that is written out of sheer appreciation of a product/service?
As you know, I work for Inc. magazine (which you endorsed on this blog-for free). It was a great review and endorsement for Inc. but I would imagine your readers would at the very least listened to your review differently had you been paid for it. I don't think sponsored posts are a bad thing, just something that needs to be carefully considered both for a marketer who is trying to promote a product and a blogger who is trying to make some extra cash. But you're right. This is going to happen and disclosure is a must.
It's just more transparent here, isn't it? Magazines like Time and Newsweek have always included sponsored content. Most of the Internet and Tech magazines have been doing it for years. It's not that it's new, and it's not that it's evil - it just is.
You hit the nail on the head with disclose, disclose, disclose, but even that seems unnecessary to me. Anyone who believes that the ads and content in print media aren't directly tied to one another at nearly every publication in existence (particularly those with big circulation) doesn't understand publishing finances or dynamics.
I am all for paid content, and as Chris says, if you don't want to read that paid content, read one of the other billion blogs that are written on other subjects...if you enjoy the blogger, and his / her content, read....the value in paid content is when it is presented by someone people are drawn to.
Like Chris ... I'll be reading.
DNW
Chris Ross
· 8 months ago
Chris, totally agree with all your points in this post. It's easy to look down on paid content as being "less than" or not "real", but as you point out, the ultimate success or failure of any content is whether or not it provides value. For example, I've seen multiple pieces of research that showcase vendor white papers as one of the most valuable sources of information for marketers. Sure, everyone sees the sales bias and advertorial nature of white papers, but good white papers also provide some meaningful value, and most people are savvy enough to discern between the pitch and the other quality content. Your points about disclosure help in this area as well. Yes, it's a gray area, but to straight-arm sponsored content wholesale is overlooking an extremely important, and valuable resource.
AdventureInBabywearing
· 8 months ago
I just started working with Izea a couple weeks ago with sponsored posts on my blog and so far have found it a very positive experience. I've been able to keep it completely relevant to my life and what I normally write about, and it actually fits right into my blog. But at the same time I am not tricking anyone. I am up front about it. I've not had one complaint!
Steph
Mike CJ
· 8 months ago
@keith I don't understand why you're asking about aversion to making money. Isn't Chris saying he supports that notion?
chrisbrogan
· 8 months ago
I love making money. : )
@Jeff /Zemote - don't forget that Calacanis had a competing product in the ring at that time.
@Tyler - I get that, and actually, I've experienced it. Recently, I wrote a three-post collection about GM, the company that I've paid to supply me with cars my entire life. People asked immediately if it was a paid post, and that I'd best disclose it, etc. Thing was, I didn't get paid to write it, and that's when I had my first really big taste of "God, do I have to disclose that there's nothing to disclose?" And the answer feels like yes.
PR Professionals have to do this. I've seen @Tdefren say, "They're not my client, but I really like _____." I just didn't realize I'd have to start doing that, given that my About page discloses all my business relationships.
Oh well. I'm okay with that.
John E. Bredehoft (Empoprises)
· 8 months ago
Sorry to join the bandwagon, but I have no problem with sponsored posts with disclosure. Two examples of sponsored posts that I saw a few months ago (from Loren Feldman and Julia Roy) included the necessary disclosures and aligned with the interests of the bloggers (Feldman's, if I recall correctly, involved camera equipment, a natural for him, and Roy's also made sense).
I figure that if corporations refrained from participating in sponsored posts, people would slam the corporations for not engaging with the community, and not taking advantage of people in the community who know how to communicate. They can't win...
Jeff O'Hara
· 8 months ago
What was Jason Calacanis's competing product? I don't think he was ever in the sponsored post game. He owned weblog's inc. which he sold to AOL, then started the digg competitor at netscape.com which became propellr. Now he runs Mahalo. Don't believe there was ever a competing product with payperpost/izea.
Jenifer Olson
· 8 months ago
I've said it before, and I will again... I support sponsored posts with full disclosure. Frankly, I see little difference between these posts and paid celebrity endorsements.
Having worked with a company that contracted with IZEA for a short period of time, I'm sold on IZEA's business proposition. From my perspective, they're a solid company with an excellent reputation offering a valuable service.
The only thing I could do without are the tonsil photos. Perhaps there's a story there that needs to be told? :-)
Thanks!
dragonblogger
· 8 months ago
Great article and indeed sponsors and marketing are not a sell out but a way for businesses to reach people and bloggers to make a little money to keep doing what they love to do.
This is as acceptable as companies putting brand images and logo's in video games, does Electronic Arts sell out by featuring Pepsi or Coke logo's in vending machines in online games?
Or does NBC Heroes sell out by featuring Nissan cars in the Heroes television show, like it or not advertisers need to move away from commercials and more into content placement inside the medium they wish to advertise in. Show people using or interacting with the product instead of a separate spot and it will be more transparent to the viewer or reader.
chrisbrogan
· 8 months ago
@Jenifer - Ted's got this long standing photo thing with the tongue. Though I've matched Ted before on the tongue thing, I can't throw stones, as I've been known to maketheoccasionalface.
Chris Rechtsteiner
· 8 months ago
I think you are right on the money here ... it is unavoidable so why mess around and not make sure it is done properly.
The ability for brands to sponsor posts that may even be critical of them is a huge step forward - one sorely needed.
Ryan Miller
· 8 months ago
Chris,
I agree that sponsored posts are the way its going to go. The upside for businesses is that they can really do some creative things to help build a buzz about their product or service. Likewise, I think by opening the door to working with bloggers or other web 'professionals' (god I hate the term, but don't know where else to go with it), they're probably going to get wider exposure or at least have the benefit of working with someone who is well versed with this space - rather than starting from scratch on their own.
And its all about transparency. No doubt. And authenticity... But here's my question to you, Chris. Is there a difference between utilizing sponsored posts, and using someone (like an agency for instance) to handle their online presence - everything from Twitter, to their FB Fan pages? I THINK I remember you tweeting that you were not at all for ghost-tweeting, but it seems as though more and more people (including Guy Kawasaki I believe) are using additional people to handle their online brand.
Can you give us some more clarification about how businesses should or shouldn't take this a step further? Thanks for another great post.
@ryancmiller
Natanya Anderson
· 8 months ago
I have some suspicion that in the end, the consumers of sponsored content will be the ones to sort this all out. They will (continue to) read those bloggers who provide quality information and transparent communications. They will stop reading those that lack one or both of those things. In the end, what content consumers care most about is thoughtful, useful, quality content - and hey - if a brand paid someone smart and thoughtful to create said useful, quality content, who really cares?
It will be critical that bloggers find way to retain the integrity of their content and establish strong working guidelines that they share with sponsors prior to beginning work. I expect they will also have to be prepared to turn down work when sponsors ask them to cross certain lines of content creation. While that will be difficult, those who understand that lost reader trust will cost them far more in the future than one or two lost jobs will be the ones who are able to successfully walk the fine line of sponsored content.
kim/hormone-colored days
· 8 months ago
Sorry Chris, my mind got all mired in verbiage once I hit "a hundred cars for people to schmuck about in."
Rick Mahn
· 8 months ago
Chris, I've been thinking about this quite a bit more lately and I really appreciate this post. I think you've framed the topic well and its helping me figure a few things out for a future move. The part that seals the deal is good old-fashioned trust. Once you've earned that through hard work, it becomes acceptable to me as a consumer to have a paid post with a disclaimer.
Thanks for laying this out for me to chew on Chris, I really appreciate it. Regards, Rick
chrisbrogan
· 8 months ago
@ryancmiller - yes, in a subsequent post. Not exactly germane to this (though it certainly relates).
Gary Mintchell
· 8 months ago
One of the problems is that some (many?) marketers would rather not be upfront, but try to sneak it in. If you have a blog personna that is not to be an independent thinker, then you can plug products and no one will care. They'll just know what you are and go from there. It's ethical to disclose (e.g. I love Pepsi, by the way they paid me to say that), but how many people have ethics? It's an entirely moot discussion. I'll not plug stuff for pay because that would ruin my reputation for what I do. But if you're in another area, who cares? Just do it. As I said, people will know you for what you are. If they don't like it, they can unsubscribe--right?
Joe Hunkins
· 8 months ago
Chris a nice thoughtful piece here with the key mantra for marketing: Disclosure aka Transparency. However it is interesting that you use the term "sponsored" about Federated Media's "Conversational Marketing".
Although I'd agree that approach is best categorized as "sponsored" surely John B would not agree? Isn't his argument more along the lines of creating what he thinks is a big happy family of sponsors/bloggers/information consumers who dialog about things, thus making disclosure less important?
marti garaughty
· 8 months ago
hi Chris, really well said. I think the bottom line with the way things are heading is RELEVANCE!
Whether an "ad" shows up as a graphic in a sidebar, a featured link strategically placed within a post I'm reading or whatever... if it fits comfortably into the conversation somehow, I'm totally fine with it.
Pretty much every industry has to re-invent itself at this point. Nothing is the same as it was 5 years ago and this is just the beginning. If someone wants to offer me a free sample of i.e. "Industrial Strength Blogger's Coffee" while I read you, Seth, Darren, etc... I won't whine too much, I'd actually appreciate it!
P.S. Full disclosure... I love coffee!!! ;-)
chrisbrogan
· 8 months ago
@Joe - it's a great question, eh? Did Amex Open pay for that site? They sure did. Does that mean they sponsored it? I'd say yes.
It just sounds different when we say the word "sponsored," doesn't it?
Rebecca
· 8 months ago
This is great, Chris. I think this is an exciting time for companies and individuals - the fact that we're entering into conversations in a completely different way is bound to bring up difficulties and challenges along the way. But working through those items is often the most fun part of the process. I've never been anything but impressed with Ted and IZEA. We all make mistakes, but it's ultimately the spirit of collaboration that will define how grand social media will be.
Brian
· 8 months ago
I too (excuse me as I jump on the same bandwagon) dont' see an issue with sponsored posts. To me - it seems an extension of PR working with contacts at the WSJ or NYT to get your message//client's message/content out there. I am curious about sponsored tweets...or "this conversation sponsored by" and how those will fly. Thoughts?
Christy
· 8 months ago
I agree with you here 100%. I absolutely love doing posts for Social Spark and PayPerPost and look forward to doing them for a long time.
Joe Manna
· 8 months ago
Personally, I find that sponsored conversations are lame. It's not genuine, and the fact that there's manipulators like Neil Patel who advocate spamming blogs with good keywords, linking back make me begin to question the whole notion that disclosures help.
No consumer has the time or the effort to inspect the credibility of a sponsored conversation. Regardless if there's the "I Disclose" button or an about page filled with company endorsements or similar. It's lame, cheap and more so speaks to the blog's credibility.
If there is something worth disclosing, disclose it in the content. For instance, this post, you made your disclosures anything but ambigious. That's fine. I worry that many readers here will misinterpret the message that services like PayPerPost and others are a great way to jump into the conversation. It isn't. If a publisher wants to join in the conversation, join in the conversation. Cut the BS.
Sponsored conversations/posts/Tweets == Noise. Please don't make consumer have to filter more of it. SEO manipulators did it with Google, they did it with Blogs. There's a chance for them NOT to corrupt the platform where real conversation and credibility takes place, Twitter.
This is why I am against "new ideas" like Magpie, PayPerPost, etc. They go against all that social media stands for. It sickens me to read that you, Chris, support these sponsored conversations and I have to wonder how much Kool-Aid they're paying (I mean, quenching) you to support sponsored content.
I mean the best, but seriously. You support it?
~Joe
Dominick
· 8 months ago
I agree to an extent, Chris. I do think that sponsored posting isn't as bad as the rap its given, by the masses bemoaning about it. PayPerPost has its benefits, especially for Bloggers who are just starting out. By the same token, I can see where the bemoaners are talking about 'integrity' and how that integrity can be compromised by sponsored posting.
If you are posting sponsored posts and don't believe in what you are posting I believe that compromises your integrity as a blogger/writer. If you use a service, hate it, but post it is good anyway because you are getting paid to say the service rocks then your integrity as a blogger is compromised. There are ways to use sponsored posting and still have a high level of integrity.
Don't use services unless they allow you to be honest about their product/service. Positive or negative buzz is still buzz. If I think a product sucks that is not to say a person reading about said product will avoid it. They may have a totally different experience with it. If you are asked to write a positive post about the service/product, don't write it and lie about your experience if the product/service totally sucks. It's that simple.
If it's clear you're being honest about what you're writing and honest about the post being sponsored then I see no problem with sponsored posting. It is also rather exciting that we as bloggers can connect with these companies and can share our thoughts on their products/services. I would think a company would want to know the positives and negatives of what they are offering, so I would hope they expect honest opinions from those writing sponsored posts.
Michelle Lamar
· 8 months ago
Disclose. Simple. People who think you are influenced by a free Big Mac or even a free Ford Fiesta aren't people who are your base anyway. And if you are a blogger that sells out for a free box of ______, then you aren't going to be around long because nobody wants to read the opinion of a total sellout, even if you giveaway a free box of crackerjacks. I am not completely objective since you are one of my favorite people so let me DISCLOSE that right here. Let me also say that I give Ted Murphy snaps for taking what looks like a party pic with you, so I like the guy already. Let me also disclose that I am looking forward to seeing you in Chicago for SOBCon09.
Dominick
· 8 months ago
Joe - I have to disagree with your statement that sponsored posting, 'goes against all that social media stands for.' I would much rather have a company pay a bunch of bloggers to write (honestly) about their service/product then have them make another advertisement. This keeps bloggers in business and let's be real. Bloggers who do this full time have to find a way to make a living.
I also think that consumers are smarter than you are giving them credit for. It's not too hard to see which bloggers are in this just for a quick buck and will write anything just to make the money and those of us who write because we have something to say, we have opinions to share and we want to make the blogosphere better for it.
I don't write anything unless I'm being 100% honest. I review DVDs and other products. If the companies/PR reps I worked with made me write positive reviews of everything I reviewed I wouldn't do it. I've said some pretty harsh things, and these companies/PR reps know that it doesn't matter if I hated their product. At least I'm talking about them (and if a movie is deemed bad - how many people want to see it just to see how bad it is?).
I wouldn't compare Magpie to PayperPost either. Magpie invades the twitter streams of whoever is following those who use the service. You have no choice but to look at those ads (or get rid of the person you are following). You choose to visit a blog that has a sponsored post on it. You choose to read said post. I see the companies on two different levels.
Joe Manna
· 8 months ago
@Dominick -- We may disagree, but I find that a number of the sponsored reviews/conversations are frequently much more positively biased and even coach publishers on linking to the sponsor's site in a manner that results in higher rankings. In fact, many companies who participate in paid reviews often do it for the backlinks more than the opinions of the blogger. This insults not just consumer experience, but bloggers themselves.
I think more people are becoming more accustomed to assuming that any positive review is paid and criticism is "well-earned." I guess I must be grossly incorrect where I assume that publishers should maintain a sense of integrity in their content. As Nick Naylor says, "Everyone's got a mortgage to pay." Thus, times are tough so publishers sell out for a mere dollar or two.
I just find Brogan's endorsement rather unusual for his character. Clearly, the paid drones have come out to comment with such blind support. It's clear who the checks are written out to.
What happened to blogging for the love of it?
~Joe
Joe Manna
· 8 months ago
If a blog has killer content, there's nothing wrong with selling advertising. There's also nothing wrong in writhing unbiased, objective pieces of content in response to being sponsored.
But, it must be fully disclosed, prominently. That's the way I look at it to maintain ethics and editorial standards that a blog may have.
~Joe
Dominick
· 8 months ago
Joe - People could say my entire website is filled with sponsored posts. I get thousands of dollars worth of DVDs, Video Games, and other products each month. I don't pay a cent for any of those things. In turn, I give my opinion -- good or bad (and trust me, I've written plenty about the bad). I get paid in products to write about said products. People come and read about those products. I also get products to give away, which brings even more traffic. In those giveaways there is no positive or negative sway to them. It does get the company's product out there to a wider audience though.
Why is what I'm doing any different than any other movie critic? They get let into the movie for free (and paid) for their reviews. They are (more often than not) honest in what they write. What is wrong with that?
Sure, there are going to be those who have little to no integrity and are just in it for the money. Those sites aren't going to be successful. People won't go to a blog if its clear the person writing on the blog isn't honest or doesn't care about their readership. It's finding a balance between making money, keeping the conversation rolling, and being honest/having integrity. If a blogger can do that it's all gravy. Why should they be deemed as less reliable?
Sponsored product marketing has been around in various forms for years. Companies depend upon it to get their brand out and with blogging and social media becoming the primary way information is transmitted, they have to find a way to move from other forms of marketing (i.e. television/newspaper advertisements) to reach the bigger audience online. Why not let bloggers lead the way?
Chris Brogan
· 8 months ago
@joe - maybe you missed the part of my post where I say that plenty of blogs exist that don't want to make money and that's okay. That part can exist just nicely, but you deciding that all blogs must follow that same tack is like suggesting that you know the best and only way to communicate.
I sure didn't write about SEO or link spamming above, so I'm not sure how you equate this with sponsored content. In fact, Patel's strategy that you quote is an attempt to get free SEO benefits, so quite the opposite of paid.
Is it noise because someone pays? Do you read magazines? Wired, maybe? Can you read it without the ads? no.
If you think the only way for corporations to participate is in straight "earned" media, you might have to revisit how that kind of ink has been earned. It's not as lily-white as you seem to feel.
As for me? You didn't really just ask me if I was serious, right? I wasted about 600 words if I wasn't clear.
Marty Glover
· 8 months ago
I am pleased that someone understands that content is worth something. I also wonder why people care if anyone has a paid blog or not, but thats because I evaluate whether there is any depth behind any blogs premise or promise. I don't like software unless you can tell me something that is a meaningful reason to like it.
I don't like something because Chris Brogan says he does, I might like it if Chris writes a compelling blog with a great rationale behind his point. But there is a clear and recognizable difference between his great blog points of view and if he is shilling for GM, (not what I thought)
I might even like a GM car if he says a GM car is cool. I would prefer if he told me he got paid to say it, but an ad is still an ad. I think most Mac people should have to disclose whether they are paid or not, because it is impossible to tell. :)
Take the money, let us know, we'll decide over time whether you sound like the RONCO sales guy.
chrisbrogan
· 8 months ago
@Marty - and rest assured that if ever there's an ad on my site or if money changes hands, or if something might queer the deal in some way, it will be very clearly spelled out on my About page. : )
Susan Murphy
· 8 months ago
I produce a television show that airs on a local, non-commercial broadcaster. We have sponsors who pay us money to advertise on the show via product placements, still graphics, 15 second live motion ads, and us talking nice about them on camera. There are rules that govern specifically what we can and can't do. These rules are set out by the CRTC (governing body for broadcasting in Canada) about what we can and can't say/do, but generally speaking they are pretty flexible.
Our sponsors pay for the production of the show. If that money wasn't there, the show would not exist. Simple.
I am having trouble understanding what's different in terms of paid blog posts. In non-commercial television and radio (think PBS, community television and radio), sponsorship has been around forever and nobody seems to have an issue with it. But for some reason bloggers (also considered non-commercial) are being punished for getting paid to do the occasional post? Seems like a bit of a double standard to me.
I like money too. :)
Alex Gill
· 8 months ago
I don't support this type of advertising for one reason: when you wrote passionately about GM - people thought you were being payed. Your credibility wasn't put into question... because of what was done in the past, your credibility is in question... constantly. You're too good for that, Chris. It should never be that way, but because you take money to write Blog posts too and put it in the same stream as where the real stuff is, it's clear and obvious (even when there is disclosure) that people now see you differently. I know I do (and that makes me sad).
Disclosure is obvious. I can disclose anything. Just because I disclose something does not make it right/good. It just means that I was upfront about it.
The only discussion I'd like to hear debated is the net result of how the Blogger is perceived by their community. The ongoing impact it has on them and their community. Yes, the brand wins. They get some good coverage by a Blogger and all the good stuff that comes with it (mentions, tweets, SEOs, etc...) for cheap. On the other side, it's not the $500 that lines the Blogger's pocket that makes the transaction complete. It's the ongoing and consistent questioning of the Blogger's intention on every post after every mention of a product or service.
Yes, everybody is entitled to make money. Advertisers will do it because it's cheap and easy. Bloggers will do it because they need the money.It's just sad that in the end, the net result, is that readers don't trust Bloggers as much. I thought one of the key ingredients that made Social Media so awesome was just that. I guess it will become just another media area that is littered with messaging - some of it created by the actual content producers. Sad and lame.
chrisbrogan
· 8 months ago
@Alex - great question. Seems that my brand hasn't suffered all that much. I'm still growing my community, still being asked to speak at events, still being asked for my opinion, and still being received politely.
Let me ask you outright: do you trust me? If not, why still read my stuff? Why not go on and find one of several dozen other people writing similar material?
How am I perceived by my community? I'm guessing from my anecdotal evidence that I'm doing okay. Does that answer your question ?
vicky
· 8 months ago
Chris, Your thoughts on disclosure are much appreciated and valuable. I work in healthcare public relations. A former organization for which I worked had huge p.r. problems because physicians were not properly disclosing their relationships with industry while recommending products and meds made by companies they consulted for. The relationships were mostly fine and ethical, but disclosure to patients was non-existent. Now, the organization has taken the lead nationally in disclosing online what physicians earn from consulting and advising to industry. You are right. Be honest. Be ethical. Communicate with people who trust you.
Lisa Marie Mary
· 8 months ago
To be totally honest, I don't have time to read the whole post before I head out this morning - but, I had to stop in and say that you ROCK!!! :D
greg
· 8 months ago
Here in Europe we are doing the same business with BuzzParadise (and coming to the US also). Our first business remain PR 2.0 with bloggers but I truly think you can pay bloggers for sponsored post (depending on the countries). Bloggers can choose if they want to do money with their blog or not and can choose between simple PR or sponsored post. The only difference with BuzzParadise is that bloggers can truly say what they think. Therefore, with the disclosure and the fact that a blogger will never (or should not) risk to kill his blog for few money (such a hard work) - sponsored post are auto regulate by the community to my sense.
Alex Gill
· 8 months ago
Chris,
Thanks for the follow-up. The truth is you do not really know if your brand has suffered at all. You're seeing it only based on what is visible through your web analytics or what people will say to you. How many potential clients, speaking events, new business opportunities etc... might you have missed because you have gone down this path? My guess is you'll never know.
In response to your question of trust, I am not sure that's even the right question. You are a Blogger who delivers great content, I don't really have to trust you (I am not looking for you to watch my kids). What I am looking for is credibility and integrity. The minute you started accepting money for your thoughts is the minute that credibility starts diminishing. I don't think I'm the only one who thinks like this, and it's probably the same reason why many of the best journalists and authors don't do this type of advertising. I can easily skip over the shill posts and still get value out of what you do and the community. But, I still question everything you do now, whereas before, I didn't. That does make me sad.
partywedo
· 8 months ago
Pioneers always take the arrows. I now live in the Northwest, USA... thanks to pioneers!
Big internet = Room for every option
Ben Kunz
· 8 months ago
Chris, you are extremely talented and yet you know I strongly disagree with the ethics of paid posts, also known as paid opinions. I'll break it down for your readers.
1. Disclosure is not enough. You or I could disclose to our wives that we slept with a prostitute. Full disclosure. That doesn't change the ethics of what we did. Saying "disclosure" makes paid posts OK is a logical fallacy since the ethics of the *action* have nothing to do with the *description* of what happened. Simple. If you question this, trying going home tonight and disclosing, "Hey, honey, I just slept with a hooker..."
2. Blogs are opinions. See your post above, and every comment that followed. Opinions. This is an important distinction, because paying someone to write an opinion is very different than paying someone to stick a block of ad copy on the page. If you disagree, please point me to a blog with entries of more than 10 words that doesn't contain opinions.
3. "Paid posts" are thus "paid opinions." You are buying the voice of someone's mind.
4. Paying for an opinion creates a conflict of interest. The pay giver is seeking elevation of a topic and influence over a positive review (if not, why would they pay?). The pay recipient is compromised and influenced to write favorably over the product or perk given. If you disagree, please point me to 2 paid posts sharply critical of the product being paid for.
5. Conflicts of interest reduce credibility. This is why marketing executives in charge of million-dollar budgets don't accept gifts more than $20 -- because even the appearance of impropriety opens the door to complaints of favoritism or impropriety in future business dealings.
6. Reduction of credibility is not helpful to anyone's career.
At the end, bloggers have a choice. Paid posts are not "wrong"; they are a PR vehicle that create a conflict of interest that may reduce the blogger's credibility. Bloggers of course are welcome to walk that road if they choose. You can tweet about how much you like a GPS system given to you on loan, and many of us will digest that for the questionable transmission that it is.
But let's be clear -- paid posts are not sticking content on a page, like advertising or even advertorial. They are buying the opinions coming from people's minds.
Take good care of your mind, Chris. You only have one.
Ben Kunz c 203 506 7269
Tim
· 8 months ago
The comparison of paid posts to newspaper advertorial misses the point.
Advertorials are written by outside writers, not staff journalists. If staff journalists wrote advertorial in addition to their regular writing duties, readers would justly view everything they write with suspicion -- paid, unpaid, whatever. That's why newspapers generally don't allow it.
The same will happen to bloggers, as Chris alludes to -- you'll have to qualify anything positive you write by saying whether you're getting paid or not. And even when a post is unpaid, people will still wonder. All this subtly degrades readers' perception of your independent voice -- which might be the reason they read you in the first place. Maybe that's worth the money, but it's not without cost.
Maria de los Angeles
· 8 months ago
I am one of the 100 members of the Ford Fiesta movement and feel no qualms whatsoever about participating in this project. I wrote one blog post about what I was doing and why. That is sufficient disclosure.
I don't see why people get all their knickers in a twist if a blogger is getting paid to do something or receiving products to review. (Note: Ford is not giving us cash compensation.)
We all have to make some money or derive some benefit from our effort. If you have a blog, provide quality content on a consistent basis, and throw in a "sponsored" post every now and then, what is the big deal? I have never monetized my blog and I would dare any of my readers to give me sh*t about my involvement with Ford. I'm doing it because it benefits my readers and I, too. I'll get to go on trips that I would otherwise not have been able to do, which will actually enrich the content of my blog. I know my readers will enjoy posts about the excursions. And Ford has no real control over our content. It's really quite a fascinating project in the grand scheme of blogger things, and I'm happy to be part of it.
The smart companies are the ones that are making it worth the blogger's effort and I feel Ford has done that so far.
chrisbrogan
· 8 months ago
@Ben - I love talking with you about this as it hones my thinking like none other. You're clearly passionate and have lots to say on the topic.
1.) Great point. Disclosure isn't enough. There should be the sense that something is perceived to be fair, just, useful, of value to my blogging community. I believe that content marketing is acceptable in principle. Thus, I'm not necessarily disclosing a hooker, but definitely telling the wife I'm going out with the guys for a few beers.
2.) I disagree. MOST blogs are written as opinion. A blog is software, and perhaps loosely, a movement around the notions put forth by the Cluetrain Manifesto. But I think a blog like Digital Nomads isn't a site about opinions. I don't think TechCrunch considers itself an opinion site 100%. I know the Huffington Post would have you believe they're a news outlet.
3.) Hmm. As I disagreed with 2, I don't know what to say here. Let's look at an example of a paid post. Nikon sent me a D60 camera to try out. I wasn't obligated to write about it. I didn't have to do anything, except either give it back or pay for it when the time came that the trial was up. If I were to write up my thoughts on the camera, I'd have started by disclosing the relationship. In fact, it's mentioned on my about page. I wasn't paid to have an opinion. I was given the opportunity to share my experiences about something.
The follow-on criticism is that if something is given to me that I'll likely be positive about it. I understand this criticism.
4.) Again, I see your criticism here. But you're pointing to one kind of post type: reviews. What if it's just an experience? What if it's something different, like Amex paying for posts about small business that have absolutely nothing to do with their card? Is it REVIEWS that bug you, or just the idea of money changing hands with regards to typing? Because B seems fishy. A, I can buy.
5.) In certain industries, this is strictly adhered to, but in others, not so much. Just a point. Oh, the appearance of impropriety. I imagine that my free experiences with GM are improper? Is it bad that they let me play with their cars, given I ended up writing about (and shooting video about) them? In that case, everything was free. It was just plain fun. But is it improper? (Seriously, asking. This isn't a challenge.)
6.) We agree there. I just continue to disagree that writing for pay makes me less credible, provided it's clear when I'm writing for pay. I seem to know lots of paid writers, and the only ones who get this little curly hair stuck in their mouth are journalists. I am not am not am not am not a journalist. Will never be. Will never pretend to be. Oh, unless the press pass gets me in somewhere cool.
I love these conversations, Ben.
@Tim - In NO part of my post do I liken sponsored content to advertorials. I think advertorials are usually pretty lame. They're marketing material. I'm not a staff journalist. I'm not a journalist at all. I write. I continue to think sponsored posts aren't cut from the same cloth as advertorials, which are required to be written from the marketing perspective.
Though Ben's right that sponsored posts boost the chance that someone will write nicely about them, I still see the value of a non-advertorial piece. See, for instance, my take on eBillMe. It was a sponsored post and I still came out and said they needed to improve the service.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Mike
· 8 months ago
Chris I think your 'full disclosure' should also be given to companies that are asking you to write about their products. Tell them you will write an honest opinion.
The term buyer beware comes to mind. Great products will likely get a great review, dubious or not so stellar products, well you get the picture. I don't see you reviewing MLM marketing schemes anytime soon.
I mean really if you write about something for pay, you should still be fair to your readers. Your audience is why brands want you to write about them, to reach your readers.
One of the reasons I read your blog is because its real, its about things, people, places, and relationships. Things I WANT to read about. More than just fluff or linkbait. Things that make sense.
Personally, I don't read or care for reviews until its time to make a major purchase. Only then do i want to know what other people have said. I google I read. I want to hear normal people not a paid sponsorship. That's just me, but I think other people are like that as well.
Real people that made decisions based on what you said about a product will feel duped if the article mislead them. Less readers, less paid writing gigs. No one benefits.
Ben has some valid points about companies buying opinions. For a long time Industry giants have engaged celebrities, professional athletes, and others as sponsors. Some of the numbers from Michael Jordans paid sponsorships spring to mind.
I imagine this is getting a lot of attention lately in our social/connected world. With everyone and their brother jumping on the twitter train, many companies will probably look to the celebs with lots & lots of followers.
They will offer large sums of money for favors. Nothing new there.
Just be true to yourself, your readers, and your ethics. Everything else will fall into place.
Mike CJ
· 8 months ago
In traditional journalism pretty much every product review is tainted in some way by what we are talking about here.
My background is motor industry. Do you trust Jeremy Clarkson’s take on a car? Lots of people do. When we launched a car, we’d take Clarkson and another hundred journalists to Monaco or somewhere exotic, we’d let them drive it for a day, then we’d wine and dine them in the best hotels before returning them home in the chartered jet. When they arrived, they would each have a brand new model waiting for them at the airport, with a full tank of gas, and we’d encourage them to drive it for a couple of weeks.
This never stopped them from panning a bad car. When Clarkson tells us a car is good, most of us believe him. Why? Because we feel he has integrity. Integrity he has built up over time.
I don’t believe for a moment that Chris Brogan would tell me a crap product was good. I trust the guy, and know enough about him to believe he wouldn't betray that trust.
The market will sort itself out. The guys (and there will be plenty of them) who take the money for money’s sake and spew out “advertorial” will lose their integrity and with it, their readers.
In motoring journalism terms they’ll end up on the Manchester Evening Echo, as opposed to BBC’s Top Gear.
Ben Kunz
· 8 months ago
Chris, thanks for your eloquent response. Since ethics like politics cannot be solved with one "right" point of view, perhaps the solution for bloggers is to use a simple economic trade-off. (1) How much will they earn this year from writing posts for hire? (2) Will doing so reduce their future value to employers or clients, hurting future fame/income/success?
I've made many mistakes in my career. Last year, I did one thing right: A CEO client called and asked me point blank, "Do you think the next wave of our ad campaign will work?" The campaign had been restructured several times and honestly I questioned it. Before I could think, I said, "No. The focus is wrong," and explained why. So he killed it. We waiting months before the campaign was revised, our agency missed out on a boatload of revenue in the meantime ... but now I have a very loyal client. He now trusts my opinion. He has since relaunched the campaign, and I think I'll be working with that client for many years to come.
Giving up something in the short term to build authenticity in the long-term is a difficult choice. It's one worth thinking about.
PS Yes, I dug your GM car visit.
Joe Manna
· 8 months ago
Chris,
I thank you for replying back. I think you articulated your point well when replying back to Ben. Perhaps I rushed out my opinions before fine-tuning them, but I still respect your thoughts this.
No, I don't think all blogs need to conform to a specific process. Personally, a blog is built on genuine, authentic and real conversation. Getting a vehicle manufacturer to let you drive cars for free isn't bad because it yielded legitimate, useful and interesting editorial that supports your views. Reviewing a payment processor is legitimate and would render a chance for people to understand the dynamics involved when considering those "bill me later" services. There's no harm in paying the bills when you fully disclose why you're talking about a product and sharing honest opinions.
I wouldn't put it past an advertiser looking for both a sponsored, positive review and backlinks on a blog. That's where my angle on including N. Patel's views comes in. The different in reading magazine advertising, is that ads are usually operated independently of the editorial.
I'm speaking from reading many sponsored reviews; many tend to pour a large amount of bias simply because the item is sponsored. The review itself often becomes skewed and not based on the merit of a product itself. Will it happen in all cases? No, but the practice itself is questionable. It's only reasonable that the audience may hold the publisher's credibility at stake when they endorse a product.
What I look for in a review online is legitimate product testing. Does a product meet up their claims? How well does it perform? Benchmark the customer service and share a few constructive criticism. You and I know that *every* product/service/experience always has deltas that we can all accept. (Besides, seeing a company representative respond to constructive criticisms HELPS engage the company as an authority on the subject, too.)
I think the type of sponsored review that you do is more relevant to your audience than the cookie-cutter ones found on PayPerPost. I'll go out on a hunch that you're probably pitched 1:1 by brands, instead actively looking to earn a few bucks by using services like PPP. There's a difference. You demonstrate a more ethical means by full disclosure and maintain personal endorsement of such brands.
Thanks again for opening the forum on this topic. It's got me and several other marketing folks thinking.
All the best, Joe
Maggie McGary
· 8 months ago
I only skimmed all the comments so I apologize if someone's already addressed this, but I wonder what your/everyone's thoughts are about this story on the ABCNews site about bloggers being held liable for posts?
Do you know if there's any truth to their assertion that the FTC is evaluating whether or not reviews by bloggers are in violation of advertising laws? The article sure makes the future of sponsored posts sound pretty grim.
Then there's the disclosure thing: how much protection do disclosures really offer? I read another article about a guy who had a blog that basically slammed Goldman Sachs but was PLASTERED with disclosures about how he was not affiliated with them in any way, yet their lawyers are still all over him with cease and desist letters.
I am torn about the whole thing; on one hand, who doesn't like getting free stuff to blog about? On the other, would I really be able to accept something for free then totally bash it if those were my honest feelings? Like what if every single person in the Fiesta thing just hated the car and bashed it? Would Ford really be ok with that? I honestly can't see a company shelling out big bucks to put themselves in the public eye if they thought there was a chance that the whole thing could turn into a big hate-fest of their product.
Brandon Carlos
· 8 months ago
Joe brings up the point that almost everyone on this thread is ignoring-- credibility! This is the issue, Chris.
My problem with sponsored posts lies in 1) poor targeting (i.e. why is a PR blogger offerring their PAID opinion on the Ford Fiesta, and why would anyone with a brain be influenced by that) and 2) Shameless disregard for their audience by promoting anything under the sun for a buck. Inattention to either of the above results, for me, in the loss of credibility. In fact, this has been the case for several prominent blogger whom I no longer follow.
It's really simple: If I'm interested in niche bloggers, I'm not following their blogs to listen to them promote a product that has nothing to do with their niche that brought me, and kept me, here in the first place. If I wanted to listen to a commercial, I'd tune into FM radio.
It's not that you shouldn't be able to make money off your blog (though there are dozens of great bloggers out there who don't make a dime for their efforts); when money enters the equation, though, rationality and ethics shouldn't fly out the window. I don't know that it's just about disclosure; if you look like a duck and you sound like a duck, does admitting it make you seem like any less a duck?
James A Woods
· 8 months ago
I follow Ted Murphey on Twitter. In fact, I communicate more with Ted than any other person in my stream. Ted's a good guy; I trust him. I think IZEA is a great company. I use one of their products.
I don't see any problem with sponsored posts, as long as there is disclosure.
chrisbrogan
· 8 months ago
@Brandon - and that's a great point you make. I think that if a blogger - let's use me as an example - started writing about any old thing that came along because it paid, I think the audience would vanish. If you see me reviewing MLM schemes, I expect you to all stampede to the door.
So credibility plus relevance, yes?
For instance, I was invited to be part of the Fiesta movement. Thing is, I'm not the right target. I'm a dad with two kids. The car might be the most amazing thing since sliced bread, but it wouldn't fit my kids. So, I passed. I pass on opportunities every day because they don't fit my community.
Make sense?
Guhmshoo
· 8 months ago
So Chris, how much will it cost me to change your mind about this?
Dominick
· 8 months ago
Alex - Chris could waste the time what if-ing all the could have beens, or he can keep doing what he's doing. Honestly, isn't he the only one who can truly measure the success of his brand/business? Isn't it he who determines whether it is moving in the direction he wants? Success means different things to different people, so if Chris feels he is successful at what he is doing, and he's clearly not being given less speaking engagements, less work opportunities, etc. I don't see why anyone else can attempt to say what he is doing is unsuccessful.
Let's be real. How many people blogging out there have the amount of followers (I don't just mean on twitter - those reading his blogs, too) and the amount of exposure in the blogging community (and mainstream media) as Chris Brogan has? We all know that statistically, more blogs fail then succeed. It's just common sense to think that here is a guy who actively believes in what he is doing, whether his readers agree with it or not.
Chris is doing what he believes is working for him, and honestly he can measure if his brand/business is being affected by comparing how many speaking engagements/business opportunities he received last year to now. Sure, he might have missed out on a great opportunity, but I'd wager its due to schedule conflicts more than someone/some company not having respect enough to ask him to speak.
Furthermore, why is it okay for say...a sports star...to be given a product to wear/show off and he's still an all American hero, but heaven forbid a blogger mentions any product they've been given or they've been allowed to test drive? It's like death for the blogger apparently. My favorite Detroit Tigers get sunglasses, shoes, and plenty of other things in hopes they'll mention the brand (or better yet, wear them) on television. Why is it okay for businesses to do this, but they can't give anything to bloggers without the bloggers' authenticity being compromised?
Brandon Carlos
· 8 months ago
@Chris - Yes, relevance, and good on you for turning down Ford. There are alot of other bloggers out there who can learn from that.
@Dominick - Again, the athlete - or blogger - should take advantage of the opportunity to promote products that RELATE TO THEM. Example: Tiger Woods promoting Buick has no appeal to me. Tiger Woods promoting Nike Golf makes absolute sense.
Joseph Fiore
· 8 months ago
Hey Chris, as always some excellent insights through your post and follow-up comments. I don't have really any bias to bring to the discussion, but I thought I might share my own perspective on the matter. When we talk about brand mentions in social media, I like to think the real value is found in content that happens in an organic manner. By "organic", I mean the kind of online mentions that comes from real consumer experiences and interactions with a brand, whether that be complimentary or demeaning.
Our day-to-day tasks are associated with monitoring mentions of brands on behalf of clients, and to some extent this means placing some kind of value assessment on the worthiness of that online mention. I won't get into the specifics, however we do look at the difference between mentions that happen naturally (i.e. from a consumer experience discussed in a post, whether that be in the comment section of a blog or YouTube post) versus those which are advertorial in nature.
The lines are continually blurring, and reading a dozen incidents from the thousands of consumer experiences on a rating section of a retailers Website, or going to a consumer portal that is designed primarily to rail on an industry or company are some examples of this, but sponsored posts seem to hve really have taken on a life of their own. One thing we know for sure is that people will research a company or product on the Internet before buying, and the enabler to that review process is search. Ultimately what will determine the future of sponsored posts will be the authoritative value that search places on the topic of discussion, and the vote on value assignment Web audiences place through active participation via replies or in the comment section.
Are brand mentions preferred over ads? At least one recent survey has provided some insight on this question. If I had a choice, I'd like to keep the two seperate in the way search results are displayed - organic results occupying most of the space on my screen with an area off to the top or right side for sponsored posts. Otherwise, when the two are found intergmingling in the wild, reading the disclosure disclaimer only after you've spent the 5 minutes reading the post is kind of like finding out that your favourite sports or entertainment celebrity doesn't even actually use the product they've spent years endorsing.
Joseph @RepuTrack
CK
· 8 months ago
Hey Chris--per this from your post: "Another company that I feel is doing great work in content marketing is Federated Media. I’m quite excited by what they’re doing with AMEX Open, and some of the other projects they’ve launched. And again, it’s sponsored content versus otherwise."
Is AMEX now doing sponsored posts? Or are you referencing their creating the Open Forum where, as I understand, they create the idea exchange but let users talk their subjects of preference? I'm just not sure and would appreciate your filling me in on that front. Thanks.
tojosan
· 7 months ago
Meeting Ted at SxSW was an eye opener. It gave him a chance to explain a bit about Izea and where they are headed. It provided fresh perspective on this marketing path.
Heck, I love the Ford Fiesta deal. What a way to get some buzz and share some fun. No hidden agenda there, just good old fashioned PR and marketing, but with the added bonus of tons of video, blogging, texting, tweeting and that on top. None of it a secret that they were giving away cars.
I want my piece of the action. Heck, I don't care so much about being paid, but I'd sure love to get products to review. I'm addicted to cool tech, and would have no bones about taking an new fangled radio, book reader, or automated ball cap to try out and play with in exchange for a blog post.
Loved the K-Mart and Sears events. Enjoyed Walmart's similar take on it. What's to lose?
Buck Daddy
· 7 months ago
This is 2nd or 3rd post that I have read about it this. I think it is okay as long you are transparent too
annew
· 7 months ago
Chris, as long as its disclosed, I'm on your side. I did almost a year's worth of blogging for an internet bank. I was anonymous, I was paid to pitch and it was all on their site. That was three years ago and we didn't get it right, but nothing was hidden. But it looks like I'm preaching to the choir here.
Hey look, a sponsored comment right here in your post. Now that doesn't bother you, does it?
Spike Jones
· 4 months ago
Bull.
Mandy Vavrinak
· 4 months ago
One of my clients is a 600,000 sq. ft. shopping center. They pay my firm to market the center as a shopping destination. I shop there, too... I sometimes tweet that I'm going to go shop there if in fact that is what I am about to do. Do they get some benefit from my tweets? Possibly.... I don't see the need to disclose a relationship in this case, though, since my intent is to share the random fact I'm going to Target for diapers and not to shill the center. Sometimes, we tweet about live radio events or community events happening at the center... I think those instances DO need disclosure, because my intent is different. Thoughts?
All Comments
How hard can it be? Disclose, disclose, disclose - where's the problem? I don't care if your disclosure policy is supported by, governed by or written by one organisation or another, I just want you to be honest with me when you've been paid in some way (any way) to review a product.
In time you won't need to do it, any more than the writers of Car Magazines need to tell me that they drove the car on the all expenses paid press launch in Monte Carlo. But for now, tell me everything please.
Thank you for your support. You continue to amaze me with your perspective and insight. It's never easy blazing new trails, but people like you make it worth the heart ache. The future of social media monetization is sponsored conversations and we intend to lead the way in an open, collaborative manner.
Great post. Sponsored content is just another tool for businesses. As long as the disclosure is there, like you mentioned, I think it's fine.
The only difference is that there are honest salesmen and dishonest salesmen.
If I clearly see that you are chasing me with a gun telling me I need to buy your product, or get involved with your organization I am going to run fast in the opposite direction. However, if you provide consistent, good, relevant content over time I will be more likely to get involved. If you are paid to write that content or unpaid, it makes no difference to me. (Of course Dan Ariely may disagree)
It seems unfortunate to say, but currency enables growth. This industruy can stay stagnant, or it can grow. The key is to be on the up-and-up.
@keithburtis
I am not doing sponsored posts because I don't have a blog that's big enough to, yet.
I have a clear statement on the blog, right from the get-go, that says I won't do paid-for-reviews of products, however, it is my intention is to attract sponsorship of the blogs with products related specifically to my niche.
This discussion brings up the same issue I've seen again and again - what is it exactly that people have against people making money on the internet?
Madness.
It's okay for Amazon and E-bay to sell stuff, it's okay for google to make trillions of advertising but if a blogger wants to actually pay some bills and feed themselves, it makes them "bad" people?
It's okay for magazines to charge for advertising but bloggers are just meant to keep blogging as a hobby?
Pah. I want the rest of my jobs to be my hobbies.
As you know, I work for Inc. magazine (which you endorsed on this blog-for free). It was a great review and endorsement for Inc. but I would imagine your readers would at the very least listened to your review differently had you been paid for it. I don't think sponsored posts are a bad thing, just something that needs to be carefully considered both for a marketer who is trying to promote a product and a blogger who is trying to make some extra cash. But you're right. This is going to happen and disclosure is a must.
I'll be staying far away from Izea/PayPerPost.
You hit the nail on the head with disclose, disclose, disclose, but even that seems unnecessary to me. Anyone who believes that the ads and content in print media aren't directly tied to one another at nearly every publication in existence (particularly those with big circulation) doesn't understand publishing finances or dynamics.
I am all for paid content, and as Chris says, if you don't want to read that paid content, read one of the other billion blogs that are written on other subjects...if you enjoy the blogger, and his / her content, read....the value in paid content is when it is presented by someone people are drawn to.
Like Chris ... I'll be reading.
DNW
Steph
@Jeff /Zemote - don't forget that Calacanis had a competing product in the ring at that time.
@Tyler - I get that, and actually, I've experienced it. Recently, I wrote a three-post collection about GM, the company that I've paid to supply me with cars my entire life. People asked immediately if it was a paid post, and that I'd best disclose it, etc. Thing was, I didn't get paid to write it, and that's when I had my first really big taste of "God, do I have to disclose that there's nothing to disclose?" And the answer feels like yes.
PR Professionals have to do this. I've seen @Tdefren say, "They're not my client, but I really like _____." I just didn't realize I'd have to start doing that, given that my About page discloses all my business relationships.
Oh well. I'm okay with that.
I figure that if corporations refrained from participating in sponsored posts, people would slam the corporations for not engaging with the community, and not taking advantage of people in the community who know how to communicate. They can't win...
Having worked with a company that contracted with IZEA for a short period of time, I'm sold on IZEA's business proposition. From my perspective, they're a solid company with an excellent reputation offering a valuable service.
The only thing I could do without are the tonsil photos. Perhaps there's a story there that needs to be told? :-)
Thanks!
This is as acceptable as companies putting brand images and logo's in video games, does Electronic Arts sell out by featuring Pepsi or Coke logo's in vending machines in online games?
Or does NBC Heroes sell out by featuring Nissan cars in the Heroes television show, like it or not advertisers need to move away from commercials and more into content placement inside the medium they wish to advertise in. Show people using or interacting with the product instead of a separate spot and it will be more transparent to the viewer or reader.
The ability for brands to sponsor posts that may even be critical of them is a huge step forward - one sorely needed.
I agree that sponsored posts are the way its going to go. The upside for businesses is that they can really do some creative things to help build a buzz about their product or service. Likewise, I think by opening the door to working with bloggers or other web 'professionals' (god I hate the term, but don't know where else to go with it), they're probably going to get wider exposure or at least have the benefit of working with someone who is well versed with this space - rather than starting from scratch on their own.
And its all about transparency. No doubt. And authenticity... But here's my question to you, Chris. Is there a difference between utilizing sponsored posts, and using someone (like an agency for instance) to handle their online presence - everything from Twitter, to their FB Fan pages? I THINK I remember you tweeting that you were not at all for ghost-tweeting, but it seems as though more and more people (including Guy Kawasaki I believe) are using additional people to handle their online brand.
Can you give us some more clarification about how businesses should or shouldn't take this a step further? Thanks for another great post.
@ryancmiller
It will be critical that bloggers find way to retain the integrity of their content and establish strong working guidelines that they share with sponsors prior to beginning work. I expect they will also have to be prepared to turn down work when sponsors ask them to cross certain lines of content creation. While that will be difficult, those who understand that lost reader trust will cost them far more in the future than one or two lost jobs will be the ones who are able to successfully walk the fine line of sponsored content.
Thanks for laying this out for me to chew on Chris, I really appreciate it.
Regards,
Rick
Although I'd agree that approach is best categorized as "sponsored" surely John B would not agree? Isn't his argument more along the lines of creating what he thinks is a big happy family of sponsors/bloggers/information consumers who dialog about things, thus making disclosure less important?
Whether an "ad" shows up as a graphic in a sidebar, a featured link strategically placed within a post I'm reading or whatever... if it fits comfortably into the conversation somehow, I'm totally fine with it.
Pretty much every industry has to re-invent itself at this point. Nothing is the same as it was 5 years ago and this is just the beginning. If someone wants to offer me a free sample of i.e. "Industrial Strength Blogger's Coffee" while I read you, Seth, Darren, etc... I won't whine too much, I'd actually appreciate it!
P.S. Full disclosure... I love coffee!!! ;-)
It just sounds different when we say the word "sponsored," doesn't it?
No consumer has the time or the effort to inspect the credibility of a sponsored conversation. Regardless if there's the "I Disclose" button or an about page filled with company endorsements or similar. It's lame, cheap and more so speaks to the blog's credibility.
If there is something worth disclosing, disclose it in the content. For instance, this post, you made your disclosures anything but ambigious. That's fine. I worry that many readers here will misinterpret the message that services like PayPerPost and others are a great way to jump into the conversation. It isn't. If a publisher wants to join in the conversation, join in the conversation. Cut the BS.
Sponsored conversations/posts/Tweets == Noise. Please don't make consumer have to filter more of it. SEO manipulators did it with Google, they did it with Blogs. There's a chance for them NOT to corrupt the platform where real conversation and credibility takes place, Twitter.
This is why I am against "new ideas" like Magpie, PayPerPost, etc. They go against all that social media stands for. It sickens me to read that you, Chris, support these sponsored conversations and I have to wonder how much Kool-Aid they're paying (I mean, quenching) you to support sponsored content.
I mean the best, but seriously. You support it?
~Joe
If you are posting sponsored posts and don't believe in what you are posting I believe that compromises your integrity as a blogger/writer. If you use a service, hate it, but post it is good anyway because you are getting paid to say the service rocks then your integrity as a blogger is compromised. There are ways to use sponsored posting and still have a high level of integrity.
Don't use services unless they allow you to be honest about their product/service. Positive or negative buzz is still buzz. If I think a product sucks that is not to say a person reading about said product will avoid it. They may have a totally different experience with it. If you are asked to write a positive post about the service/product, don't write it and lie about your experience if the product/service totally sucks. It's that simple.
If it's clear you're being honest about what you're writing and honest about the post being sponsored then I see no problem with sponsored posting. It is also rather exciting that we as bloggers can connect with these companies and can share our thoughts on their products/services. I would think a company would want to know the positives and negatives of what they are offering, so I would hope they expect honest opinions from those writing sponsored posts.
People who think you are influenced by a free Big Mac or even a free Ford Fiesta aren't people who are your base anyway. And if you are a blogger that sells out for a free box of ______, then you aren't going to be around long because nobody wants to read the opinion of a total sellout, even if you giveaway a free box of crackerjacks.
I am not completely objective since you are one of my favorite people so let me DISCLOSE that right here. Let me also say that I give Ted Murphy snaps for taking what looks like a party pic with you, so I like the guy already. Let me also disclose that I am looking forward to seeing you in Chicago for SOBCon09.
I also think that consumers are smarter than you are giving them credit for. It's not too hard to see which bloggers are in this just for a quick buck and will write anything just to make the money and those of us who write because we have something to say, we have opinions to share and we want to make the blogosphere better for it.
I don't write anything unless I'm being 100% honest. I review DVDs and other products. If the companies/PR reps I worked with made me write positive reviews of everything I reviewed I wouldn't do it. I've said some pretty harsh things, and these companies/PR reps know that it doesn't matter if I hated their product. At least I'm talking about them (and if a movie is deemed bad - how many people want to see it just to see how bad it is?).
I wouldn't compare Magpie to PayperPost either. Magpie invades the twitter streams of whoever is following those who use the service. You have no choice but to look at those ads (or get rid of the person you are following). You choose to visit a blog that has a sponsored post on it. You choose to read said post. I see the companies on two different levels.
I think more people are becoming more accustomed to assuming that any positive review is paid and criticism is "well-earned." I guess I must be grossly incorrect where I assume that publishers should maintain a sense of integrity in their content. As Nick Naylor says, "Everyone's got a mortgage to pay." Thus, times are tough so publishers sell out for a mere dollar or two.
I just find Brogan's endorsement rather unusual for his character. Clearly, the paid drones have come out to comment with such blind support. It's clear who the checks are written out to.
What happened to blogging for the love of it?
~Joe
But, it must be fully disclosed, prominently. That's the way I look at it to maintain ethics and editorial standards that a blog may have.
~Joe
Why is what I'm doing any different than any other movie critic? They get let into the movie for free (and paid) for their reviews. They are (more often than not) honest in what they write. What is wrong with that?
Sure, there are going to be those who have little to no integrity and are just in it for the money. Those sites aren't going to be successful. People won't go to a blog if its clear the person writing on the blog isn't honest or doesn't care about their readership. It's finding a balance between making money, keeping the conversation rolling, and being honest/having integrity. If a blogger can do that it's all gravy. Why should they be deemed as less reliable?
Sponsored product marketing has been around in various forms for years. Companies depend upon it to get their brand out and with blogging and social media becoming the primary way information is transmitted, they have to find a way to move from other forms of marketing (i.e. television/newspaper advertisements) to reach the bigger audience online. Why not let bloggers lead the way?
I sure didn't write about SEO or link spamming above, so I'm not sure how you equate this with sponsored content. In fact, Patel's strategy that you quote is an attempt to get free SEO benefits, so quite the opposite of paid.
Is it noise because someone pays? Do you read magazines? Wired, maybe? Can you read it without the ads? no.
If you think the only way for corporations to participate is in straight "earned" media, you might have to revisit how that kind of ink has been earned. It's not as lily-white as you seem to feel.
As for me? You didn't really just ask me if I was serious, right? I wasted about 600 words if I wasn't clear.
I don't like something because Chris Brogan says he does, I might like it if Chris writes a compelling blog with a great rationale behind his point. But there is a clear and recognizable difference between his great blog points of view and if he is shilling for GM, (not what I thought)
I might even like a GM car if he says a GM car is cool. I would prefer if he told me he got paid to say it, but an ad is still an ad. I think most Mac people should have to disclose whether they are paid or not, because it is impossible to tell. :)
Take the money, let us know, we'll decide over time whether you sound like the RONCO sales guy.
Our sponsors pay for the production of the show. If that money wasn't there, the show would not exist. Simple.
I am having trouble understanding what's different in terms of paid blog posts. In non-commercial television and radio (think PBS, community television and radio), sponsorship has been around forever and nobody seems to have an issue with it. But for some reason bloggers (also considered non-commercial) are being punished for getting paid to do the occasional post? Seems like a bit of a double standard to me.
I like money too. :)
Disclosure is obvious. I can disclose anything. Just because I disclose something does not make it right/good. It just means that I was upfront about it.
The only discussion I'd like to hear debated is the net result of how the Blogger is perceived by their community. The ongoing impact it has on them and their community. Yes, the brand wins. They get some good coverage by a Blogger and all the good stuff that comes with it (mentions, tweets, SEOs, etc...) for cheap. On the other side, it's not the $500 that lines the Blogger's pocket that makes the transaction complete. It's the ongoing and consistent questioning of the Blogger's intention on every post after every mention of a product or service.
Yes, everybody is entitled to make money. Advertisers will do it because it's cheap and easy. Bloggers will do it because they need the money.It's just sad that in the end, the net result, is that readers don't trust Bloggers as much. I thought one of the key ingredients that made Social Media so awesome was just that. I guess it will become just another media area that is littered with messaging - some of it created by the actual content producers. Sad and lame.
Let me ask you outright: do you trust me? If not, why still read my stuff? Why not go on and find one of several dozen other people writing similar material?
How am I perceived by my community? I'm guessing from my anecdotal evidence that I'm doing okay. Does that answer your question ?
Your thoughts on disclosure are much appreciated and valuable. I work in healthcare public relations. A former organization for which I worked had huge p.r. problems because physicians were not properly disclosing their relationships with industry while recommending products and meds made by companies they consulted for. The relationships were mostly fine and ethical, but disclosure to patients was non-existent.
Now, the organization has taken the lead nationally in disclosing online what physicians earn from consulting and advising to industry.
You are right. Be honest. Be ethical. Communicate with people who trust you.
Bloggers can choose if they want to do money with their blog or not and can choose between simple PR or sponsored post.
The only difference with BuzzParadise is that bloggers can truly say what they think.
Therefore, with the disclosure and the fact that a blogger will never (or should not) risk to kill his blog for few money (such a hard work) - sponsored post are auto regulate by the community to my sense.
Thanks for the follow-up. The truth is you do not really know if your brand has suffered at all. You're seeing it only based on what is visible through your web analytics or what people will say to you. How many potential clients, speaking events, new business opportunities etc... might you have missed because you have gone down this path? My guess is you'll never know.
In response to your question of trust, I am not sure that's even the right question. You are a Blogger who delivers great content, I don't really have to trust you (I am not looking for you to watch my kids). What I am looking for is credibility and integrity. The minute you started accepting money for your thoughts is the minute that credibility starts diminishing. I don't think I'm the only one who thinks like this, and it's probably the same reason why many of the best journalists and authors don't do this type of advertising. I can easily skip over the shill posts and still get value out of what you do and the community. But, I still question everything you do now, whereas before, I didn't. That does make me sad.
I now live in the Northwest, USA... thanks to pioneers!
Big internet = Room for every option
1. Disclosure is not enough. You or I could disclose to our wives that we slept with a prostitute. Full disclosure. That doesn't change the ethics of what we did. Saying "disclosure" makes paid posts OK is a logical fallacy since the ethics of the *action* have nothing to do with the *description* of what happened. Simple. If you question this, trying going home tonight and disclosing, "Hey, honey, I just slept with a hooker..."
2. Blogs are opinions. See your post above, and every comment that followed. Opinions. This is an important distinction, because paying someone to write an opinion is very different than paying someone to stick a block of ad copy on the page. If you disagree, please point me to a blog with entries of more than 10 words that doesn't contain opinions.
3. "Paid posts" are thus "paid opinions." You are buying the voice of someone's mind.
4. Paying for an opinion creates a conflict of interest. The pay giver is seeking elevation of a topic and influence over a positive review (if not, why would they pay?). The pay recipient is compromised and influenced to write favorably over the product or perk given. If you disagree, please point me to 2 paid posts sharply critical of the product being paid for.
5. Conflicts of interest reduce credibility. This is why marketing executives in charge of million-dollar budgets don't accept gifts more than $20 -- because even the appearance of impropriety opens the door to complaints of favoritism or impropriety in future business dealings.
6. Reduction of credibility is not helpful to anyone's career.
At the end, bloggers have a choice. Paid posts are not "wrong"; they are a PR vehicle that create a conflict of interest that may reduce the blogger's credibility. Bloggers of course are welcome to walk that road if they choose. You can tweet about how much you like a GPS system given to you on loan, and many of us will digest that for the questionable transmission that it is.
But let's be clear -- paid posts are not sticking content on a page, like advertising or even advertorial. They are buying the opinions coming from people's minds.
Take good care of your mind, Chris. You only have one.
Ben Kunz
c 203 506 7269
Advertorials are written by outside writers, not staff journalists. If staff journalists wrote advertorial in addition to their regular writing duties, readers would justly view everything they write with suspicion -- paid, unpaid, whatever. That's why newspapers generally don't allow it.
The same will happen to bloggers, as Chris alludes to -- you'll have to qualify anything positive you write by saying whether you're getting paid or not. And even when a post is unpaid, people will still wonder. All this subtly degrades readers' perception of your independent voice -- which might be the reason they read you in the first place. Maybe that's worth the money, but it's not without cost.
I don't see why people get all their knickers in a twist if a blogger is getting paid to do something or receiving products to review. (Note: Ford is not giving us cash compensation.)
We all have to make some money or derive some benefit from our effort. If you have a blog, provide quality content on a consistent basis, and throw in a "sponsored" post every now and then, what is the big deal? I have never monetized my blog and I would dare any of my readers to give me sh*t about my involvement with Ford. I'm doing it because it benefits my readers and I, too. I'll get to go on trips that I would otherwise not have been able to do, which will actually enrich the content of my blog. I know my readers will enjoy posts about the excursions. And Ford has no real control over our content. It's really quite a fascinating project in the grand scheme of blogger things, and I'm happy to be part of it.
The smart companies are the ones that are making it worth the blogger's effort and I feel Ford has done that so far.
1.) Great point. Disclosure isn't enough. There should be the sense that something is perceived to be fair, just, useful, of value to my blogging community. I believe that content marketing is acceptable in principle. Thus, I'm not necessarily disclosing a hooker, but definitely telling the wife I'm going out with the guys for a few beers.
2.) I disagree. MOST blogs are written as opinion. A blog is software, and perhaps loosely, a movement around the notions put forth by the Cluetrain Manifesto. But I think a blog like Digital Nomads isn't a site about opinions. I don't think TechCrunch considers itself an opinion site 100%. I know the Huffington Post would have you believe they're a news outlet.
3.) Hmm. As I disagreed with 2, I don't know what to say here. Let's look at an example of a paid post. Nikon sent me a D60 camera to try out. I wasn't obligated to write about it. I didn't have to do anything, except either give it back or pay for it when the time came that the trial was up. If I were to write up my thoughts on the camera, I'd have started by disclosing the relationship. In fact, it's mentioned on my about page. I wasn't paid to have an opinion. I was given the opportunity to share my experiences about something.
The follow-on criticism is that if something is given to me that I'll likely be positive about it. I understand this criticism.
4.) Again, I see your criticism here. But you're pointing to one kind of post type: reviews. What if it's just an experience? What if it's something different, like Amex paying for posts about small business that have absolutely nothing to do with their card? Is it REVIEWS that bug you, or just the idea of money changing hands with regards to typing? Because B seems fishy. A, I can buy.
5.) In certain industries, this is strictly adhered to, but in others, not so much. Just a point. Oh, the appearance of impropriety. I imagine that my free experiences with GM are improper? Is it bad that they let me play with their cars, given I ended up writing about (and shooting video about) them? In that case, everything was free. It was just plain fun. But is it improper? (Seriously, asking. This isn't a challenge.)
6.) We agree there. I just continue to disagree that writing for pay makes me less credible, provided it's clear when I'm writing for pay. I seem to know lots of paid writers, and the only ones who get this little curly hair stuck in their mouth are journalists. I am not am not am not am not a journalist. Will never be. Will never pretend to be. Oh, unless the press pass gets me in somewhere cool.
I love these conversations, Ben.
@Tim - In NO part of my post do I liken sponsored content to advertorials. I think advertorials are usually pretty lame. They're marketing material. I'm not a staff journalist. I'm not a journalist at all. I write. I continue to think sponsored posts aren't cut from the same cloth as advertorials, which are required to be written from the marketing perspective.
Though Ben's right that sponsored posts boost the chance that someone will write nicely about them, I still see the value of a non-advertorial piece. See, for instance, my take on eBillMe. It was a sponsored post and I still came out and said they needed to improve the service.
Thanks for your thoughts.
The term buyer beware comes to mind. Great products will likely get a great review, dubious or not so stellar products, well you get the picture. I don't see you reviewing MLM marketing schemes anytime soon.
I mean really if you write about something for pay, you should still be fair to your readers. Your audience is why brands want you to write about them, to reach your readers.
One of the reasons I read your blog is because its real, its about things, people, places, and relationships. Things I WANT to read about. More than just fluff or linkbait. Things that make sense.
Personally, I don't read or care for reviews until its time to make a major purchase. Only then do i want to know what other people have said. I google I read. I want to hear normal people not a paid sponsorship. That's just me, but I think other people are like that as well.
Real people that made decisions based on what you said about a product will feel duped if the article mislead them. Less readers, less paid writing gigs. No one benefits.
Ben has some valid points about companies buying opinions. For a long time Industry giants have engaged celebrities, professional athletes, and others as sponsors. Some of the numbers from Michael Jordans paid sponsorships spring to mind.
I imagine this is getting a lot of attention lately in our social/connected world. With everyone and their brother jumping on the twitter train, many companies will probably look to the celebs with lots & lots of followers.
They will offer large sums of money for favors. Nothing new there.
Just be true to yourself, your readers, and your ethics. Everything else will fall into place.
My background is motor industry. Do you trust Jeremy Clarkson’s take on a car? Lots of people do. When we launched a car, we’d take Clarkson and another hundred journalists to Monaco or somewhere exotic, we’d let them drive it for a day, then we’d wine and dine them in the best hotels before returning them home in the chartered jet. When they arrived, they would each have a brand new model waiting for them at the airport, with a full tank of gas, and we’d encourage them to drive it for a couple of weeks.
This never stopped them from panning a bad car. When Clarkson tells us a car is good, most of us believe him. Why? Because we feel he has integrity. Integrity he has built up over time.
I don’t believe for a moment that Chris Brogan would tell me a crap product was good. I trust the guy, and know enough about him to believe he wouldn't betray that trust.
The market will sort itself out. The guys (and there will be plenty of them) who take the money for money’s sake and spew out “advertorial” will lose their integrity and with it, their readers.
In motoring journalism terms they’ll end up on the Manchester Evening Echo, as opposed to BBC’s Top Gear.
I've made many mistakes in my career. Last year, I did one thing right: A CEO client called and asked me point blank, "Do you think the next wave of our ad campaign will work?" The campaign had been restructured several times and honestly I questioned it. Before I could think, I said, "No. The focus is wrong," and explained why. So he killed it. We waiting months before the campaign was revised, our agency missed out on a boatload of revenue in the meantime ... but now I have a very loyal client. He now trusts my opinion. He has since relaunched the campaign, and I think I'll be working with that client for many years to come.
Giving up something in the short term to build authenticity in the long-term is a difficult choice. It's one worth thinking about.
PS Yes, I dug your GM car visit.
I thank you for replying back. I think you articulated your point well when replying back to Ben. Perhaps I rushed out my opinions before fine-tuning them, but I still respect your thoughts this.
No, I don't think all blogs need to conform to a specific process. Personally, a blog is built on genuine, authentic and real conversation. Getting a vehicle manufacturer to let you drive cars for free isn't bad because it yielded legitimate, useful and interesting editorial that supports your views. Reviewing a payment processor is legitimate and would render a chance for people to understand the dynamics involved when considering those "bill me later" services. There's no harm in paying the bills when you fully disclose why you're talking about a product and sharing honest opinions.
I wouldn't put it past an advertiser looking for both a sponsored, positive review and backlinks on a blog. That's where my angle on including N. Patel's views comes in. The different in reading magazine advertising, is that ads are usually operated independently of the editorial.
I'm speaking from reading many sponsored reviews; many tend to pour a large amount of bias simply because the item is sponsored. The review itself often becomes skewed and not based on the merit of a product itself. Will it happen in all cases? No, but the practice itself is questionable. It's only reasonable that the audience may hold the publisher's credibility at stake when they endorse a product.
What I look for in a review online is legitimate product testing. Does a product meet up their claims? How well does it perform? Benchmark the customer service and share a few constructive criticism. You and I know that *every* product/service/experience always has deltas that we can all accept. (Besides, seeing a company representative respond to constructive criticisms HELPS engage the company as an authority on the subject, too.)
I think the type of sponsored review that you do is more relevant to your audience than the cookie-cutter ones found on PayPerPost. I'll go out on a hunch that you're probably pitched 1:1 by brands, instead actively looking to earn a few bucks by using services like PPP. There's a difference. You demonstrate a more ethical means by full disclosure and maintain personal endorsement of such brands.
Thanks again for opening the forum on this topic. It's got me and several other marketing folks thinking.
All the best,
Joe
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/AheadoftheCurve/...
Do you know if there's any truth to their assertion that the FTC is evaluating whether or not reviews by bloggers are in violation of advertising laws? The article sure makes the future of sponsored posts sound pretty grim.
Then there's the disclosure thing: how much protection do disclosures really offer? I read another article about a guy who had a blog that basically slammed Goldman Sachs but was PLASTERED with disclosures about how he was not affiliated with them in any way, yet their lawyers are still all over him with cease and desist letters.
I am torn about the whole thing; on one hand, who doesn't like getting free stuff to blog about? On the other, would I really be able to accept something for free then totally bash it if those were my honest feelings? Like what if every single person in the Fiesta thing just hated the car and bashed it? Would Ford really be ok with that? I honestly can't see a company shelling out big bucks to put themselves in the public eye if they thought there was a chance that the whole thing could turn into a big hate-fest of their product.
My problem with sponsored posts lies in 1) poor targeting (i.e. why is a PR blogger offerring their PAID opinion on the Ford Fiesta, and why would anyone with a brain be influenced by that) and 2) Shameless disregard for their audience by promoting anything under the sun for a buck. Inattention to either of the above results, for me, in the loss of credibility. In fact, this has been the case for several prominent blogger whom I no longer follow.
It's really simple: If I'm interested in niche bloggers, I'm not following their blogs to listen to them promote a product that has nothing to do with their niche that brought me, and kept me, here in the first place. If I wanted to listen to a commercial, I'd tune into FM radio.
It's not that you shouldn't be able to make money off your blog (though there are dozens of great bloggers out there who don't make a dime for their efforts); when money enters the equation, though, rationality and ethics shouldn't fly out the window. I don't know that it's just about disclosure; if you look like a duck and you sound like a duck, does admitting it make you seem like any less a duck?
I don't see any problem with sponsored posts, as long as there is disclosure.
So credibility plus relevance, yes?
For instance, I was invited to be part of the Fiesta movement. Thing is, I'm not the right target. I'm a dad with two kids. The car might be the most amazing thing since sliced bread, but it wouldn't fit my kids. So, I passed. I pass on opportunities every day because they don't fit my community.
Make sense?
Let's be real. How many people blogging out there have the amount of followers (I don't just mean on twitter - those reading his blogs, too) and the amount of exposure in the blogging community (and mainstream media) as Chris Brogan has? We all know that statistically, more blogs fail then succeed. It's just common sense to think that here is a guy who actively believes in what he is doing, whether his readers agree with it or not.
Chris is doing what he believes is working for him, and honestly he can measure if his brand/business is being affected by comparing how many speaking engagements/business opportunities he received last year to now. Sure, he might have missed out on a great opportunity, but I'd wager its due to schedule conflicts more than someone/some company not having respect enough to ask him to speak.
Furthermore, why is it okay for say...a sports star...to be given a product to wear/show off and he's still an all American hero, but heaven forbid a blogger mentions any product they've been given or they've been allowed to test drive? It's like death for the blogger apparently. My favorite Detroit Tigers get sunglasses, shoes, and plenty of other things in hopes they'll mention the brand (or better yet, wear them) on television. Why is it okay for businesses to do this, but they can't give anything to bloggers without the bloggers' authenticity being compromised?
@Dominick - Again, the athlete - or blogger - should take advantage of the opportunity to promote products that RELATE TO THEM. Example: Tiger Woods promoting Buick has no appeal to me. Tiger Woods promoting Nike Golf makes absolute sense.
Our day-to-day tasks are associated with monitoring mentions of brands on behalf of clients, and to some extent this means placing some kind of value assessment on the worthiness of that online mention. I won't get into the specifics, however we do look at the difference between mentions that happen naturally (i.e. from a consumer experience discussed in a post, whether that be in the comment section of a blog or YouTube post) versus those which are advertorial in nature.
The lines are continually blurring, and reading a dozen incidents from the thousands of consumer experiences on a rating section of a retailers Website, or going to a consumer portal that is designed primarily to rail on an industry or company are some examples of this, but sponsored posts seem to hve really have taken on a life of their own. One thing we know for sure is that people will research a company or product on the Internet before buying, and the enabler to that review process is search. Ultimately what will determine the future of sponsored posts will be the authoritative value that search places on the topic of discussion, and the vote on value assignment Web audiences place through active participation via replies or in the comment section.
Are brand mentions preferred over ads? At least one recent survey has provided some insight on this question. If I had a choice, I'd like to keep the two seperate in the way search results are displayed - organic results occupying most of the space on my screen with an area off to the top or right side for sponsored posts. Otherwise, when the two are found intergmingling in the wild, reading the disclosure disclaimer only after you've spent the 5 minutes reading the post is kind of like finding out that your favourite sports or entertainment celebrity doesn't even actually use the product they've spent years endorsing.
Joseph
@RepuTrack
Is AMEX now doing sponsored posts? Or are you referencing their creating the Open Forum where, as I understand, they create the idea exchange but let users talk their subjects of preference? I'm just not sure and would appreciate your filling me in on that front. Thanks.
Heck, I love the Ford Fiesta deal. What a way to get some buzz and share some fun. No hidden agenda there, just good old fashioned PR and marketing, but with the added bonus of tons of video, blogging, texting, tweeting and that on top. None of it a secret that they were giving away cars.
I want my piece of the action. Heck, I don't care so much about being paid, but I'd sure love to get products to review. I'm addicted to cool tech, and would have no bones about taking an new fangled radio, book reader, or automated ball cap to try out and play with in exchange for a blog post.
Loved the K-Mart and Sears events. Enjoyed Walmart's similar take on it. What's to lose?
Anne Wayman - now blogging at www.aboutfreelancewriting.com
老虎机上分器,老虎机定位器,老虎机遥控器,老虎机破解,百乐2号破解,五星宏辉破解,单挑王破解,童装网,中国童装网,童装代理,童装品牌,童装新闻,sasa网购,相亲