Really enjoying the process of getting to know you and listen to what you're thinking.
Justin Kownacki
· 9 months ago
Some journalists are more opinionated than others. Some social media creators are more transparent than others. In all media, there will be straight-shooters and there will be shills. In each person, there is the capacity to be both.
The trick is in figuring out who's being what when, and then deciding what you think about that. And then checking back a few days / weeks / months later, because this is the 21st Century, and who we are changes daily.
Robert Scoble
· 9 months ago
As long as you're transparent about what you do, I love what you're doing. ReadWriteWeb is in the wrong on this one. Advertising is just as corrosive (maybe even more so) than having a sponsor like I do.
Navdeep Singh
· 9 months ago
Hi Chris,
"Bloggers aren’t journalists. Bloggers are people who use blogging software. There are journalists who blog. There are bloggers who aspire to journalistic standards."
this is key. we are now using words like 'sponored posts' & 'endorsements' to hide journalists behind blogs. Here is where it's at for me. If you blog for joy, you have something you are passionate that you want to blog about. and guess what? you will attract people who are also passional about the same thing..
That means an interest outside just internet marketing MLM or number of twitter followers alone. e.g. the words MLM, SEO or Internet Marketing in a twitter profile is a non-follow for me. on the other hand, journalists have a different role and their role is changing. Social Web is not about journalism. it's about the people, passionately connecting on a common theme.
You have always acted righteous in that sense... and why, due to various factors, increased by Forrester's report, I am shortly to embark on a similar path.
The social web is about changing mindsets while maintaining transparency. Thanks for staying genuine.
Marshall Kirkpatrick
· 9 months ago
Come on Chris, I think I recognized the ambiguity of the situation pretty substantially. This post just comes across as defensive, and the "you're doing it wrong" post is pretty unconvincing. I think there's only a few ways we can deal with this. You're going to have to buy me a beer in Austin, right after I buy you one. And you're going to have to keep being a marketer who blogs about changes in the marketing field while I'll be a blogger who aims to be a journalist and gets my rent paid by the advertising department, as journalists always have, but with that line getting admittedly more complicated all the time. I don't know why you're getting so defensive about this, though, I think I was quite fair to you and this is a situation you've dealt with some time ago. Like I said, I imagine you went along with the KMart thing because you're a marketer who's interested in experimenting with new stuff. And like I said, I don't think there are many blogs outside of marketing blogs like yours where that would make sense for KMart. Simple truth is, I don't like it - and I feel more or less comfortable with the different line we've drawn as a media publication. Anyway, I'll take an IPA - what are you having?
Barbara Ling, Virtual Coach
· 9 months ago
'Taint nothing wrong whatsoever with making money on the Internet - it always bemuses me that some people will stridently say, sell out! Sell out!
And yet, look at the vast majority of blogs out there...you'll see Adsense, advertising ads, etc.etc.etc.etc.
I make money with my blog and I'm righteously proud to state that fact. I've worked *hard* to gain my knowledge and always walk the walk I talk.
Data points, Barbara
Susie Blackmon
· 9 months ago
It takes time to figure out who really makes money 'out there' and to find those you might want to work with and to emulate; albeit, in your own niche. I know what I want and who I do, and do not, want to work with... just patiently waiting on checkbook to fatten up. Those with class don't ram things down your throat unless that's the approach you prefer.
Peter Kim
· 9 months ago
Everyone monetizes their blog. Some people just choose to do it in more tangible/overt ways than others.
Gino Cosme
· 9 months ago
Ari is quite right; being genuine is one of the key ingredients to this "thing" called social media. The rest follows naturally.
Eric Young
· 9 months ago
Interesting post & fact! What ever you write on your blog, it is your responsibility.
Kevin (SpiritintheVillage)
· 9 months ago
The money and sponsors will go where the readers go. There are enough good bloggers attracting large volumes of readers that businesses are noticing. We live in a capitalist system so the money will soon follow.
I'm not sure what makes a journalist legitimate? Is it that he/she works in an office, went to jouralism school and gets a paycheck? I'm not sure if this model works anymore.
High-tech brought a more casual, laid back approach to the office and business in the 80's and 90's. Many in traditional business objected. The Beatles bought a new sound and rock and roll into the mainstream even thought many thought it would never work.
Bloggers are bringing a new tone and opportunity to the world of journalism. Smart journalists are meeting that challenge and finding ways to survive and thrive in this new environment.
chrisbrogan
· 9 months ago
Just to be clear, Marshall reported his article in a reasonably fair way, and MARSHALL is one of the purest minds I know.
That said, having the question raised by RWW is a bit different, as it has sponsored posts *and* heaps of advertising.
What Marshall says is right: he's approaching it as a journalist who relies on the advertising to get paid and I'm a marketer who blogs.
Sonny Gill
· 9 months ago
You, among others, have built trust and honesty among your readers. We know you're real in everything you say or do and if you're willing to change the play and experiment or try different avenues in this 'sacred' blogging world, then we should trust you in that also.
So long that there is disclosure and that there is trust with the blogger's reputation, then there really isn't a problem here other than readers and naysayers trying to hold on to the sanctity of blogging. Every medium, blogging, Twitter, PR, etc. is changing and evolving every day. Either we continue to have these types of arguments or accept the change and try to grow with it.
Susan/Together We Flourish
· 9 months ago
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. When you meet people in person and engage is conversation you may not necessarily have an intent. You find out who they are and share a little of yourself with them. Each person has many layers. Why is social media any different than engaging in conversation at a party?
partywedo
· 9 months ago
Susan/Together We Flourish makes a point. People go to a party with varying agendas; so the party becomes the platform for discussion. Individuals with an agenda are easy to spot because they will always turn the conversation to what benefits them personally. If that conversation make you uncomfortable, move on to visit with someone else or excuse yourself and join the party down the street. Some party participants are there for networking, some for love and some just come to hang-out with like minded people. They generally stay at the party if they like the conversation. The tools that have brought us the various opportunities to connect online are like open invitations to the party. Maybe we should separate up the social media into well defined party invitations: "Join me in a Tupperware Party on Friday" - is transparent in the selling agenda. "Come to the White Elephant Gift Exchange Party" - is understood as a bring-a-gift party. "Your invited to a Chamber Meet and Greet Party" - come prepared to network.
How do I join in on the beers at SXSW? I'll be there too ya know.
sharonmc
· 9 months ago
All this conversation about the indignity of writing for pay or increased profile is to me all part of the conversation, as you pointed out earlier and on several occasions Chris. This is what we asked for as the web 2.0 generation and it's what we're getting.
I don't understand the frustration. We wanted to have more control in how we interact with our media and we've got it! Hallelujah...
What will damper things is too much navel gazing. Continue searching for ways to make a living or live your life, on your terms. If that means monetizing your blog - go for it. If you're not good at it or if you offend too many of the wrong people you'll feel it in your pocket book. Seems to be a great business model to me.
chrisbrogan
· 9 months ago
@Jeremiah - beers, yes. Tapas, no. ; )
dean guadagni
· 9 months ago
Chris,
To put a musical spin on this issue. There was a tiny little punk band in Berkeley, CA that was true to their artform. They were nasty, crude, and very Johnny Rotten like for the beginning of their career. But something happened and their writing took a more mainstream turn--their career exploded. The result was a string of top 10 hits, massive cash, and global recognition for their chops.
That little punk band playing hole in the wall clubs in Berkeley? Green Day. Now the rest of the story, we miss you Paul H., I caught a Green Day show before they were "Green Day" back in the day. On one of my best friend's wedding day's, they chose a Green Day hit as their theme music to begin their wedding reception.
Does that make Green Day a sell out? In my opinion it makes them multi-talented, opportunity ready, and smart. And that's the rest of the story.
Rick Morgan
· 9 months ago
Clearly, lots of passion regarding this topic - at least from the "choir". But I am not sure the occasional blog reader or "regular guy" consumer really cares. When I read a blog I ask myself stuff like am entertained, learned something, motivated, or challenged? Newspapers and newscasts have advertisers, we all wear clothes with logos, politicians have contributors, speakers and consultants are paid and have sponsors. As consumers of product or ideas we have the personal responsibility to know our who our sources are and their bias/motivation and make informed decisions. $$$ are not the issue - rather, it is transparency and personal responsibility.
Reggie Greene / The Logisticia
· 9 months ago
I have a slightly different take on this. These tools have the potential to be revolutionary in nature, or promote democratization, in the sense that prior to the current period, only those with some degree of financial resources could achieve the same results. This type of change in society, which gives the average citizen more options, is always greeted with reluctance.
When the Internet was first introduced, there was some concern on the part of some countries that it would promote anarchy because one could no longer monitor or control one's people by simply erecting physical walls. Nationalist sentiments, it was felt, would diminish in power, and that instead, commonality of interests would be a more important factor than place of birth. People could communicate across geographical boundaries and lines.
At any rate, change is the probably the most uncomfortable force for those whose very existence and prosperity depends on maintaining the status quo.
I remember that Seth Godin said that people are used to get free stuff on the Internet. Many people see social media as a way of interacting with others and just that. They don't expect to make any money, or they tried and failed and that is why they want others to be like them.
I think that it doesn't matter if you are clear or not about your intentions. For example I know that Gary Vaynerchuk won't tape a bad tip or a bad advice just because he can make some money out of it : the reason is he will lose big time on the long run if he decides to do so.
That is also why I trust what you say. Because the minute you're gonna say something stupid just for the money people will know.
So, keep doing what you do !
@TomaBonciu
George Snell
· 9 months ago
Hi Chris: As a former journalist, I like it when journalists try to apply the same standards from newspapers and magazines to social media platforms like blogging - but fail to realize that the journalistic standards they embrace never really existed in the first place.
Newspapers have always been biased. I'll agree that newspapers - and I've worked at a few - try to keep advertising away from news gathering. They truly do, but it never works out as planned. Advertisers at newspapers and magazines - especially big advertisers - have always been treated better than non-advertisers. They receive special treatment and even get better coverage. Reporters will deny it, but its true.
All you need to do is look at the big media/news companies and watch how their news outlets promote their entertainment projects. Cover stories about blockbuster movies, interviews with contestants from their reality shows on their morning news shows, etc.
The solution is transparency. If you are writing about a client (or an advertiser) then be upfront about it. Reveal it. It will be up to readers to determine if they want to believe the content. Just because content is produced by a private company doesn't necessarily mean its not a valuable.
But good debate. This is the kind of conversation we need to be having more of. And while I agree that your post was a bit defensive, Chris, I think it was necessary to post it.
VoteAudrey
· 9 months ago
And even movies feature plugs for beverage brands, et cetera. Audience knows the difference between an evangelist, advocate and endorser.
Brett Borders
· 9 months ago
You also have to consider the damage that adding sponsored links your website's trust and ranking reputation in Google and other search engines. If you don't clearly disclose the sponsorship in a machine-readable format and/or "nofollow" the links - your blog can run into trouble.
Cheryl
· 9 months ago
Thank you, thank you, thank you. The tool is not defined by the utilizers. Cannot be defined. Is there an exclusively* (*key word here) "right way" to use a Windsor-Newton series 7 watercolor brush? It's the end product. The output. This is not to say that if you're annoying or off-putting your art gallery show (or Twitter posts) won't be ignored; they may well be. But the choice in how you use those tools is up to you.
Thanks for the always-relevant posts, Chris.
Rich Nadworny
· 9 months ago
Chris,
Good for you. The key issue here is transparency and authenticity. In this sense, having someone blog for you, or giving Guy Kawasaki a car isn't the issue, it's whether we as consumers know where you're coming from. Most old media doesn't work that way.
As for good and evil, Seth Godin had a great blog entry on "Is Marketing Evil?" a few weeks back. http://cli.gs/76G9X2
Marketing or blogging is value neutral. What you do with it is another question.
Adam Kmiec
· 9 months ago
If Popular Photo Magazine were given FREE Nikon D3X's from Nikon to review and Nikon paid the editors to write about the product and Popular Photo disclosed that information, I STILL wouldn't believe a positive review from Popular Photo. I would look for other sources and other reviews, because my fear is that the information from Popular Photo would be biased.
You can argue credibility. You can say well the author has always been credible so why wouldn't they be credible now? But, here's the fact...if you sell yourself continually you lose credibility ridiculously quick.
Here's a scenario. I'm a loyal Nikon advocate. I have been for nearly 20 years. Let's say Canon came to me, offered me X dollars, and a free X camera to do a review on the product and I accepted. If the review I gave was positive would the readers believe me? Of course not.
You can't buy credibility, but you can lose it when you sell yourself.
J. Paul Duplantis
· 9 months ago
Everybody needs products and services. Is it not the engine that drives employment, development of resources and innovation.
It seems like social media has painted itself into a corner. Bloggers have built such hype around community and sharing of which drives traffic to their sites they now have to explain themselves time and time again when they want to make money.
Newsflash. We all want to make money. I am following this thread and I see apologists.
Find a product, service, event or idea that you believe in and write about it. If you have built your following as a blogger around the notion of the Utopian dream that everything in life that is good is free then I guess you reap what you sow.
Chris seems to get this but I have also seen countless posts and comments where he is having to explain himself to his community.
Our society has evolved from post World War II to a culture of ideas and talk and slowly away from building and selling tangibles.
Quite talking and postulating people. Make it, sell it, provide great customer service and scream from the mountaintop that you love what you make.
And hell yes if you can find a talented blogger to write about it - you bet.
Quit apologizing people.
steveplunkett
· 9 months ago
I started blogging links sept.1st, 1996... <cite>http://www.coolwebsites.org/septcool.html</cite> if someone said "i will give you $1000 to link to my website" and it fit with what i was doing, i guess i might link to it.. however NO ONE has ever said that... i get spam emails from people wanting to trade links, i've had some emails come in "we want to buy a link... (this is where i hit delete or forward to google)" simple thing is... if it doesn't fit the content and doesn't provide unique relevant value, DON't link it...
i blog what i read on my own blog.. i'm like your own personal feed reader... i have NEVER used nofollow ANYWHERE except on a webpage for a hospital system i helped build in 1996 where we didn't want google indexing the pages linked from that page. so that was in the robots tag anyways not "rel=nofollow".
I think if you are going to post a paid link you should notate that it is a paid link.. and since it's against google guidelines to do paid lniks, then you should either use a nofollow AS REQUESTED, or.. buy outdoor, radio or other advertising because hopefully google will remove you from their index.
i'm sick of spam. i'm sick of people that don't follow the rules, i have for 14 years, it's never been hard... simple fact.. if you are getting/doing a paid link for SEO and it's not Yahoo! directory, then you should face the consequences..
mark ivey
· 9 months ago
Several people comment they don't know what the fuss is about. The reason it's an issue is we keep confusing bloggers with journalists. As you point out, bloggers aren't journalists. They may be entertaining, educational, inspirational (like you, Chris) and they may "aspire to journalism standards" but they're not trained journalists. So as long as everything is transparent, and it passes the credibility test, there's nothing wrong with, say, sponsorships to help support a blogger. Bloggers earn their readers trust over time, and as long as they stay consistent with their standards, readers will give them the benefit of the doubt. Journalists have the benefit of systems, rules etc (At BW, we couldn't accept anything more than a $25 gift or what we could lug home, so a cheap bottle of wine may be ok but a paid cruise was not). Bloggers have to work to build trust in every post, every day. As always, it comes down to trust.
Adam Kmiec
· 9 months ago
@mark ivey -
interesting point about bloggers vs. journalists. there's simply less journalistic integrity these days. the concept of reporting doesn't seem to exist - it's more about opinions and conjectures...which are often what bloggers do. it doesn't help that Google news lumps blogs and "traditional journalists" together http://news.google.com/
CarolynWood
· 9 months ago
Bloggers tell stories of human experience whether content is personal, professional, soulful or snarky. They chronicle the human condition at a precise moment in time.
Questions - Will their insights be archived for the ages, to be studied by anthropologists in the future? If not, is the value of blog participation reduced?
Blogging and other forms of social media expand communication. The social media feature of posting of comments provides opportunities to encode and decode information in a common space – and isn’t that what communication is all about regardless of how you do it?
mark ivey
· 9 months ago
"There's simply less journalistic integrity" I don't agree with that, at least when it comes to the traditional news media--WSJ, BW, NYT. They've had lapses, of course, but it's overstating it to say it's a total breakdown of journalistic integrity.. They're "reporting" as much today as 20 yrs ago, and as far as I know, with the same stringent standards and checks and balances (though on a faster time schedule). Of course, they're moving to more opinions, editorials, twittering, blogging, etc--but they've been doing that for many years. Hopefully the journalism standards will prevail as they move to new mediums like Twitter. If they don't, then you'll be proven right. But I think they will--their pubs brands depend on it.
What we have had is an invasion of the pseudo-journalists--the CNBC talking heads for instance...all opinion, gun slinging "journalism". Then the rise of the blogger news sites like Huffington Post, Tech Crunch. Their standards and systems will vary but some are extremely opinionated, giving observers an overall sense that there's a breakdown in journalism standards. I know some bloggers will challenge these opinions, but I'm not taking up for the established media, which is now in serious trouble. All I'm saying is we need to avoid broadbrushing everyone with the same label.
chrisbrogan
· 9 months ago
I have the most thoughtful, intelligent, motivated group of people here in the comments than any blog in the world. I'm grateful for your attention and your ideas. These conversations shape my thoughts and opinions, and hearing your perspective helps me grow.
Thank you.
John Haydon
· 9 months ago
Most of the time when people angrily criticize another, they're usually just mad or jealous. 10% of the time it's righteous, but 90% of the time it's just a temper tantrum.
Adam Kmiec
· 9 months ago
@mark ivey-
after watching the election coverage, I'm convinced that the concept of journalistic integrity, lack of bias, and reporting based on facts is long gone.
Adam Singer
· 9 months ago
The ONLY problem the way I see it is packaging things like IZEA does for paid blog posts kind of cheapens what is possible through organic PR. It doesn't just hurt the PR industry, it hurts companies when they want to engage in unique promotions that generate buzz without handing over cold hard cash to bloggers. Just sayin.
Nicholas Chase
· 9 months ago
Chris,
Enjoying the thread that the post's have elicited. This conversation has started some very well crafted responses, and is precisely the basis purpose of our 'computer-based dialog'. Marshall made some salient points for his side of the equation, and your responses were well tempered and respectful.
The freedom to use this electronic medium for any purpose either than illegal is a treasured one for me. The many gifted journalist's who would have no voice at all in the background noise of the publishing business can express their thoughts freely and unreservedly in the blog-o-sphere.
Our country (USA) was founded in the spirit of the freedoms we all share today, and it is always good to elicit responses from a cross section of thought-leaders and others affected by modern decision making processes.
The marketplace will excise any who violate the precepts that make this all possible, ie 'Free Enterprise'.
I value the things you believe in, write about and then open the comments to all for discussion. That precept is reflected in the general responses I read in the comments.
I have seven blogs, all monetized, but my readers do not click on the ads! They read and respond to the story or information I share. This is the basis for Social Media, and is the reason I started blogging last year. not to make money, I do that elsewhere on the web 2.0 highway.
My reasons for blogging are to share what little I know, and learn from those who do.
It's the age old question in a new set of clothes - what came first, the sponsored chicken or the righteous egg?
If people want to make money advertising on their blog, where's the harm? If people want to make money writing reviews on their blog, where's the harm? If people want to take paid backlinks in their sidebars, where's the harm?
At the end of the day, the blogger in question will be the one who knows whether they're being true to themselves and their readers, or not.
Is it any different from raving over a product or service normally? Say you love Canon. They say, "We'd love you to review our products for us and you can keep the goods." You're already a fan and you'd probably write about them anyway, so why shouldn't you be compensated (if you wish).
I love this field we play in but I'm beginning to get jaded with all the "You must do this, you mustn't do that" posts and missives flying about.
I know who I am. I know what my ethics are. I know what my transparency is. Can you really tell me what I should or shouldn't do?
Thanks Chris, as usual, for keeping it in the hands of the people who know each other best - ourselves.
Cindy C.
· 9 months ago
Well said Danny! Although I might have altered "beginning to get jaded". When I first started on twitter, I wondered that myself. When I started, I wanted to read all the helpful "How to use twittter" posts (and there are myriads). The very first thing I discovered was that everyone was making up their own rules, almost. Ultimately, I guess, the Golden Rule is the best one to encompass all of the subrules.
(@cynchrys on twitter)
UPrinting Postcard Printing
· 9 months ago
Blogging is a business almost for everyone and nothing's wrong with that. But be sure to be transparent on everything you write in your blogs and no hypocrisy at all. If you want people to keep coming back to your blog, transparency alone is enough.
Carolyn Wood
· 9 months ago
mark ivey - "They may be entertaining, educational, inspirational (like you, Chris) and they may “aspire to journalism standards” but they’re not trained journalists." So true - concrete example - someone could have called me out on the encoding/decoding definition of communication from BusinessDictionary.com. I guess digital attribution is a topic for another time. Thanks for expanding my knowledge base.
Wendy Piersall
· 9 months ago
I'm cross posting a comment I made on Valeria's ConversationAgent blog on this topic, because I believe it bears repeating:
If I were to give it a *low* ballpark estimate of all of the sponsored post and sponsored link pitches I have turned down over the years, I think I have probably turned away over $50K in revenue, if not more. It's because they were products or brands I was unwilling to align myself with.
It is completely unjustifiable to judge a blogger's ethics based on what they are paid for, unless you also know how they are unwilling to be bought.
Roland Hesz
· 9 months ago
What you wrote Chris about the social webs simply providing tools should not even be a question. The fact that it is suggests that some people have a sort of religious reverence toward the social webs, trying to keep them for the One True Purpose - whatever it should be. "I will always be clear about where I’m coming from. " - that's the main thing I think.
Paul Chaney
· 9 months ago
"Bloggers are people who use blogging software."
Chris, do you really believe that's all there is to it? At the most base level, yes. But, blogging is more than that. It's an ethos characterized by genuineness, authenticity and transparency, or at least it used to be.
I realize those words carry little import today and that grieves me deeply, but I'll never believe that blogging is nothing more than the use of a technology platform. If that is the case, I need to move on to other pursuits, because I've wasted too much time thinking about it as something more lofty and I'd hate to think I've given the last five years of my life devoted to something that's little more than a sequence of ones and zeros.
jame
· 9 months ago
This is great article.I like it ,I appreciate this post.I am new visitor.
steel software - Flexible, easy and affordable steel software solutions for small to medium sized businesses in the aluminum or steel industry, enabling faster implementation and rapid ROI.
John Parker
· 7 months ago
uniforms - Superior Uniform Group, Inc., one of America's foremost providers of fine uniforms and image apparel, manages award-winning programs for major corporations.
John Parker
· 7 months ago
DIY Power Tools - A large choice of garden plants, gardening accessories, durable garden equipment and DIY garden tools. Experience secure and high quality online shopping at MirrorReaderOffers.co.uk.
All Comments
http://onehundredvoices.com
Really enjoying the process of getting to know you and listen to what you're thinking.
The trick is in figuring out who's being what when, and then deciding what you think about that. And then checking back a few days / weeks / months later, because this is the 21st Century, and who we are changes daily.
"Bloggers aren’t journalists. Bloggers are people who use blogging software. There are journalists who blog. There are bloggers who aspire to journalistic standards."
this is key. we are now using words like 'sponored posts' & 'endorsements' to hide journalists behind blogs. Here is where it's at for me. If you blog for joy, you have something you are passionate that you want to blog about. and guess what? you will attract people who are also passional about the same thing..
That means an interest outside just internet marketing MLM or number of twitter followers alone. e.g. the words MLM, SEO or Internet Marketing in a twitter profile is a non-follow for me. on the other hand, journalists have a different role and their role is changing. Social Web is not about journalism. it's about the people, passionately connecting on a common theme.
Sat nam
Navdeep
nsy.edbd
You have always acted righteous in that sense... and why, due to various factors, increased by Forrester's report, I am shortly to embark on a similar path.
The social web is about changing mindsets while maintaining transparency. Thanks for staying genuine.
And yet, look at the vast majority of blogs out there...you'll see Adsense, advertising ads, etc.etc.etc.etc.
I make money with my blog and I'm righteously proud to state that fact. I've worked *hard* to gain my knowledge and always walk the walk I talk.
Data points, Barbara
I'm not sure what makes a journalist legitimate? Is it that he/she works in an office, went to jouralism school and gets a paycheck? I'm not sure if this model works anymore.
High-tech brought a more casual, laid back approach to the office and business in the 80's and 90's. Many in traditional business objected. The Beatles bought a new sound and rock and roll into the mainstream even thought many thought it would never work.
Bloggers are bringing a new tone and opportunity to the world of journalism. Smart journalists are meeting that challenge and finding ways to survive and thrive in this new environment.
That said, having the question raised by RWW is a bit different, as it has sponsored posts *and* heaps of advertising.
What Marshall says is right: he's approaching it as a journalist who relies on the advertising to get paid and I'm a marketer who blogs.
So long that there is disclosure and that there is trust with the blogger's reputation, then there really isn't a problem here other than readers and naysayers trying to hold on to the sanctity of blogging. Every medium, blogging, Twitter, PR, etc. is changing and evolving every day. Either we continue to have these types of arguments or accept the change and try to grow with it.
The tools that have brought us the various opportunities to connect online are like open invitations to the party. Maybe we should separate up the social media into well defined party invitations:
"Join me in a Tupperware Party on Friday" - is transparent in the selling agenda.
"Come to the White Elephant Gift Exchange Party" - is understood as a bring-a-gift party.
"Your invited to a Chamber Meet and Greet Party" - come prepared to network.
For what it's worth, I believe RWW is one of the best examples of Sponsored Conversations, and have highlighted them here
http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2009/03/03/r...
How do I join in on the beers at SXSW? I'll be there too ya know.
I don't understand the frustration. We wanted to have more control in how we interact with our media and we've got it! Hallelujah...
What will damper things is too much navel gazing. Continue searching for ways to make a living or live your life, on your terms. If that means monetizing your blog - go for it. If you're not good at it or if you offend too many of the wrong people you'll feel it in your pocket book. Seems to be a great business model to me.
To put a musical spin on this issue. There was a tiny little punk band in Berkeley, CA that was true to their artform. They were nasty, crude, and very Johnny Rotten like for the beginning of their career. But something happened and their writing took a more mainstream turn--their career exploded. The result was a string of top 10 hits, massive cash, and global recognition for their chops.
That little punk band playing hole in the wall clubs in Berkeley? Green Day. Now the rest of the story, we miss you Paul H., I caught a Green Day show before they were "Green Day" back in the day. On one of my best friend's wedding day's, they chose a Green Day hit as their theme music to begin their wedding reception.
Does that make Green Day a sell out? In my opinion it makes them multi-talented, opportunity ready, and smart. And that's the rest of the story.
When the Internet was first introduced, there was some concern on the part of some countries that it would promote anarchy because one could no longer monitor or control one's people by simply erecting physical walls. Nationalist sentiments, it was felt, would diminish in power, and that instead, commonality of interests would be a more important factor than place of birth. People could communicate across geographical boundaries and lines.
At any rate, change is the probably the most uncomfortable force for those whose very existence and prosperity depends on maintaining the status quo.
By the way, at 12:31 pm today, C-Span will air a program on children and social networking sites. http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php...
I remember that Seth Godin said that people are used to get free stuff on the Internet. Many people see social media as a way of interacting with others and just that. They don't expect to make any money, or they tried and failed and that is why they want others to be like them.
I think that it doesn't matter if you are clear or not about your intentions. For example I know that Gary Vaynerchuk won't tape a bad tip or a bad advice just because he can make some money out of it : the reason is he will lose big time on the long run if he decides to do so.
That is also why I trust what you say. Because the minute you're gonna say something stupid just for the money people will know.
So, keep doing what you do !
@TomaBonciu
As a former journalist, I like it when journalists try to apply the same standards from newspapers and magazines to social media platforms like blogging - but fail to realize that the journalistic standards they embrace never really existed in the first place.
Newspapers have always been biased. I'll agree that newspapers - and I've worked at a few - try to keep advertising away from news gathering. They truly do, but it never works out as planned. Advertisers at newspapers and magazines - especially big advertisers - have always been treated better than non-advertisers. They receive special treatment and even get better coverage. Reporters will deny it, but its true.
All you need to do is look at the big media/news companies and watch how their news outlets promote their entertainment projects. Cover stories about blockbuster movies, interviews with contestants from their reality shows on their morning news shows, etc.
The solution is transparency. If you are writing about a client (or an advertiser) then be upfront about it. Reveal it. It will be up to readers to determine if they want to believe the content. Just because content is produced by a private company doesn't necessarily mean its not a valuable.
But good debate. This is the kind of conversation we need to be having more of. And while I agree that your post was a bit defensive, Chris, I think it was necessary to post it.
The tool is not defined by the utilizers. Cannot be defined. Is there an exclusively* (*key word here) "right way" to use a Windsor-Newton series 7 watercolor brush?
It's the end product. The output.
This is not to say that if you're annoying or off-putting your art gallery show (or Twitter posts) won't be ignored; they may well be.
But the choice in how you use those tools is up to you.
Thanks for the always-relevant posts, Chris.
Good for you. The key issue here is transparency and authenticity. In this sense, having someone blog for you, or giving Guy Kawasaki a car isn't the issue, it's whether we as consumers know where you're coming from. Most old media doesn't work that way.
As for good and evil, Seth Godin had a great blog entry on "Is Marketing Evil?" a few weeks back. http://cli.gs/76G9X2
Marketing or blogging is value neutral. What you do with it is another question.
You can argue credibility. You can say well the author has always been credible so why wouldn't they be credible now? But, here's the fact...if you sell yourself continually you lose credibility ridiculously quick.
Here's a scenario. I'm a loyal Nikon advocate. I have been for nearly 20 years. Let's say Canon came to me, offered me X dollars, and a free X camera to do a review on the product and I accepted. If the review I gave was positive would the readers believe me? Of course not.
You can't buy credibility, but you can lose it when you sell yourself.
It seems like social media has painted itself into a corner. Bloggers have built such hype around community and sharing of which drives traffic to their sites they now have to explain themselves time and time again when they want to make money.
Newsflash. We all want to make money. I am following this thread and I see apologists.
Find a product, service, event or idea that you believe in and write about it. If you have built your following as a blogger around the notion of the Utopian dream that everything in life that is good is free then I guess you reap what you sow.
Chris seems to get this but I have also seen countless posts and comments where he is having to explain himself to his community.
Our society has evolved from post World War II to a culture of ideas and talk and slowly away from building and selling tangibles.
Quite talking and postulating people. Make it, sell it, provide great customer service and scream from the mountaintop that you love what you make.
And hell yes if you can find a talented blogger to write about it - you bet.
Quit apologizing people.
my blog is nothing but links..
http://www.dallasseoblog.com (not ONE paid link so DON'T ASK i will forward you to abuse@google.com, spamreport@google.com and webmaster@google.com),. (did i mention i HATE link traders/spammers?)
i write for other blogs..
http://www.searchenginejournal.com/seo-a-proces...
i blog what i read on my own blog.. i'm like your own personal feed reader...
i have NEVER used nofollow ANYWHERE except on a webpage for a hospital system i helped build in 1996 where we didn't want google indexing the pages linked from that page. so that was in the robots tag anyways not "rel=nofollow".
I think if you are going to post a paid link you should notate that it is a paid link.. and since it's against google guidelines to do paid lniks, then you should either use a nofollow AS REQUESTED, or.. buy outdoor, radio or other advertising because hopefully google will remove you from their index.
i'm sick of spam. i'm sick of people that don't follow the rules, i have for 14 years, it's never been hard... simple fact.. if you are getting/doing a paid link for SEO and it's not Yahoo! directory, then you should face the consequences..
interesting point about bloggers vs. journalists. there's simply less journalistic integrity these days. the concept of reporting doesn't seem to exist - it's more about opinions and conjectures...which are often what bloggers do. it doesn't help that Google news lumps blogs and "traditional journalists" together http://news.google.com/
Questions - Will their insights be archived for the ages, to be studied by anthropologists in the future? If not, is the value of blog participation reduced?
Blogging and other forms of social media expand communication. The social media feature of posting of comments provides opportunities to encode and decode information in a common space – and isn’t that what communication is all about regardless of how you do it?
I don't agree with that, at least when it comes to the traditional news media--WSJ, BW, NYT. They've had lapses, of course, but it's overstating it to say it's a total breakdown of journalistic integrity.. They're "reporting" as much today as 20 yrs ago, and as far as I know, with the same stringent standards and checks and balances (though on a faster time schedule).
Of course, they're moving to more opinions, editorials, twittering, blogging, etc--but they've been doing that for many years. Hopefully the journalism standards will prevail as they move to new mediums like Twitter. If they don't, then you'll be proven right. But I think they will--their pubs brands depend on it.
What we have had is an invasion of the pseudo-journalists--the CNBC talking heads for instance...all opinion, gun slinging "journalism". Then the rise of the blogger news sites like Huffington Post, Tech Crunch. Their standards and systems will vary but some are extremely opinionated, giving observers an overall sense that there's a breakdown in journalism standards. I know some bloggers will challenge these opinions, but I'm not taking up for the established media, which is now in serious trouble. All I'm saying is we need to avoid broadbrushing everyone with the same label.
Thank you.
after watching the election coverage, I'm convinced that the concept of journalistic integrity, lack of bias, and reporting based on facts is long gone.
Enjoying the thread that the post's have elicited. This conversation has started some very well crafted responses, and is precisely the basis purpose of our 'computer-based dialog'. Marshall made some salient points for his side of the equation, and your responses were well tempered and respectful.
The freedom to use this electronic medium for any purpose either than illegal is a treasured one for me. The many gifted journalist's who would have no voice at all in the background noise of the publishing business can express their thoughts freely and unreservedly in the blog-o-sphere.
Our country (USA) was founded in the spirit of the freedoms we all share today, and it is always good to elicit responses from a cross section of thought-leaders and others affected by modern decision making processes.
The marketplace will excise any who violate the precepts that make this all possible, ie 'Free Enterprise'.
I value the things you believe in, write about and then open the comments to all for discussion. That precept is reflected in the general responses I read in the comments.
I have seven blogs, all monetized, but my readers do not click on the ads! They read and respond to the story or information I share. This is the basis for Social Media, and is the reason I started blogging last year. not to make money, I do that elsewhere on the web 2.0 highway.
My reasons for blogging are to share what little I know, and learn from those who do.
Respectfully,
Nicholas Chase
www.twitter.com/nachase
If people want to make money advertising on their blog, where's the harm? If people want to make money writing reviews on their blog, where's the harm? If people want to take paid backlinks in their sidebars, where's the harm?
At the end of the day, the blogger in question will be the one who knows whether they're being true to themselves and their readers, or not.
Is it any different from raving over a product or service normally? Say you love Canon. They say, "We'd love you to review our products for us and you can keep the goods." You're already a fan and you'd probably write about them anyway, so why shouldn't you be compensated (if you wish).
I love this field we play in but I'm beginning to get jaded with all the "You must do this, you mustn't do that" posts and missives flying about.
I know who I am. I know what my ethics are. I know what my transparency is. Can you really tell me what I should or shouldn't do?
Thanks Chris, as usual, for keeping it in the hands of the people who know each other best - ourselves.
(@cynchrys on twitter)
If I were to give it a *low* ballpark estimate of all of the sponsored post and sponsored link pitches I have turned down over the years, I think I have probably turned away over $50K in revenue, if not more. It's because they were products or brands I was unwilling to align myself with.
It is completely unjustifiable to judge a blogger's ethics based on what they are paid for, unless you also know how they are unwilling to be bought.
"I will always be clear about where I’m coming from. " - that's the main thing I think.
Chris, do you really believe that's all there is to it? At the most base level, yes. But, blogging is more than that. It's an ethos characterized by genuineness, authenticity and transparency, or at least it used to be.
I realize those words carry little import today and that grieves me deeply, but I'll never believe that blogging is nothing more than the use of a technology platform. If that is the case, I need to move on to other pursuits, because I've wasted too much time thinking about it as something more lofty and I'd hate to think I've given the last five years of my life devoted to something that's little more than a sequence of ones and zeros.