Twitter finally lands a few business deals, but at what cost?
Truth in Advertising
Last week Two weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending, networking, connecting and speaking at the Type A Mom conference in Asheville, NC. Kelby Carr did an amazing job and I was proud to bring my clients to the conference to help support the blogging community.
One of my panel sessions was called "Working with Companies", moderated by the lovely and talented Lucretia Pruett, aka GeekMommy. She and I spent quite a bit of time together discussing the industry and where it's going, but I'll save that for another post. The session was a split between a moderated discussion by the panel and an open Q&A with the 200-something attendees.
For those who know me, you'll know that I worked my way up the agency ranks by innovating and creating opportunities - not only for myself, but for strategic partners. My clients value my experience and advice as do the Associations I belong to and regularly speak at. If you could see the feedback I've received from students, colleagues and conference attendees you'd know that I aim to please and usually put on a show. If you've never seen me present, it's something like this: I get up on stage, share practical advice without any BS and am happy to share everything my experiences have taught me. It's as real and as honest as it can be, because I have been an attendee at conferences, sat through classes and been lectured to and thought "Can you just tell me what I need to know? (without the fluff)?".
This conference was no different. As the conference slogan asked, I "brought it". And by "brought it", I said things that some bloggers didn't want to hear. While sitting on the panel I heard a lot of fluff and some "WHAAA?"s. One such "WHAAA?" was from a competing agency's "social media" person: "Make it easier for me to do my job". Another said: "You need to clean up your act". The first is simply a plea from someone who doesn't know how to sell. The second was a more aggressive stab at some of the more snarky behavior that takes place in the mom blogging community. I didn't comment on how people should blog per se, but stayed true to the panel's topic on how to work with companies. My advice was and is as follows:
One point I was unable to make during the conference due to time constraints is what brands talk about when it comes to metrics. Ahh! Not measurement! ;)
Most bloggers rely on their Sitemeter or Google Analytics to self-report their stats. Some bloggers and webmasters complain that third parties like Quantcast report their stats as being too low. Again, I'm not passing judgment, just telling you how you're being judged: No one believes your self-reported numbers. Here's why:
Overall if the blogging industry wants to mature it needs to grow up (literally) and catch up to the reporting and accountability that the "legitimate" sites that advertisers covet. You may have 18,000 visitors per month but how many are legitimate or actual readers and not your buddies? Very few, which is why sites like Quantcast are a breath of fresh air - they cut out the fat and BS to get right to the point. Sound familiar?
I'd love to hear your comments on this subject.
One of my panel sessions was called "Working with Companies", moderated by the lovely and talented Lucretia Pruett, aka GeekMommy. She and I spent quite a bit of time together discussing the industry and where it's going, but I'll save that for another post. The session was a split between a moderated discussion by the panel and an open Q&A with the 200-something attendees.
For those who know me, you'll know that I worked my way up the agency ranks by innovating and creating opportunities - not only for myself, but for strategic partners. My clients value my experience and advice as do the Associations I belong to and regularly speak at. If you could see the feedback I've received from students, colleagues and conference attendees you'd know that I aim to please and usually put on a show. If you've never seen me present, it's something like this: I get up on stage, share practical advice without any BS and am happy to share everything my experiences have taught me. It's as real and as honest as it can be, because I have been an attendee at conferences, sat through classes and been lectured to and thought "Can you just tell me what I need to know? (without the fluff)?".
This conference was no different. As the conference slogan asked, I "brought it". And by "brought it", I said things that some bloggers didn't want to hear. While sitting on the panel I heard a lot of fluff and some "WHAAA?"s. One such "WHAAA?" was from a competing agency's "social media" person: "Make it easier for me to do my job". Another said: "You need to clean up your act". The first is simply a plea from someone who doesn't know how to sell. The second was a more aggressive stab at some of the more snarky behavior that takes place in the mom blogging community. I didn't comment on how people should blog per se, but stayed true to the panel's topic on how to work with companies. My advice was and is as follows:
- How to approach agencies/companies/brands. Have an idea? Sell it. "How am I supposed to find out who works for what brands?". Here's a tip: Google it. Subscribe to a few free trade publications. It's not hard to find this information once you check out a brand's "About" section and hit up LinkedIn.
- Don't sign contracts that aren't equitable. Some moms were quite vocal about receiving "Free cupcakes" in lieu of payment. Starting December 1st the FTC is going to make people disclose everything, even those free cupcakes. Update: One comment that was made at the conference was "we can't afford lawyers". They can be expensive so I totally understand, however reviewing basic contracts isn't going to cost you an arm and a leg. In fact, for a 5-10 page contract my dad quoted me "$250 to review it". Too much? Well, I remember him routinely handling traffic tickets for friends in high school in exchange for manual labor, e.g. sanding our deck or painting a room of our house. And this isn't unusual. In fact, most lawyers will do work in exchange for work. Call around, I bet you'll find one willing to work with you in exchange for some promotion online. If you're not getting paid that much then I'd question why you're even considering signing the thing.
- You are a brand. As such, companies try to match themselves up with personalities (see: Celebrity spokespeople) that match their brand equity and values. That being said, shallow people make judgments -- sometimes unfair ones -- based on what they read about you online. I know a lot of moms curse. I do too. And I'm telling you that it's OK. I don't want you to change who you are or how you write. But understand that brands are looking at this stuff and if you aspire to work with certain brands they will put you under the magnifying glass.Personally, I dig deeper to find out more about people than what I might find on their blog or Twitter stream. I don't pass judgment for a few things folks might say or do because that's not my job - my job is to find talent and work with it to the best of my ability. Case in point, I've been working with several conference goers and speakers by hiring them, supporting their ad networks, collecting resumes for future work and giving them advice when asked via email and Twitter in order to truly support the blogging community. Not by having flame wars, not by ostracizing people, not by being a jerk, but by having meaningful dialogue with people to find ways to work together.
- Understand your value. See above re: contracts, but your brand online is worth more than a few dollars. Most of the people I've spoken with since that conference, including some keynote-worthy speakers at other conferences, have no clue as to what they're worth when it comes to negotiating with companies.
One point I was unable to make during the conference due to time constraints is what brands talk about when it comes to metrics. Ahh! Not measurement! ;)
Most bloggers rely on their Sitemeter or Google Analytics to self-report their stats. Some bloggers and webmasters complain that third parties like Quantcast report their stats as being too low. Again, I'm not passing judgment, just telling you how you're being judged: No one believes your self-reported numbers. Here's why:
- Spiders and bots. Know how Google always seems to have your freshest posts indexed? That's because it and other search and monitoring services crawl your site to index it or monitor it for specific keywords. If you see "Andiamo Systems" listed in your log files it's a company called Techrigy. It's someone monitoring you or specific content on your blog. Doesn't count as a unique visitor, the same way Google's spider doesn't count.
- Your friends. No one wants their web site to have 0 comments. It hurts. I means that all of the effort you poured into writing a post, regardless of actual merit or quality, may have been read but didn't provide any "engagement". Fortunately or unfortunately, a lot of bloggers play deceptive games with comments and links to game Google and advertisers to make it appear that they have a lot of comments, when in fact if you clicked each commenter's name or did some homework you'd realize it's a big circle of fake link love and comments. Having a blog post with 20+ comments, all of which are from other bloggers, doesn't count. You're giving advertisers a reason not to trust you right off the bat.
- You. Everyone I know wants to know how their site and blog posts look when they go live. And they want to engage with their readers. Guess what? It doesn't count. It's like walking in and out of your own store over and over again. Sure, the security camera shows someone coming and going all day, but at the end of it you're the same one unique visitor jacking up your numbers -- which makes your monthly and unique post impression number totally false.
Overall if the blogging industry wants to mature it needs to grow up (literally) and catch up to the reporting and accountability that the "legitimate" sites that advertisers covet. You may have 18,000 visitors per month but how many are legitimate or actual readers and not your buddies? Very few, which is why sites like Quantcast are a breath of fresh air - they cut out the fat and BS to get right to the point. Sound familiar?
I'd love to hear your comments on this subject.
Contest: Vote for my SXSW Panel
I tweeted this earlier but if you go vote for my South by Southwest panel - and I make it - I'll take you with me. No joke, I have set aside marketing budget and will pay your travel (hotel, flight) and ticket.
How can you enter?
Click this link to the SXSW Panel picker, then retweet it and you're entered to win. You can enter every day, as much as you'd like until the voting ends.
How can you enter?
Click this link to the SXSW Panel picker, then retweet it and you're entered to win. You can enter every day, as much as you'd like until the voting ends.
What the Twitterfication of Facebook Means
Facebook unveiled their new home page Wednesday and I have to say - it's awfully Twitteresque. The center well, or "stream", of content on the page is now an ajaxy, auto-updating time line of your network's status updates. The language at the top has changed as well, from "David Binkowski is" to "What's on your mind?". (Twitter's call to action has always been "What are you doing?")
I think this signals a "game over" for Twitter for several reasons. I'm not saying they're going under, but the site will never achieve the sort of growth MySpace or Facebook have, and without a suitor it's unlikely they'll ever become profitable or sustainable. Aside from "No reason to join Twitter now", let's get to 5 reasons why I feel this way:
1. Usability
Twitter's site has never changed. It's a linear, hard to follow, gigantic message board thread. Sure, they acquired Summize to provide a basic search, and there are tons of third party apps like TweetDeck that may help you get a little organized, but I'll ask you this: What's the first thing people say when you tell them what Twitter is?
"I don't get it."
And therein lies the problem. If I describe a message board ("A place where people with common interests gather to discuss that interest"), a blog ("A publishing tool with an author or author's point of view on topics where you can comment") or social network ("A virtual place for your real life friends to stay in touch") they all make sense. When people explain Twitter ("What you're doing in 140 characters or less") the first response is "Why would anyone care what I'm doing?". Even more poignant is "Why would complete strangers care what I'm doing?"
On top of the "Who cares?" question, the best solution for categorizing topics and information is through the use of hashtags. Ma Bell would be proud.
2. Friends vs. Followers
I have friends. You have friends. I have readers. You have blogs you like to read. And then there's Followers. I'm not saying that I haven't met my Followers in real life, but of the roughly 1,300 Followers I have on Twitter I've maybe met 100 in person. And of those 100 most of us are friends on Facebook. Real friends, mind you. I'm not discounting that people think I'm funny or interesting or look like a good candidate to start a MLM business or need a life coach, but the reality is that there's a mutually beneficial relationship, much like in business, for following and return following people on Twitter. Which brings me to my next point:
3. Facebook isn't about self-promotion
Check out the bio of the folks you follow on Twitter. I'd wager dollars to donuts that they have a URL they're promoting somewhere in there, whether it's their blog, their company or their MySpace music page. Look at their tweets and you'll probably find links to their posts and press releases. Hell, there are even companies that will help you monetize the truncated URLs you're sending around. And while we're at it, there are also services that will help you gain 10,000 followers overnight. Talk about authentic.
Facebook, unlike MySpace or Twitter, isn't about a self-promotional game or race to the most followers. It's about hanging out with co-workers outside of the office. Or connecting with childhood friends. Or college classmates. Or people who live down the street. You typically wouldn't add someone as a friend on Facebook you didn't know, well, because that's where your private life is kept. Sure, there are privacy features to limit your profile, but aside from awkward employer/employee, ex-boyfriend/husband/wife/girlfriend and parents "friendings" the content is your private information that you choose to share with people you know vs. broadcast to the world.
4. Spam
We're all familiar with the Twitter cast of cartoon characters, in particular the Fail Whale and 404 upside down bird. Recently Twitter's had to add a more ominous friend to the tribe that I call the Spam Owl. The Spam Owl is what appears when a Twitter account becomes suspended due to "suspicious activity". I'm not sure why they don't just say "We caught the spammer!" and instead present it like there's an FBI investigation for money laundering or a TSA security breach like a forgotten backpack in an airport crowd, but I digress.
Spam has become so prevalent on Twitter that several A-list bloggers have quit using Twitter or reverted to dropping everyone on their "friend" list and only adding the people they know in real life. (The other reason is that they found it impossible to "follow" tens of thousands of people and conversations, which speaks to the lack of usability and impersonalization of the tool). And much like email spam, there's no way outside of a CAPTCHA to stop it. Even with the best intentions, a n00b might not know this unspoken "Twettique" that says you shouldn't add a ton of people and let your following grow organically.
Facebook has had its share of virus attacks, but nowhere near the volume of spam that one gets on Twitter on a daily basis.
5. Revenue
Argh, this pesky one keeps coming up, doesn't it? Just over a year ago Jason Calacanis gave Twitter three ways of monetizing the service, none of which have come to fruition. Twitter hired a biz dev guy back in December to look at monetization of the tool, and one rumor has it that businesses would have to pay for corporate accounts. As I tweeted, I'm not sold on that idea unless they provide metrics and better functionality.
On top of this problem, the company has been funded handsomely but is bleeding so badly that they shut off outbound messaging in the UK.
Facebook, in comparison, had an estimated revenue of $300MM and is innovating new platforms for brand engagement, including live streaming (Obama, NBA All-Star game) and targeted ads. They built mass, allow you to keep your network small, and offer brands the opportunity to engage through earned and paid methods. All they need to add is an e-commerce platform and they could literally become your own private internet.
But, what about all that press?
Techcrunch recently was startled at all of the press Twitter gets. I'm not. The boys at Twitter do a remarkable job of pimping their service to the media and did a phenomenal job of getting influencers and early adopters on board. But let's call it what it is - an RSS feed with a personality. Remember, this is a microblog,and while people want to call it several things nothing more, nothing less. It's possibly including a loose, self-promotional social network (although I think it's really a lame message board via SMS and third party apps - except on message boards it's easier to find useful information because q&a is longer than 140 characters) and or "the next Google" (that is an utter joke, btw - Google makes money)..
Twitter wanted press and that is exactly what it got. The site is now filled with marketers, promoters, PR people, brands, journalists, publishers and programmers. As a PR tool it's wonderful, as Frank can attest to. And as a cable news channel, it makes you feel you're more relevant.
Before you jump into the comments and start bashing because TechCrunch covers it every other blog post (ok, not every other, but come on), let's put all of this hype into perspective outside of the echo chamber. Here's a breakdown of unique visitors to Facebook and Twitter via Compete:
Like it or not, Facebook is still eating everyone's lunch. And by changing the status updates to become a more usable, functional, dynamic, personal version of Twitter they're likely to have everyone's dinner too.
3/25/2009 Update: This video from Current captures Twitter perfectly:
I think this signals a "game over" for Twitter for several reasons. I'm not saying they're going under, but the site will never achieve the sort of growth MySpace or Facebook have, and without a suitor it's unlikely they'll ever become profitable or sustainable. Aside from "No reason to join Twitter now", let's get to 5 reasons why I feel this way:
1. Usability
Twitter's site has never changed. It's a linear, hard to follow, gigantic message board thread. Sure, they acquired Summize to provide a basic search, and there are tons of third party apps like TweetDeck that may help you get a little organized, but I'll ask you this: What's the first thing people say when you tell them what Twitter is?
"I don't get it."
And therein lies the problem. If I describe a message board ("A place where people with common interests gather to discuss that interest"), a blog ("A publishing tool with an author or author's point of view on topics where you can comment") or social network ("A virtual place for your real life friends to stay in touch") they all make sense. When people explain Twitter ("What you're doing in 140 characters or less") the first response is "Why would anyone care what I'm doing?". Even more poignant is "Why would complete strangers care what I'm doing?"
On top of the "Who cares?" question, the best solution for categorizing topics and information is through the use of hashtags. Ma Bell would be proud.
2. Friends vs. Followers
I have friends. You have friends. I have readers. You have blogs you like to read. And then there's Followers. I'm not saying that I haven't met my Followers in real life, but of the roughly 1,300 Followers I have on Twitter I've maybe met 100 in person. And of those 100 most of us are friends on Facebook. Real friends, mind you. I'm not discounting that people think I'm funny or interesting or look like a good candidate to start a MLM business or need a life coach, but the reality is that there's a mutually beneficial relationship, much like in business, for following and return following people on Twitter. Which brings me to my next point:
3. Facebook isn't about self-promotion
Check out the bio of the folks you follow on Twitter. I'd wager dollars to donuts that they have a URL they're promoting somewhere in there, whether it's their blog, their company or their MySpace music page. Look at their tweets and you'll probably find links to their posts and press releases. Hell, there are even companies that will help you monetize the truncated URLs you're sending around. And while we're at it, there are also services that will help you gain 10,000 followers overnight. Talk about authentic.
Facebook, unlike MySpace or Twitter, isn't about a self-promotional game or race to the most followers. It's about hanging out with co-workers outside of the office. Or connecting with childhood friends. Or college classmates. Or people who live down the street. You typically wouldn't add someone as a friend on Facebook you didn't know, well, because that's where your private life is kept. Sure, there are privacy features to limit your profile, but aside from awkward employer/employee, ex-boyfriend/husband/wife/girlfriend and parents "friendings" the content is your private information that you choose to share with people you know vs. broadcast to the world.
4. Spam
We're all familiar with the Twitter cast of cartoon characters, in particular the Fail Whale and 404 upside down bird. Recently Twitter's had to add a more ominous friend to the tribe that I call the Spam Owl. The Spam Owl is what appears when a Twitter account becomes suspended due to "suspicious activity". I'm not sure why they don't just say "We caught the spammer!" and instead present it like there's an FBI investigation for money laundering or a TSA security breach like a forgotten backpack in an airport crowd, but I digress.
Spam has become so prevalent on Twitter that several A-list bloggers have quit using Twitter or reverted to dropping everyone on their "friend" list and only adding the people they know in real life. (The other reason is that they found it impossible to "follow" tens of thousands of people and conversations, which speaks to the lack of usability and impersonalization of the tool). And much like email spam, there's no way outside of a CAPTCHA to stop it. Even with the best intentions, a n00b might not know this unspoken "Twettique" that says you shouldn't add a ton of people and let your following grow organically.
Facebook has had its share of virus attacks, but nowhere near the volume of spam that one gets on Twitter on a daily basis.
5. Revenue
Argh, this pesky one keeps coming up, doesn't it? Just over a year ago Jason Calacanis gave Twitter three ways of monetizing the service, none of which have come to fruition. Twitter hired a biz dev guy back in December to look at monetization of the tool, and one rumor has it that businesses would have to pay for corporate accounts. As I tweeted, I'm not sold on that idea unless they provide metrics and better functionality.
On top of this problem, the company has been funded handsomely but is bleeding so badly that they shut off outbound messaging in the UK.
Facebook, in comparison, had an estimated revenue of $300MM and is innovating new platforms for brand engagement, including live streaming (Obama, NBA All-Star game) and targeted ads. They built mass, allow you to keep your network small, and offer brands the opportunity to engage through earned and paid methods. All they need to add is an e-commerce platform and they could literally become your own private internet.
But, what about all that press?
Techcrunch recently was startled at all of the press Twitter gets. I'm not. The boys at Twitter do a remarkable job of pimping their service to the media and did a phenomenal job of getting influencers and early adopters on board. But let's call it what it is - an RSS feed with a personality. Remember, this is a microblog,
Twitter wanted press and that is exactly what it got. The site is now filled with marketers, promoters, PR people, brands, journalists, publishers and programmers. As a PR tool it's wonderful, as Frank can attest to. And as a cable news channel, it makes you feel you're more relevant.
Before you jump into the comments and start bashing because TechCrunch covers it every other blog post (ok, not every other, but come on), let's put all of this hype into perspective outside of the echo chamber. Here's a breakdown of unique visitors to Facebook and Twitter via Compete:
Like it or not, Facebook is still eating everyone's lunch. And by changing the status updates to become a more usable, functional, dynamic, personal version of Twitter they're likely to have everyone's dinner too.
3/25/2009 Update: This video from Current captures Twitter perfectly:
FTC takes on blogger compensation, among other things
Brandweek has a heads up on some interesting developments going on at the FTC. As you know, the EU implemented some rules back in 2007 regarding fake bloggers and astroturfing, with fines and possible jail time as a consequence for engaging in devious practices. Don't look now, but the FTC is looking to take actions regarding endorsements, including paid and earned blogger relations campaigns:
Comments on this issue to the FTC are open for two more days until January 30th. However, the debate can certainly rage on here as long as we'd like.
Paid and unpaid placements
As a long time proponent of the WOMMA ethics code, I'm in favor of full disclosure as it relates to paid placements. A recent Izea campaign for Kmart got Chris Brogan in some hot water with his readers, but as I've said before it's not unethical as he did disclose that he was compensated financially.
Unpaid placements, however are another story. If I pitch a product or story to a blogger and they choose to write about it then they clearly felt strongly one way or another about it. Does it matter that they got it for free? What about bloggers that pick up a press release, video, advertisement or other materials from a company's web site? Are they liable for not disclosing that they found it on a company's site (copyright issues aside)?
Additionally, as someone who has tackled this issue head on through WOMMA the conclusion is simple: I don't control a blogger's blog nor control what they do or do not write. Now the government is going to try and mandate what bloggers write? I smell a revolt...
Street teams
Another matter that is clearly not cut and dry is street teams. Can this be expanded to anyone with a financial interest in a company? For example, let's say that I'm an Apple shareholder and I convince a friend that they should buy a Mac. Technically I am being financially rewarded for doing so. Even worse, suppose we're out in public. Too murky to regulate, IMO. You may recall this report from Dr. Walter Carl where consumers really don't care about disclosure when it comes to offline agents -- just 5% said there was a negative backlash when they found out someone was being compensated. I'm not going to say it's all on the consumer. But the argument can be made that they really don't care if someone's being compensated and that they use their best judgment to determine that person's credibility.
So... what's the answer?
Clearly, there are several verticals online where transparency is not the policy. How many times have you looked at the reviews on iTunes, gaming and travel sites and wondered if they were real? What about the astroturfing I uncovered in the beauty blogosphere? Ultimately the companies engaging in unethical practices are those that suffer. Consumers lose trust with that company or brand and stop buying the product. That's how you punish unethical companies, not through blanket government regulation over entrepreneurial individuals trying to run a web site.
Similarly, if a blogger's readers truly feel duped then their brand and business will suffer through decreased readership.
For consumer testimonials, the general rule is that an advertiser cannot pay or otherwise compensate a person to give an endorsement without disclosing the material connection. Bloggers who receive compensation—or even free products from advertisers—may now have to disclose that connection with the advertiser if they provide a positive review of those products. Similarly, an employee of an electronic game manufacturer who posts messages promoting the manufacturer's product on a third-party message board must disclose his relationship with the manufacturer. "Street team" programs in which members gain points every time they talk to their friends about a particular advertiser's products could also run afoul of the FTC Guides.
Comments on this issue to the FTC are open for two more days until January 30th. However, the debate can certainly rage on here as long as we'd like.
Paid and unpaid placements
As a long time proponent of the WOMMA ethics code, I'm in favor of full disclosure as it relates to paid placements. A recent Izea campaign for Kmart got Chris Brogan in some hot water with his readers, but as I've said before it's not unethical as he did disclose that he was compensated financially.
Unpaid placements, however are another story. If I pitch a product or story to a blogger and they choose to write about it then they clearly felt strongly one way or another about it. Does it matter that they got it for free? What about bloggers that pick up a press release, video, advertisement or other materials from a company's web site? Are they liable for not disclosing that they found it on a company's site (copyright issues aside)?
Additionally, as someone who has tackled this issue head on through WOMMA the conclusion is simple: I don't control a blogger's blog nor control what they do or do not write. Now the government is going to try and mandate what bloggers write? I smell a revolt...
Street teams
Another matter that is clearly not cut and dry is street teams. Can this be expanded to anyone with a financial interest in a company? For example, let's say that I'm an Apple shareholder and I convince a friend that they should buy a Mac. Technically I am being financially rewarded for doing so. Even worse, suppose we're out in public. Too murky to regulate, IMO. You may recall this report from Dr. Walter Carl where consumers really don't care about disclosure when it comes to offline agents -- just 5% said there was a negative backlash when they found out someone was being compensated. I'm not going to say it's all on the consumer. But the argument can be made that they really don't care if someone's being compensated and that they use their best judgment to determine that person's credibility.
So... what's the answer?
Clearly, there are several verticals online where transparency is not the policy. How many times have you looked at the reviews on iTunes, gaming and travel sites and wondered if they were real? What about the astroturfing I uncovered in the beauty blogosphere? Ultimately the companies engaging in unethical practices are those that suffer. Consumers lose trust with that company or brand and stop buying the product. That's how you punish unethical companies, not through blanket government regulation over entrepreneurial individuals trying to run a web site.
Similarly, if a blogger's readers truly feel duped then their brand and business will suffer through decreased readership.
Twitter Social Media Experts Graph
I'm not Hugh McLeod so I used Keynote to create this chart demonstrating where most people are regarding so-called 'social media experts". Enjoy.
The Economy, Ethics, Blogs and Marketing
There's a hot debate over on Twitter this morning today regarding the K-Mart/IZEA/Blogger campaign and the ethics of bloggers taking money to write posts. Marc Meyer's Direct Marketing Observations blog has a good post documenting the discussion. I'm re-posting my response to the question here:
I want to know from you, as a marketer or blogger (or both): Is this the type of campaign you would engage in? Would you consider it ethical or unethical? Taking it a step further, does it diminish the credibility of the blogosphere and, as John Bell from Ogilvy theorizes, turn the blogosphere (and social media) into yet another media channel for the media buying agencies?
It’s definitely a slippery slope. Does anyone *really* know the bloggers their reading? Probably not. Ultimately it’s up to the reader to make that call. Bloggers have to make a living, and readers should understand that, but as Chris is finding out it’s about expectations of the reader from the blogger.
Ultimately Jeremiah is right - it does lessen the credibility of the blogger over time. Want evidence? Celebrity endorsements still mean something to some people but ultimately are met with skepticism. In this case the objective of the campaign was reach, and that was achieved. Will KMart see an uptick in sales as a result? It’s going to be impossible to tell because of the economy and benefit that bargainesque stores, including KMart, are seeing.
As someone on the WOMMA Member Ethics Advisory Board, the bloggers disclosed that they were paid. I’m not sure what more you can ask of them.
I want to know from you, as a marketer or blogger (or both): Is this the type of campaign you would engage in? Would you consider it ethical or unethical? Taking it a step further, does it diminish the credibility of the blogosphere and, as John Bell from Ogilvy theorizes, turn the blogosphere (and social media) into yet another media channel for the media buying agencies?
