Advertising and Trust

December 13, 2008 · Comments

Izea Today was my day to be front and center of a controversy. Recently, I did a sponsored post about Kmart on my Dadomatic blog. This caught the attention of Jeremiah Owyang of Forrester (in his analyst role), and he raised a bunch of thoughtful questions, so it’s a big topic on Twitter right now. I think it merits a larger conversation, and I want you to be part of it. I want to share my take on the way advertisers and people might interact in the social space.

The Charge Put Upon Me

What seems to be at the heart of the controversy on Twitter (no finer teakettle has there ever been), is whether my involvement with a marketing campaign for Kmart somehow erodes my credibility as a social media business strategist. The logic, or that which seems to be acting as logic, goes like this: Brogan took money for writing about his experience with Kmart, so we might not trust his opinions as much.

Let’s look at the space for a moment, including my involvement, as that’s what is being called out.

Who I Am In This Space

My job, such as I have defined it, is to equip and educate businesses with strategies for business communications (and that’s anything from sales to PR to marketing to internal collaboration) via social software channels (be they internal or external). Said simply, I help businesses figure out what to do with all this social stuff.

Marketing and advertising is part of the social web. You don’t have to like it, but if you’re ignoring that businesses are trying every day to figure out their place in this world, you’re drinking a whole different kind of Kool-Aid, and I’d venture that mine’s far less dangerous. It doesn’t mean that everything on the web is geared towards advertising. In fact, that’s the beauty of it. This is the first medium in modern history to be built NOT for commercialism, but instead, for communication. And people can survive quite nicely without dealing with making money. Perfectly fine, acceptable, and part of the web.

My job isn’t to keep the Kumbaya chants going. It’s to equip businesses (and that’s on the blogger side *and* the big business side) with knowledge and actionable next steps. I’ve been at this in different forms for years. You’ve got the chance to go back and read anything in my Best Of section to decide if you think I’m working towards a clear and obvious goal.

What Businesses Are Trying to Accomplish

Marketing and advertising in the analog world are broken (or at least slowing down in their business impact). We all know this. But some companies are taking steps to really try and participate in genuine ways in the space. Want to know an early and great example?

Seagate. Robert Scoble has had Seagate as a sponsor since he was at PodTech, and the sponsorship moved over to FastCompany when Robert changed roles. They’ve been genuinely interested in seeing social media succeed since they first got involved with Robert years ago, and they are helping keep the media making Robert does alive.

Dell is doing it with Digital Nomads. Instead of pitching you hardcore through traditional marketing channels, they’ve built a very useful blog site with lots of great content, and tons of opportunity for interactions, and “oh by the way, you might want to see this laptop.”

Businesses are trying to do exactly what we asked them to do. They’re trying to master our languages. They’re trying to talk to us where we are. They’re looking for new ways to talk and to advertise.

And in the midst of this, we are still struggling with how blogging is or isn’t replacing mainstream journalism, how blogging is or isn’t a magazine or newspaper, etc.

The Whole Journalist Thing

There’s a whole stripe of people out there who argue that the sponsored post corrodes my editorial integrity, and that I’m not unbiased if I do something with sponsorships, etc. I want to address that, because it really hits to the core of the story, in my mind. Simply, they’re saying that one cannot be editorial-minded and manage a paid sponsorship. (Which, if you think about it, you’re saying that humans can’t separate their perspectives appropriately.) I have a few points with regards to this.

  1. Newspapers and magazines are dying. If you’re not reading Newspaper Death Watch and Paid Content and BuzzMachine, then you’re missing some of the most riveting and depressing news of our generation.
  2. Those models all work on advertising-to-pay-for-editorial and editorial-to-keep-eyeballs-to-support-advertising. In fact, all previous media works that way. TV, radio, etc. Lost isn’t on TV because it’s cool. It’s because people can advertise against it.
  3. Those models are dying because advertising and marketing have lost their impact in those spaces.
  4. Since the early 90s, people have hoped to figure out how the web will fix this.
  5. I have some opinions on this.

I’m not a journalist. But I am a publisher. I am a reporter. I am a media maker. And here’s the difference: as a publisher, I have all the jobs of the newspaper. I am both the editorial staff and also the business side of the house. In this piece by Barbara Gibson of IABC, Barb Gibson says in her comment to me: “One more note in answer to your points above: while magazines do indeed do advertorials, they’re usually not written and bylined by their star journalists.”

That’s the crux right there of what has people hackles raised, I venture. In larger operations, there’s a bag man to take the advertising money and leave the journalists pure. I’ll get back to that point, because there is a line still, and that line must be respected. That hasn’t changed, and won’t change. But because there are many of us who are the publisher, the writer, the researcher, the customer service department, and the public relations staff, you’re going to have to seek a slightly different way to manifest that distinction.

By the way, one irony of me being called out for my journalistic integrity is that a whole bunch of blog posts went up that aren’t especially fair or balanced, and that lack any level of research. So, as you’re crapping on me for seemingly selling out as a trusted source, you’re lobbing inaccurate reporting back at me as your proof.

My Big Point- Disclosure

If there’s one thing that I feel is the hinge of all this, it’s disclosure. Have you read my About page? I’m going to bet that I disclose more of my relationships with companies than most people receiving similar opportunities, and the reason I do this is to be clear when something has the potential to be a skewed opinion, and/or when I stand to make some money from your taking my advice.

The sponsored post about Kmart had the words “sponsored post” in the title, in the first line, and in the last line of the post, with links to the company that sponsored me (Izea). The first paragraph explained the campaign and what I was doing for the project. It was very clearly a sponsored post. Do you disagree?

To me, this can’t be much more clear.

Why I Did It

The sad (sometimes funny) part is that most people are saying, “Hey, he needed the $500.” While I sure don’t mind making money, that’s not why I wrote the post. Here are all the reasons why I wrote the post:

  • I’m on the advisory board for Izea, the company who got the deal with Kmart. How can I advise Ted Murphy if I’ve never even used his services.
  • I like the idea that Kmart was willing to give a brand interaction with bloggers a try.
  • For those of you who haven’t read The Cluetrain Manifesto lately, thesis #1: markets are conversations. Yep, a blog is a conversation. I mixed a market and a conversation. (Wasn’t that one of the 95 goals?)
  • My job, what I am paid to do, is advise companies and media makers how to play nicely together and make business happen. If I don’t explore, what will I know?
  • At every PodCamp I’ve ever attended or organized, there are at least two tracks on “how do I monetize my blog/podcast/videoblog.” If I haven’t experimented, how will I answer that question?
  • I realized really quickly that I could do two good things while satisfying the project request: I could give someone else a $500 gift card for the holidays, and I could use my shopping experience to buy toys for the Toys for Tots program. (My kids kept the jackets and my boy kept some pants.)
  • As several journalists have written me asking me what they’re going to do now that they’re out of a job, I’m experimenting with ways they can make money while continuing their trade.

How This Might Impact Trust

Some of you might worry that this should make you question my integrity. By all means, question everyone’s integrity. Julien Smith and I are writing a book called Trust Agents that deals with how businesses can be more human on the web. We think trust is a really important and interesting mechanism on the web. Pay even closer attention to the sources you consider credible.

I’ll refer once more to the disclosure portion of this post. My take is this: if I write about something where I have been obviously influenced, I will disclose this. If I’m writing about something for passion, then I’m just going to write about it. I see lots of PR people stuck in the trap of writing, “they’re not a client – I just love what they do.” Screw that. I’ll tell you who pays me and everyone else is someone I’m writing about because I like what they do.

I’ve written two sponsored posts on [chrisbrogan.com], one for CEA and one for eBillMe. Long before I wrote them, over the last few years, I’ve had dialogues with my community (you) about advertising and my site. I believe that it’s important to serve my audience, and that my number one rule for the sponsorships I’m taking is that they relate in some way to my audience, and that I’m clear and disclosed on each post. Oh, and I always write my own stuff my own way. You’re not buying my words. You’re buying my attention, and renting my audience’s attention.

By the way, another point on this: I don’t ask you for money. I give you everything for free. Somewhere, I have to make money, or my kids don’t eat. Would you rather I ask you for money? Someone always pays for the meal.

How I Hope You’ll Proceed

I’m tasked with showing great companies how they can connect with you, and that will take many forms. Yes, this post is about my exploration with advertising, but that’s not all people are doing. The people I’m speaking with at these really great companies are all passionately interested in “doing it right” and connecting with people. They’re on Twitter. They’re learning to blog. They’re using listening tools. They want to know more about how you want to interact with them, and they don’t want to just sell. They want real live authentic interactions, and they want to do business.

I’m here to share insights and give you actionable strategy. I’m going to explore even more ways that bloggers and media makers can make money in 2009. Why? Because it’s going to be one of the worst years economically in the history of the US (and by extension, the world). If I can figure out ways to keep my friends from losing their house by finding ways to authentically match business opportunities tastefully with their audiences, I’m damned straight going to help.

And if you’ve read this far and have come away thinking that I’m not credible, that I’m not authentic, or anything less than what I’ve been presenting myself as for the last several years, I invite you to go elsewhere. There are millions of blogs out there. Some are even doing fine work. I’ll gladly give you a list of replacement blogs, should you find mine not valuable to your interests and insights.

For the rest of you, thanks for staying aboard. We’ve got lots to do in 2009, and I’m counting on you to keep these ships in the water. Thanks for your time and your attention.

Just One More Thing

I support what Ted Murphy is trying to explore at Izea. He took quite a public thrashing a few years back for launching PayPerPost, and I was one of those throwing stones. After spending some time with him, talking to him about his perspectives, and reviewing where I hope advertising on the web is going, I think Ted’s one of the people looking to help. I’m on his advisory board (an unpaid position, in case you want to snark about that) because I want a voice at the table for understanding what comes next with online advertising.

Updated 12/14/08 at 9:42 to correctly identify Barb Gibson as IABC, not ABC

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Tagged as: , , , ,

ChrisBrogan.com runs on the Thesis Theme for WordPress

Thesis WordPress theme

Thesis is the search engine optimized WordPress theme of choice for serious online publishers. If you’re a blogger who doesn’t understand a lot of PHP, Thesis will give a ton of functionality without having to alter any code. For the advanced, Thesis has incredible customization possibilities via Thesis hooks.

With so many design options, you can use the template over and over and never have it look like the same site. The theme is robust and flexible enough not only to accommodate a site like ChrisBrogan.com, but also to enable the site to run far more efficiently than it ever has before.

  • Controversy?

    But this is so easy!

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

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

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

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

    Give me someone that's clear and open about their post (and as long as they stay true to their integrity) over someone out to make a fast affiliate buck anyday.
  • Chris,
    Very well said!
  • Bravo Chris! I am so glad you decided to take a stand on this issue.

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

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

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

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

    Kimberlee
  • Chris, I don't get the folks who say this impacts their trust in you. You didn't hide anything. I see bloggers as much like radio broadcasters. Radio jocks do sponsored "posts" all the time and no one sees a problem with that. So, why this?
  • Chris,
    This is a never ending story. I know Ted for a full year now. I speak with him every other day. At the beginning, I had mixed feelings about the business model, I saw Calacanis throwing stones at him...

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

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

    Come on! what about those " Advertisement" sections in magazine that almost blends with the real content?
  • Chris. What didn't work for me about the Kmart post is that it was so out of synch with what I value in reading your typical posts. You lost credibility with me on that one post--I don't read you for an opinion on Kmart or cheap shopping--but not on your work as a social media reporter. And I think at the end of the day, that's what it comes down to--a negotiation with your readers about what they value. I appreciate that you're out there actively working to find that line for yourself, and doing so transparently so that we can all learn from it. Kudos.
  • There are a lot of people on Twitter who thrive on controversy. Nothing better to do on a Saturday morning?

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

    I appreciated you sharing your rationale for doing this ...very interesting to hear.
  • Gina Kay Landis
    Chris, I think it's been very clear from your previous posts that you are a friendly businessman. No question there. And sponsored posts are business. No confusion there.

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

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

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

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

    GK
  • Scott Lackey
    Hey Chris:

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

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

    Happy Holidays!,
    Scott
  • Chris,

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

    Thanks for leading the way and showing all of us how to help big brands join the world of social media with credibility, humility and realism.
  • As long as you disclose that you got paid for it, it is absolutely okay! Is this why the comment area won't come up?
  • It's up to each of us to conduct ourselves as we see fit, but on and offline. You've stated openly, for a long time, how open and - pardon the overused phrase - transparent you are.

    I didn't see anything wrong with the K-Mart post, particularly because you were so blatant about saying, yes, this post is SPONSORED. Similar to magazines having articles with "Paid Advertisement" at the top: As long as you disclose, you're doing it right.
  • @Warren - if you think Loren and I covered it the same way, I'm flummoxed. The "go spend money and write what you want about it" was the same. Everything else? Crap, I hope I had a different take.
  • I'd like to add my name--if you didn't already know--to the list of Believers.

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

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

    Case closed.
  • Chris, I imagine most people are here because they are attracted to your authenticity. That's why I'm here. It's refreshing. Please don't get too caught up in the comments of those that snark. There's a lot to do, and no time to be distracted. People will always find something to complain about.
    You shine on.
    Kitzie Stern
  • Wow and wow. I've followed the debate on Twitter all day. I haven't weighed in because I wasn't sure what to say. I'm baffled at the controversy. And the reason I'm baffled is because I'm a traditional marketer, new to Twitter, and saw you demonstrating a way that traditional marketers can utilize the social space and bloggers can earn their keep. I see nothing wrong - heck, you even said it was sponsored by K-Mart - some folks don't even do that. So bravo - and look at the experience we've all gained from your little foray outside the boundaries others seem to have drawn.
  • This controversy is absolutely baffling to me and IMHO people are asking the wrong questions especially if they have any interest in business on the web.

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

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

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

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

    I was referring to the actual mechanics of the contest. Include the Kmart part number of the item as a comment on the blog and then tweet the contest. Those directions came from Izea/ Kmart, right. There was no individuality there. So all 6 of you ran the contest the same way. That was my only disagreement. But once again, in the bigger scheme of things, I don't see anything wrong with your post nor saying this post is sponsored.
  • Chris - I hadn't heard about the controversy until this post, so went back to read your other one. Slippery slope. Sorry if this has prevented you from participating in the other project I've been coordinating this week.

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

    I don't know you incredibly well, but I'd guess there isn't a problem with you. There's a problem with our society and it's linked to advertising and promotion.
  • Link above too my blog post on pairing brand Brogan with the best sponsor was broken.

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

    Thanks, Chris, for calling out the myth as well as being clear and open about what you're doing. This is what "transparency" really looks like.
  • So the future of online advertising is a cash giveaway? Chris, you don’t need a voice at the table to teach you that.

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

    Forgetting that though, wave $500 in front of anyone and they bite, for any brand. That’s not innovative, that’s a Pavlovian stunt car dealers use. Won’t matter anyway. After it’s over, Izea won’t care because they tell K-Mart “Look, everyone’s talking about you!”
  • @cjlambre
    I agree with Alexis above. Everything I have seen from you has the utmost transparency to it, you're not hiding any of your affiliations or intentions. Sponsorship or not, your opinions are still your own.

    I say, keep doing what you're doing. You're educating the rest of us, we're watching and listening and learning. There are a lot of people trying to figure out how this all works going forward, and you're ahead of most of us and taking the big steps forward.
  • I can't say much and be though of as an "A list" anything ... so i don't know that i'll sway the conversation in anyones mind ... but i don't mind throwing out my thoughts :)

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

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

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

    who cares what the critics say :)


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

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

    You did many things right. Your disclosure was impeccable. There was no mistaking what you were doing and why. The fact that you posted it to Dadomatic and not ChrisBrogan.com was also appropriate. For the theme of the content, it was a much better fit, even though it was likely to have been less widely read than your main blog. Lastly, donating much of what you bought was a great thing to do. Some might say, virtuous.
  • The fact that you even have to respond with a post like this makes it clear why understanding social media, marketing, and sponsored posting is so important. I don't understand what the big issue is. I'd like to think that if you had a horrible time spending the $500, you thought everything was overpriced, and you didn't get much of anything for the money you spent, you'd flat out write that regardless of whether the $500 was sponsored or not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Chris - I get you man. The haters are just that. Jealous that they didn't get $500 themselves.
  • @JillianAnderson
    @Chris Kenton: Chris' post about Kmart and holiday shopping was in his Dadomatic blog....about dad-ship - not in his ChrisBrogan blog about ChrisBrogan-SocialMediaReporter-ship. If you want the dad, read the Dadomatic blog. If you want the social media reporter, read the ChrisBorgan blog. I just don't understand the disappointment on this one....
  • Passion is a key message, in your evangelism Chris. Eloquence and intelligence are key ingredients, in personal branding, you write about and live. It's about you Chris, not them. What matters is how you conduct your self, and we each ourselves. Integity is integral. The rest is noise and beside the point.
  • Hi Chris
    Your integrity has never been in question with me. Those who are moaning no doubt have has ads on their blogs if not in their posts. Have they never read an advertorial? They should get in the real world and well ... get real. Keep doing what you do, I read your posts first in my reader. BTW do you have time for a life????? :)
  • Thanks for all your thoughts. I'm learning from your opinions, and further, discovering the current pulse of people's perception of social media.

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

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

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

    Thanks to everyone for their ideas.
  • I find the anti-capitalist sentiment that is prevalent in some social media circles tiring, childish and shortsighted. Finding new ways to cultivate relationships, engage customers and activate business transactions is integral to the success of businesses and the medium. Keep leading the way, Chris.
  • Great article. :) Couldn't have said it better myself. This will make a great case study some day when ever this social media thing finally makes it on campuses. This is not really new ground, but it is a different level of profile. Its never fun being in the cross hairs, but then again, sometimes you have to go where the cross hairs might be in order to really understand the tolerance of a system.

    Exit Gonzo Journalism
    Entre Bloggers
    ;)
    Have no idea what those last lines meant, just had a vision of a bald Johnny Depp in a Cadilac for a moment.
  • Chris, I'm not a journalist either. At least not any more. I'm in corporate communications. I follow you and Jeremiah Owyang on Twitter, and I respect very much what both of you are doing, especially in blazing trails in new media. However, I have to say we should maintain some of the standards of traditional media, including acuracy and clarity. They're critical to ensure shared understanding. For example, Barb Gibson is the chair of IABC, the International Association of Business Communicators, not ABC, as you mentioned in this post. IABC and ABC are two completely different entities with few similarities. Jeremiah, at least in his Tweets, butchers the English language. I would respect you two more if you followed these well-established journalistic standards: fact checking and good grammar. Yes, they take time, but without them, meaning gets distorted and misunderstandings happen.
  • Well I blogged my astonishment at the kerfuffle and my position here already as you know Chris.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    When more bloggers with integrity (you know who you are) will start expressing their honest opinions - paid (with disclosure) or not - and especially for small businesses, mom-and-pop stores, and those they buy services from - the world will be a better place and there will be a lot less controversy.
  • Try shilling for a student loan company ALL the time. Now there's an interesting question. We are both working hard in the social media space - why is it not okay for you to blog for money in consumer goods but it's okay for me to blog for money in education lending where arguably the customer comes out worse more often than not?
  • Chris, great post. It was very balanced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Having said that - I was wondering about the revenue streams of those people who are caught up in this non-issue at the wrong end. ..Just wondering ;-)
  • Making money online:
    1) Online sales of products and services (including content)
    2) Free content (paid by advertisers)
    3) Free content in exchange for credibility (which can be redeemed for consulting fees, books, sponsorships, conference appearances, etc.)

    Seems to me as though you fall into category number three, Chris. You clearly identified how you were compensated up front. I don't see anything wrong with that at all.
  • You did absolutely nothing wrong. In fact, you lived up to your own guidelines that you've established as your own best practices. We should all have that much integrity.

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

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

    The interesting thing to me is that with this newfound freedom to define things like ethics and best practices in terms of personal, individual evaluation, people go back to clamoring for the old blanket policies. Can't we do any better than that? Besides, I thought we were all making this up as we went along.
  • Pishabh Gulati
    I am very much dissappoint by this. Please henceforce cancel my subscribtion and refund my money
  • Patrick OMahony (pomahony2(
    By Chris brogan | DEC 2, 2008 Sponsored Post-Kmart Holiday Shopping Dad Style
    http://dadomatic.com/sponsored-post-kmart-holid...


    Chris,

    About the recent trouble.

    I love ya!

    I don't know what you did.

    I don't care what you did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    About the Christmas party. You are no longer invited!

    You will get coal in your Christmas stocking this year.

    You hack, you!


    Pat OMahony


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

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

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

    Thanks for taking this on so openly and transparently. This really answers the questions I was asking on twitter yesterday. As some of the commenters pointed out, it comes to intentions, and editorial policy. We trust you, I trust you, and as long as you're being true, then the trust continues.
  • stevenimmons
    I think the criticism is moronic. It comes from people in search of almost messianic figures to lead them through a world where they cannot form their own opinion. I trust many people that I disagree with, and I try to judge people by their standards not mine. Paid endorsement or paid opinion is a fact of life. I only object when the opinion is false and such insincerity is quickly discovered.
  • I don't know you very well at all. Of course, like most people that are involved in SM, after a week your name is clearly a part of the worlds internet Must See package which is probably why I have steered clear until Jeremiah posted the Tweet to give you a visit.

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

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

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

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

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

    Kmart rocks. ;-)
  • Chris,
    thanks for this great explanation. I was part of the people who questioned your initiative yesterday, not about trust or transparency, but about the attitude of blogs-as-a-media towards advertising and brands.
    This was forgetting that blogs aren't a mature media (adult, yes, mature, not) and that all kind of experiments have still to take place. You made one, with honesty. Presence of brands and advertorials have still to be deeper questioned, but not your approach.
  • How can I say this bluntly? It seems like the ladies on the corner who are giving it away for free are accusing you of working at their profession for money? And so... ???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Great job
  • Hey Chris,

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This model...sponsoring blog posts and blogs is still in its infancy. Those of us testing it out do so with open, honest and authentic voices. The businesses want to see how it works, whether it really has ROI (it does), and in the end, it's much less costly than anything else they do. How it will evolve remains to be seen. But, in the meantime, honest bloggers admit when they're being paid to blog - and if they are truly honest, they do not let the company sponsoring them dictate what gets written. Now, that would be a problem.
  • Chris, great job coming clean if you will. If people dont have respect for you know after thisblog, you dont need them! Everyone needs to make money and why not make it at something you are great in?

    Keep trucking!
  • I hope you get paid for all your effort's ! It is very important, the starving artist crap went out with the WPA ! How about the amount of educational material you publish and don't get paid for ! I would like all my favorite bloggers get paid
    for their social media platforms ! There is no discussion business, exists for profit it has no heart ! I like you personally and professionally only sponsorship will keep your creative efforts alive !
  • I don't think you compromised anything in your disclaimers. In fact, the post was still consistent with the site's goals, was it not? It wasn't just the disclaimers that make it work for me, but as a strategist myself, I totally understand your points on trying it to understand it to be able to advise better. That's what early adopters and strategists do: play with the new stuff so we can help others know if and when they should do it.

    Good on you, Chris. Blog on!
  • Chris-

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

    You did nothing wrong.

    Keep doing what you're doing.
  • (Everybody sing) It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas...everywhere you go...

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

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

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

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

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

    Getting me to change my perceptions and actions takes more than that.
  • Hi Chris,

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

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

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

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

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

    That kind of arrangement really is very different to working directly with a brand. It's a way of making advertisers believe they can get word of mouth and online credibility by handing over some cash, and that does put everything in a much different light.
  • Wow, what a powerful, honest and in-depth account of what you're doing and why you're doing them.

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

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

    In fact, if I am ever criticized for bringing on hints of entprenuerialship, I'll have them read this very excellent article.
  • Great post Chris. As usual, leaving me with lots to think about. Keep up the good work. I am always interested to learn from what you experiment with!
  • In light of these things, I think you need to label every single post:
    I am posting in the hopes that some day you will
    a) Buy my upcoming book
    b) Hire me to speak
    c) Hire me as a consultant
    d) Buy me a drink at a party some time
    e) Recommend me to your friends that will do the same.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Keep up the good work.

    thom
  • Chris,

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

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

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

    Keep bringing it Chris and thanks for blazing the trails.
  • Great post Chris!!

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

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

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

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

    Andy
  • Great defense post, but sad you had to write it! Come on people! Did you hate your shopping experience at Kmart?? Did you threaten to beat your children if they didn't smile for the camera? Did you purchase fur, meat and leather with the $500 then sneak off to a PETA protest? If you answer yes to either of the above then I question your creditability in your post! Otherwise regardless of the money being a sweet perk, how was your content biased? If you had something against Kmart and it went against your morals to shop their, but you did it anyway and gave a shining review... then YES I just think it's sad that people would call sell out, you work hard, you were presented with an awesome opportunity, you journaled it, you gave to charity... and I'll be winning a $500 gift card of my own out of it (WINK)... you disgust me! ;)
  • @Ben - I'm not going to rehash everything, but I'm going to correct the one bullshit line in your comment: I wasn't paid to write a glowing post and I didn't write a glowing post. I wrote what I saw after I experienced it. If you look at my writing style over the last several years, you'll see that I don't really crap on many things in general. But glowing? No. Just my thoughts and impressions. They didn't buy my words; they bought me doing the project in the first place. Only. You're fair to point out your disagreements, but your word choice in your blog post and your tweets is ridiculously slanted, and I take offense to that. Meaning, I appreciate your criticisms, but not your dogma.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Will there ever be a point when that way of thinking ends? I hope so. Maybe it comes down to whether or not the blogger is honest about his post. If he is, then it's all good. If not, then he and the paying client may be hit by it.
  • @Yvonne in the spirit of commercialism and self-promotion, I am a DOG who writes a blog called DogWalkBlog.com I would take food from Purina for blog posts.

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

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

    Thank you, Chris, for providing the space, time and effort on your blog for me to express myself free of charge. I should be paying you and will when that Purina deal comes through ;-)
  • Early yesterday morning, I was one of the few that were right in the middle of the Twit stream going on with Jeremiah and Ted Murphy. Jeremiah was merely thinking out loud, as we all were. Ted included.. It was a high level discussion. No bashing occurred. I had to go back and read my post on this topic and tweets just to make sure. I'm not sure if there was a truly large spike in the bashing as is being perceived, but the bottom line is it's a great topic because it's new to all of us. Chris included. I asked questions on my post. Barbara Gibson brought up talking points on hers, and that's what we all should do and did. If this wasn't new ground for all of us, including Chris, he wouldn't have had to write the "why I did what I did" post. Chris will be fine. In fact, he doesn't really even need to alter what he did going forward. Not that further props are necessary, but Chris you didn't have to write this post, but that just speaks to the quality of your brand!
  • I glanced at your blog last night but I was too tired to take it all in. It is ridiculous that you had-- or even felt-- the need to explain yourself. You said it was sponsored up front.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank you for experimenting on my behalf.

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

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

    as social media has come to redefine what it means to be a journalist, what it means to be a blogger, and has created whole new genres of professionals, it may be time to redefine and/or create codes of ethics. a redefined journalism code of ethics to address the changes journalists bring about to their profession when entering the blogosphere. a bloggers code of ethics - duh, i am sure many people have thought about this one already. and a social media code of ethics. maybe the latter is the meta code of ethics by now or would fast become one. such a code would at the very least bring understanding and commonality so that infosumers understand the infoproducers world and language they are interacting with, and for infoproducers to benchmark themselves both from a container and content point of view.
  • Am I surprised by the response to the KMart post? Not for a second.
    Would I have been as brave as to be the first to try it in this current social media fishbowl? Only wish I could believe I would have been.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Nothing anyone says will ever change that.
  • Thanks Marc Meyer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Critic, there was a way to intelligently discuss this.
    You're no rookie. This was as intended.
    But you screwed up;
    Brogan wasn't your glass ceiling. He was you chance.
  • I think that people niavely took on this role that has never even been established in social media and try to rebuke you or others for using it any other way. Any good person online watching you and reading your content realizes that you are honest and transparent with everything you offer. And OF COURSE you will only support brands that you believe in, cause you yourself are always preaching AGAINST mindless spamming, etc.

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

    It's the kind of thinking that promotes philosophy's like american fundamentalism. But I don't even want to go there. Been there. Done that.
  • Ana Lorena Hart
    I love to shop, but I'm generally lousy at it. I think that this is in part because I don't have kids. I strongly believe that dads and moms develop a skill for finding great deals and protecting their family's budgets; so when they speak, I listen. I want our economy to start turning for the better, and we can't do this without trusting corporations such Kmart and the likes.

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

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

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

    In community,
    Ana.
  • Chris,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Keep experimenting and keeping it real.

    Brian Monahan, Expert in the Rough
  • that is some thread of comments...

    i'll just say i never thought what you did was wrong, you disclosed it, that's all you have to do. don't let the negative people get to ya.
  • I think this would be a good discussion on my show on Tuesday night. I would invite your Chris and the others to be guests and we can voice our opinions with some calls and really drill deeper into this issue. If you would be interested in voicing your opinion I would be happy to moderate a discussion on my radio show Social Mediasphere (www.blogtalkradio.com/social mediasphere). Perhaps you, Jeremiah, and Barbara and anyone else that wants to give their opinion and take callers. Let me know I wold be happy to get it set up.
  • FYI,

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Happy Holidays to you and your family,

    Carol Deckert
    Networking Coach
  • As good as you are at what you do, I feel sure the controversy was instigated initially by penis envy. I would beat 'them' up for bashing you if I could, or at the very least, spank 'em.
  • Chris: Seems your Twitter critics were asking the wrong questions.
    What they should have been focused on are these two:

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

    2. What is a blog and how does that affect your opinion of this time of promotion? (e.g. Huffington Post, an online magazine, IMHO, is still referred to as a "blog" - if they had done something similar, would the reaction have been the same? What about something like DailyFix, which is written by a rotating cast? Does it the fact that the paid post came up on a single-author blog make it different?)
  • Chris, you were transparent on the Kmart post being sponsored and you've followed up with this great post leading the blogging world on the discussion of sponsored posts. What more do people want?

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

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

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

    I do take issue with the strategy however.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The days of top-down marketing are waning.

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

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

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

    One can assume that you've been to discount stores before and the tone of your Dad blog seems to be very much in keeping with the tone of "my shopping experience in KMart." Not sure if the other bloggers they chose also fit the bill (I'm not familiar with any of them) - but that's also a key question.
  • I definitely wouldn't worry too much about this. It seems like some people are just big babies and can't deal with it. It's basically that they are jealous of your success.
  • I think this post should pretty much clear up any misunderstanding about how much integrity you have - this is one of the best posts I've ever read from you.

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

    We all benefit and learn from your presence here. Keep doing your thing, Chris!
  • Marr Williams
    To question your integrity for receiving $ from KMART when most product reviews blogs are hoping to make money (either directly or indirectly) is hypocritical and way too cynical - even for me.
  • Chris,

    You are absolutely 100% correct here:

    - Commercial and editorial ideals can exist in the same operation. The same brain even.
    - It all comes down to ethics and disclosure, both of which are in abundance in your case.
  • Chris has kindly agreed to be on my Podcast, Six Pixels of Separation, later today (which will get published later tonight). If you have any questions for Chris, you can either DM me on Twitter - @mitchjoel or email me your questions/thoughts on this topic: mitch[at]twistimage[dot]com.

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

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



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

Previous post:

Next post: