Differentiating Between Blogger Relations and Sponsored Content

January 13, 2009 · Comments

advertising billboards I’m grateful to be mentioned in this ADWEEK article as being part of the “web elite,” and on balance, the article is interesting and informative, but I have issue with the confusion between what I’d qualify as blogger relations versus sponsored posts. I want to take a moment and clarify my perspective on this, in the hopes that we can talk about it more in the comments.

Essentially, my belief is this: there are many ways that brands and media will interact in 2009 and beyond that aren’t exactly the same as they were before.

Blogger Relations

Blogger Relations usually works in similar ways to a PR outreach program. A company or agency decides to reach into a certain community and forge a relationship with the prominent (or most relevant) bloggers in a certain vertical, and then request a media making experience related to the product or service. In these blogger relations campaigns, the blogger (or other media maker) usually doesn’t get paid directly, but might be given products to review and later keep (this last point, about keeping the product, makes it a bit different from traditional journalism, which often has policies around not keeping any items that are reviewed).

The work I did with Panasonic was a blogger relations campaign. I wasn’t paid to write anything about the products. I wasn’t paid for my time. Instead, I was given some gear and some opportunities and told I could write about what I wanted to write about. It was expected that I write about CES and that if it made sense that I write about Panasonic, and I did, but beyond that, there was no quid pro quo, as Greg Verdino pointed out in the ADWEEK article.

Sponsored Posts

A sponsored post in the modern world is where a company works directly or indirectly with a blogger (or other type of media maker) to place a piece of paid inline content on a website. The elements of a sponsored post (at least in my opinion) are that they be clearly marked as sponsored (to differentiate between standard content), that your business relationship is clear during the post as well as afterwards (my sponsors show up in my About page, and that you have full disclosure that the post is sponsored at the beginning and end of the post.

Beyond that, it’s up to the blogger/media maker to attempt to be fair and give information to his or her community in such a way as to preserve the trusted relationships that have been forged. In my case, I’ve stipulated in all sponsorship opportunities that I write about the products or services sponsored in my own words, with no oversight or editing, and with the good and the bad included. In all cases, my sponsors have appreciated that sentiment and welcomed the dialogue. (Example: I wrote that eBillMe was interesting, but could do with some usability improvements.)

I’ve done two sponsored posts on chrisbrogan.com ( here and here).

Not Advertorial

Maybe it’s just semantics, but I consider “advertorial” to be more like those “advertisement” posts in magazines, where it’s clearly marketing-driven, and where the information contained within will never say anything counter to the claims made by the product or service’s creators. These types of posts are informative, but don’t usually leave me with a feeling of trust. Meaning, if there are any cons to think about, I don’t suspect I’d have them in mind when reading an advertorial.

Thus, the ADWEEK post calling both a blogger relations campaign and a sponsored post an advertorial doesn’t really ring true to me. I don’t see them in the same light, and I’m not sure you would, either. (Please stop me if I’m wrong).

Communities and Content Marketing

The difference, as I lay out here, is in the relationship between the information and the community. When I did a review of gourmet food products by Personal Chef To Go, this was a blogger relations campaign. I wasn’t paid beyond getting the products to sample, and I wasn’t obligated to write about them in any way. Thus, the response from my community was that they felt it was genuine and obvious.

When I do a sponsored post, I clearly disclose the business relationship, and thus a member of this community knows what’s entailed. I imagine there’s a level of suspicion in some. “Did he think more favorably because he received money? Can we trust his opinion? Is this just a new kind of advertising?”

My answer to those suspicions is to ask you what value you think I place on you and the future of these interactions over the price I receive from a sponsor. Knowing that I receive 95% of my salary from sources other than this blog might help you form an answer to that for yourself. My relationship with this community is worth more.

Looking Ahead

I think, then, that the value in blogger relations and sponsored content is very high. I believe in both methods as a means of building a different kind of awareness with products and services as communicated by the people voicing their opinions into a community.

There are many companies working on varying methods and models. In full disclosure, my own company, New Marketing Labs, offers content marketing and blogger relations as services. I’ve worked with Crayon and IZEA (where I serve as an advisor) on campaigns like this. I’m also excited by the work of Stacy DeBroff at MomCentral (for having a powerful mom-focused offering). John Battelle of Federated Media has some great content marketing projects (as I’ve written about before).

I think that community-minded content marketing, be that blogger relations campaigns or sponsored posts or content sites like Dell’s Digital Nomads is where the best opportunities lie in 2009, from the perspective of keeping attention and maintaining trusted relationships. That’s what I’m encouraging clients to explore, and that’s what I’m encouraging media makers to consider alongside their other potential money-making opportunities.

Your Take

What do you think of all this? How do you feel blogger relations and sponsored content change the way you look at blogs as media sources? Can you differentiate between sites that use appropriate disclosure versus sites where you’re not quite sure? Would you participate in projects like those mentioned above?

Photo credit, yukonblizzard

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.

  • Chris -

    I can differentiate between the different articles, but I have an issue with what you call blogger relations. I followed your blog and twitter posts about CES and enjoyed them, but I couldn't consider those regarding Panasonic completely unbiased. The reason for this is, although you weren't paid, and there was not an implicit quid pro quo, nevertheless you did have reasons to not write anything too detrimental to Panasonic.

    Any company in the future considering having you do the same or similar for them will consider how you treated your previous benefactors; if you raked them over the coals or gave their products crappy reviews, they are less likely to engage you. This is why Leno never asks penetrating, probing questions of his guests: he doesn't want to scare them, and the rest of Hollywood, away from his couch. It works for him, but I wouldn't call it journalism. Or it's like local papers, where the places that win all the "Best of.." all seem to have big ads in the paper.

    That said, I don't have a problem with what you did, especially if you continue to make all your relation with the company clear. However, I will continue to value Consumer Reports and CNET's reviews more than bloggers in a blogger relations program.

    Perry
  • Hi Perry-- it's a good point. Those types of experiences would likely dry up fast if I became known for crapping on the folks who provided me with products or services. That said, I wrote in my wrapping up Panasonic post that I didn't think the camcorder I used was all that great for videobloggers (a title I can occasionally claim for myself). I said it was a good, but not great rig. Not exactly a harsh raking, but definitely not what Panasonic wants to read about their product.

    I agree with your point that a standalone blogger without a strong core policy in place for reviews and impartiality isn't as trusted as Consumer Reports or other organizations. It can't be. And for my part, I'm not a great reviewer because if I were, I'd have put it the products I tried out against other products.

    Ah, but there's the thing: was I doing a review as much as I was reporting on the experience of using a product? And does the difference matter? I think so.

    So, thanks for the conversation. I think you've led me to another point for a future blog post, and I value your opinions.
  • Chris,
    I think that most of the animosity towards marketing products thus stems from the nature of blogs themselves. Blogs are inherently social conversations, so as soon as marketing is implemented therein, arguably a degree of the transparancy disappears. Whilst bloggers such as yourself may openly identify any sponsorship or outreach contracts, others may be less inclined to disclose such sources. This is likely to detract somewhat from the openness of the social media, don't you think?

    Whilst I fully understand the marketing potential for engagement with blogs, the success thereof depends entirely on how open the blog's author is with their community. With the anonymity afforded by the Internet however, I am sceptical as to whether full disclosure will always be the case. Whilst I would hope that many a blogger would place the value of their community and their integrity over the price of a sponsorship deal, I wonder how many would adapt their principles were the right price to come along?

    TLR
  • The key point is that you, the brand Chris Brogan, have authority. Manufacturers of quality products want to be associated with you and since you don't need to make money from your blog it is easy to demonstrate an open and ethical relationship. The encouraging thing is that major "brand" bloggers such as you, Robert Scoble, Seth Godin have set the agenda so that others who don't explicitly disclose their relationships and have a profitable commercial life outside of blogging don't have the same authority. A quick test I use is whether a blogger defines his or her relationship with an organisation or with an individual.
  • @Mister Rogue sir - ahhh, but are blogs one thing or another? Yes, there is a blogging "movement" that aligns very tightly with certain social expectations, but isn't a blog just publishing technology? If so, then paper is paper and a blog is a blog, and what one writes isn't dictated exactly by the medium as much as it is by one's goals and intentions.

    I think the answer to the question of adapted principles is that it would become fairly clear fairly quickly that one's audience was not as important as the money, and that audience would summarily dwindle. My own audience has added 3000 daily readers via RSS since the sponsored posts of record, so in my case, it seems that people have accepted that I'll value their trust over any questionable material.

    For instance, you'll note that there's no sponsor for January. That's because the opportunities presented to me weren't up to snuff with what we do here. I moved past.

    My point isn't far off from your first sentence of the last paragraph where you say, "Whilst I fully understand the marketing potential for engagement with blogs, the success thereof depends entirely on how open the blog’s author is with their community." -- I wholeheartedly agree.
  • @Michael - great test. I try to pass that one. : )
  • Admittedly, blogs as a 'movement' do seem to have become somewhat swept up in the social expectations that have come to be aligned alongside them. The problem as I see it though is whether there are more bloggers that are community driven than are finance driven. As you emphasize, there is very little money in blogging itself, however the attention required to create and maintain a community is significant.

    I fear that whilst many bloggers engage therein because of a real passion for blogging, the time requirements for the creation of a decent community can prove decisive in some of their decisions to accept sponsorship. As the number of bloggers who, despite being passionate require an income to appropriately support themselves whilst maintaining their blog increase, I imagine that sponsorship standards adopted will slip.

    TLR
  • Only the community can answer that question. I agree that the motivation to deviate from the values that you based your blog on when you first started can increase as a result of low returns to your time. However, if you do allow your content to be negatively effected by financial motivation, you face the possibility of losing the respect of your community, and in turn the strong following that gave you the financial opportunities in the first place.

    I would assume that if a blogger has committed enough time to develop a loyal, relatively large following, chances are that they place a great deal of value in providing that community with true, valuable content, or they wouldn't enjoy such loyalty in the first place.

    Dave
  • Liz
    Blogger relations or sponsored articles wouldn't make me think differently about the blog as a whole, providing they were fully disclosed (in either situation). I would have the situation in mind when reading the article though, and it would probably make me slightly more suspicious of the review. That would depend on how much I trust the blog in general though.

    Reading a post which sounds like it's sponsored and which has no disclosure would definitely reduce my trust in the blog as a whole. Incidentally, it seems to me that many bloggers are more likely to disclose 'blogger relations' posts than sponsored posts.

    I recently faced an issue with blogger relations and I'd appreciate your opinion - I was contacted by an agency with a product which they wanted me to review on the site. On receiving the product it was clear that there were some flaws. I decided not to review the product at all rather than give a negative review. The main reasoning was that we have not done these kind of reviews before (ie better to start on a positive note) and as our blog and brand are still in early stages it could do more harm than good. On the other hand I'm sure some would argue that small brands should take what opportunities they can get and hope that it leads to something bigger.
  • Well, so far, I haven't seen a huge brouhouha in the blogosphere or Twitterverse about the Panasonic post(s), so I'm guessing it's more accepted this time around.

    (Of course, it's 4.30am EST as I write this, so maybe when people wake up it'll be a different story). ;-)

    I can definitely see the difference between blogger relations and sponsored content (although, to a degree, I'd suggest they're both a form of promotion so maybe the line isn't quite as solid as first viewing suggest). Of course, the key thing is whether transparency is kept, and ethics are crystal clear as well.

    Yet I guess the other question that might arise is this. If a blogger who (rightly or wrongly) has become known for a particular niche - community and social media, as per your tagline - is reviewing more tech products, wouldn't it be just as easy to read Scoble instead?

    Unless you're both in cahoots, of course! ;-)

    It's a tough call - gauging your outreach with what your readers want to grasp. At the end of the day, it is YOUR blog and you decide what path it takes. You're not going to please everyone all the time - the question is who do you want to "please" more?

    Apart from yourself, of course - if you're not happy what chance do we have, right? :)
  • Gary Allen
    Wow! You sure have it all figured out. I've not seen the blogger-company-reader relationship so refined and defined as thoroughly as you have here. On the other hand, should a blogger be the one defining the terms of the relationship, especially when it comes to the reader. Doesn't the reader get to define that part? You certainly don't see newspaper editors trying to alibi their taking gifts from advertisers as "many ways that brands and media will interact in 2009." In the end, disclosure isn't the defining element of trust. And it's not something you dictate to the reader. You earn their trust through your actions, which match the readers' expectations--which they get to set. You post seems to serve your writing well, but does it really serve your readers? I'll guess you'll find out through comments.
  • Well... Eventually, there has to be a turning point where all this networking and researching and hypothesizing turns into actual cash for bloggers. We all have networks, no matter how large or small, and we all have a degree of influence, if not to advocate for a product or company, to at least point people in the direction of that company when they otherwise wouldn't have looked at it at all.

    That has to be worth *something*. It's clearly a benefit to the company on the one end and the reader on the other end, as they find out about something they otherwise wouldn't have known about. As the broker of that 'connection', I think bloggers deserve to get paid what they feel they're worth or what the market will bear at this point in time.

    Of course, this leads to the unanswered question of whether I'm telling people to buy McVicar Beer because a) I actually like to drink McVicar Beer (or ever HAVE had one), b) I'm friends with Dan McVicar or c) I was paid by a company to inform my personal network about their product.

    Meanwhile, if I go on twitter and post "Just Enjoyed A Tasty McVicar Beer!!! :D", nobody has a problem with that.
  • I'm fairly new at this blogging thing. In the beginning I thought I'd get one or two followers and just write furiously. However I'm now finding myself spending more and more time building relationships within the blogging community. I haven't made a cent from my blog. I've written one movie review for another person's blog (I paid for the ticket) one book review (the book was a gift and it was my decision to do the review) because I thought the book was important and informative...and I loved doing the reviews. I posted a comment on Thought Gadgets Blog, on this sort of thing suggesting payment of the review regardless of negative or positive, with the decision to publish it left up to the company requesting the review.

    I also think it is up to you, the writer to choose products to review. Flogging bad products under false pretences may give you a momentary monetary spike, but doesn't work favourably toward longevity or a good reputation.
  • You know what? Yah, Panosonic ... makes me feel better for the purchase despite the lack of audio. And you know what I don't care so long as you Chris Brogan, have your own opinion. Because so many people are given ride on others shoulders. You are someone who understands childrens stories and the stories I tell mine are sometimes worth a Chris Brogan intermission - because I can always bring the story back into our life.
  • I think the issue of blogger relations and sponsored posts is all about credibility and whether or not your audience believes you are genuine in your content.

    The problem comes when your independence as an author or publisher is compromised by your willingness to earn money. In an ideal world, everyone believes in their own content 100%. Unfortunately dollars and pounds and even euros have a huge say in what we do and don't say.

    Personally I think you can make a mistake once and your followers will forgive you but twice and they're walking.

    I find it intriguing coming from a journalist/PR/publishing background how naturally much of the key publishing issues come to bloggers. I rarely see posts that contain glaring legal concerns - maybe that's because those that do - don't last too long or are not followed.

    Anyway corporate blogging is on the up and bloggers have to make some decisions about integrity vs revenue - good luck to you all.
  • Nigel Dean
    Chris,

    Forgive me for kissing arse, but you are one of the bloogers who I respect and trust a great deal. Day after day and week after week you give me usable information and advice that will help me do my job better and I don't pay you a penny. I don't have a problem with any of your content.

    The specific business related reviews in question are a small part of all the posts you generate, they are clearly marked and you spell out how the deal works. No problem. If you don't like it, ignore that post and enjoy the other 99 that offer you excellent blogging/content/marketing infomation FOR FREE!

    Personally, as someone who is also interested in the business angle of Social Media, it's also a great lesson in Blog best practise and giving ideas about how to generate some direct benefits from the blog itself without affecting it's integrity.

    I would recommend a great restaurant to my friends. I would still recommend the great restaurant if I knew the head chef, but only if it was good and I would tell my friends that I knew the chef. (I hope) my friends would still listen to me, even though I might get some food for free. It's acceptable there, why not here? We're all friends after all - Isn't that what Social Media is all about?
  • leslie carothers
    Chris:

    You have elucidated the differences so clearly for me and for many others as well. Thank you.

    For me, I am both influencing and the influencer which is a strange position to be in!
    For instance, I have written Furniture Today's "Retail Ideas" online column(it is not a formal blog as I don't control it and someone else has to post it for me-ahh.the furniture industry) for free for 4 years. It is the most widely read international news magazine in the furniture industry and my online column is the number one or two most widely read column there now for three years running. I never publicize this-this is the first time I've said something about that publicly(I'm learning from all of you on Twitter that I should give myself a shout out a little more often!) Only once did a company that had hired me to consult with them ask me to write a post and I did and I fully disclosed that they were a client at the beginning of the post. That was it -in four years. Other than that,the only thing that's ever been given to me has been a reduction of admission to a conference that Furniture Today sponsored two years ago.

    Very few in the furniture industry know enough about blogging and influence to even REALIZE they COULD contact me to do a blogger relations campaign or sponsored posts for them and I doubt, even if they did, that I could accept it because the idea of having something negative said about their product would not be a proposition they could wrap their arms around yet.

    Fast forward to November. I started actively twittering in November of '08. Two companies are now paying me to use MY friends there to communicate their message- yourfurniturelink.com(owned by Mig&Tig and MortiseandTenon) and biOH.com-owned by Cargill. In both cases, I have made CRYTAL CLEAR in my tweets that they are clients. Over and over. Not just once or twice. I am VERY CAREFUL to not let the fact that I am being paid override the trust that I have gained(I hope). So far, no one has DM'd me or said anything at all-in fact, people have been very kind to RT some of the messages or ask me more. I guess this indicates that my own friends there have accepted that it's ok for me to have clients that are paying me to tweet for them. I think one reason for this is because both of these clients are squarely in the middle of my vertical-home furnishings and interior design-and the message my clients are askiing me to communicate is one that my followers are already listening for.

    I would never accept a paying client onto MY twitter community of friends if they were not related to a home related product or service. My audience would not be interested.

    Also, another reason for the acceptance, I think, is because I am SO actively engaged in helping others, too. Every morning I wake up and think, "Who can I help today who has no connection to my business?" I actively work to tweet something out or engage them in dialogue that I know could possibly help them. Yesterday, it was @thebrandbuilder.

    In addition, I actively work to engage in conversation just for fun with people who will never have a connection to my business.

    I believe, at least for me, it's this COMBINATION and consistency that has led to the trust YOU have earned and the trust that I feel I am currently EARNING. I NEVER take it for granted.

    My DM's tell me I am on the right path, but if I should ever hear something really negative, I would address it immediately because, for me, no amount of money is worth losing the trust that my community on Twitter has awarded to me. Trust IS the capital..not money. Some may be cynical, but then they don't understand that love is a much more powerful force than greed.

    Thanks for allowing me to share this by writing this very thoughtful piece.

    I can't wait to see all the comments.
  • This is a fascinating debate Chris and you're absolutely the best person to show us the way.

    My take on all this is that corporate reputation is becoming increasingly in need of being supplemented by personal reputation, both from within and without an organization. It's a huge issue for brands and this is a case in point.

    It matters what you think Chris because you've established a following by being credible and by showing a large degree of integrity. Does that get tainted by an association with a large corporate, well the answer for me is that it could do. I must fess up and say I found yesterday's wrap up post a little harder to swallow than the usual scrummy fair, even with a snazzy camcorder on offer. It just didn't sit as well.

    I think the problem is that we can see the joins between blogger integrity and promotional motive, and that will continue to be the case until bloggers and organizations move towards a greater degree of co-creation on the practical stuff and not just the messaging.

    The 'putting the money where one's mouth is' debate for me isn't so much to do with advertorial, it's to do with this question: If Panasonic value your point of view so much, would they be receptive to building a commitment to that point of view through product development, assuming you'd be interested?
  • Jackster
    Sponsored posts are not "clearly marketing driven?" They're two sides of the same coin. Claiming paid posts and advertorials are not the same thing reveals you never worked on an advertorial, or those you worked on were not done in the traditional fashion. I've worked on many over the past 10 years. Most advertorials are ghosted by the same journalists that write the publication they appear in. Typically the writer drives the content, interviews the advertiser, interviews sources provided by the advertiser, pens the piece, and works with the sponsor to perfect it. Done well, they are very close to the pub's editorial (which is, after all, the goal of paid posts and advertorials). I don't want to ake a shot at anyone, but I do feel "new media marketing bloggers" in the main need to spend a little time understanding the history of the ad biz before they proclaim what they're doing with paid posts is unique, different, or ethical. It's a bloody advert, mate, designed to rook readers into thinking they're reading editorial, and get hem to spend cash to do or buy something. The #1 hope of the sponsor is that readers miss the words, "Special advertising section" or "sponsored post." Post disclaimers it in 48 point type. Readers will still miss it. Better still, in the online world. the sponsor hopes readers will see the post on Google, completely out of context. It's called influence peddling, and that's what we do. Such marketing tactics are, by their very nature, designed to be deceptive.
  • Tim
    I think you're dead on in your analysis of the difference between the items mentioned AND how to properly handle them. From blogs that I check on a regular basis I've come to expect nothing short of this... in fact, if there was ever an indication that a blogger was blurring the lines I believe that credibility would be lost and I'd find myself checking that particular RSS feed less often.

    I also work for a media company who monetizes our business through ad sales, sponsorships and things of the like, so I completely understand that it's a delicate balance that you have to strike but our members have been extremely grateful for us being very clear about what is ad and what is copy. The other piece of this is us knowing that certain brands/companies/ads ARE NOT appropriate to expose our members to (in ANY capacity) so even though we could make a lot more money by allowing them, we ban them without hesitation (in our case we are a health and wellness company and have to constantly block magic weight loss pills, miracle diets and junk food companies from getting to our members).
  • Chris,

    at the risk of sounding too simplistic, I believe that it boils down to expertise, credibility and honesty: If you are an expert on the topic to be covered, there is no reason why you should not be rewarded for writing about it, as long as what you write reflects your personal, honest opinion. In other words it is OK to be paid, but it is not OK to be bought.

    Achim
  • Chris

    I think it is a simple 'reading' of honesty. Your Panasonic post was clear about your relationship with them: you even mentioned it in the post itself.

    We all have a pretty strong b**lsh*t filter which lets us know when someone is a product prostitute but, as you say, you have too much to lose.

    Keep on with the product transparency and we'll keep on appreciating you.

    Jem
  • @Jackster - thanks for the enlightenment. I'm not a traditional anything. (Funny to write, but true.) I appreciate your perspective on that.

    @Bill - that's exactly the reason I keep trying to figure it out. On one side, I have big companies asking me how to be relevant on the web, and on the other, I have bloggers wondering why Adsense isn't cutting it.

    @Danny - true that. I'm not a gear blogger, nor is Scoble. That's the Engadget/Gizmodo crowd. But I am a consumer of media making products. You'll note the 3 that I reviewed are tools for blogging, photoblogging, and videoblogging. Me and a 108 inch TV? That wouldn't go well with my "we don't really watch TV at my house" stance. So a good point.

    Thanks, all.
  • Setting aside what people think of the bloggers who engage with brands in either blogger relations campaigns or sponsored posts... what do people think of the brands that engage this way?

    Just anecdotally I sort of think people would be more inclined to respect a company that made a concerted effort to engage in innovative blogger relations without expectation rather than those paying bloggers to write words. If a brand, like Pepsi for instance, sends a bunch of preview kits to some very influential people in digital media without any expectation of a post - just letting the product speak and letting the blogger react in whatever way they see fit - I think people will respect that as just 'informing'. Like a community service.

    When another company (I don't actually know who has engaged in paid posts i.e. here's some cash, write me 500 words) just simply pays to have their brand displayed by the blogger to his/her own audience, it seems like a bit of a cop out. It seems, at least to me, like the company is saying, "I can't really be bothered to showcase something creative or put any effort into finding my audience online and being really relevant to them. I think I'll just hand over some cash and work the numbers." After all, that's basically what happens with traditional media. Not too many people are tracking results from print, radio, tv or out-of-home media. As long as you have a demonstrable audience with eyeballs, the cost can be justified.

    I don't think I'd think too much less of the blogger who took cash for a post, provided they disclosed it and wrote in their normal style (and it didn't sound like an advertorial - sell sell sell), but I might think less of the brand that paid for it. Cool ideas, on the other hand, i.e. some of the blogger relations pitches I've heard about, make me think more of a brand for making the effort.
  • I really needed to see this post from the clarifications about the SPONSORED POSTS (which I dont ever do) to the realization that the bulk of your income is not from here.
    I place far greater importance on my community than i do on the financial and am very careful to never endorse anything I dont use or wouldnt use.
    In an effort to 'remind' my community of that fact (I trip up when I say NO to items which I know immediately I wont give a favorable review---in my biz DIET PILLS ETC so the majority of times I DO give favorable review because I really like the 'stuff') I created a MizFit Seal of Approval for 2009.

    something with I wont bestow on all products even if I like them.
    for the truly can not live without items.

    I appreciate your blog.
    daily.
  • @Michelle Brand pimping, if bloggers can be a product prostitute! Good debate.
  • Chris,

    I think you are mostly right on this one. There is a huge difference in my mind between disclosed reviews and advertisements. But something else to consider...

    My wife runs a book review site. She only reads books she wants to read. For her, it doesn't matter how she got the book. She only reads and reviews what she cares about. She has a decent following and regular comments but one of the things she occasionally mentions to me is that of cost.

    She will often review books and she will actually like the book. She'll write her review and tell people how much she likes them only to find out that some of her readers didn't like the book. The difference... My wife got it for free or checked it out from the library. Her reader bought it at the store.

    Consider the Panasonic Camera you just got. While you had a positive experience and generally liked the camera (you mentioned buying more "glass" for it at some point) you didn't have to pay for it. Had you taken $700 to the store to buy a camera, would you have bought a Panasonic? Or would you have bought the low end Nikon?

    I'm not saying, remotely, that what you are doing is somehow unethical or that you shouldn't do it. I've done reviews before and will do them again. I've never had anyone pay me to do a post, but I've done several reviews of "gifts" from companies. But one of the questions I try to remember to answer is would I have paid for this. No matter how much I love it, would I have dropped the cash if I was out shopping for this type of product.

    Just a thought to further disclosure and transparency. This way, we don't all rush out and Buy a Panasonic because Chris Brogan uses one, when secretly, you'd rather have a Nikon (or a Blackberry instead of your iPhone).
  • Hi Chris,
    Great post! I run a golf products review blog and have blogger relations with the golf companies. I usually request which products I would be interested in reviewing based on what consumer buzz surrounding a product. Or the PR folks will pitch ideas for products for me to review etc. I have not done a sponsored post, but I would be willing. I would also disclose that it was sponsored, I like to be open and honest.

    I think from an ethical standpoint bloggers should disclose when a post is sponsored, etc.

    Thanks
    Rob
  • Very interesting discussion Chris. I could talk for hours on this one as someone who has been both journalist and blogger (I still occasionally do a spot of pure hack work here and there.)

    So...as someone who regularly takes hard pot shots over at ZDNet (which pays me for my content), at SAP, it's interesting that from time to time SAP asks me to help them. I'm also an SAP Mentor. The deal is simple. I don't do anything on a paid basis that is overtly outward facing because that could easily compromise my position as a critic. But...I will help them with internal stuff on things that help make the Mentor program better. Why? Because I'm really standing in the corner of the people who have to make SAP's stuff work. In dinging them publicly, SAP understands that I'm doing my bit to keep them honest, something they accept as necessary, even if they don't always like it. In supporting their constituents, I'm helping make it better for SAP types to do a better job.

    SAP is unique in that regard. Some companies flat out ban me from talking to their folk because they hate that I continue to ding them. But then enterprise software is a very mucky business. Others try and pretend I don't exist. That doesn't matter because it doesn't stop me doing what I'm doing, neither does it stop people coming along to read what I have to say. That's the bit many companies fail to recognise when they've got their head in the sand.

    Another company I help is CODA/Agresso. They sponsor a widget on my personal weblog (http://www.accmanpro.com). As it happens, they are talking about a technology I believe in and which, once again, delivers what I think is genuine customer value. This company I do help in figuring out how best to communicate with their customers because there is a learning message they need to get out. CODA/Agresso also knows though that if they mess up, I'll still be critical.
  • This is a topic that I am currently agonizing over. I blog (http://workhomeyou.blogspot.com) and I run an online magazine called WHY. I have a journalism background and knowing the ropes I can tell you that, in my mind, there really is no difference between an advertorial and a sponsored post. Basically, an "advertorial" means that the article/piece has been paid to be there. Sometimes they're written by journalists like me; other times they're written by the marketing/advertising guys -- depends on how "legit" the advertorial wants to look. Sponsored post the same -- the writer has been paid to run the post, whether it's positive or negative. But, seriously, it's going to be positive overall. Sure, you might suggest a few tweaks and that some areas "need approvement" but I think that the blogger might feel pressured to say those kinds of things to appear as if he is being unbiased. It's a very difficult situation on the part of the blogger. As I've discussed with other bloggers recently, a code of ethics isn't adhered to by many bloggers and those of us compelled to write "this is a sponsored post" on our blogs might be admired for our honesty, but I don't think it provides much credibility to that post. I think what saves you, and some other bloggers I know, is your reputation. If you readers trust you, they'll believe you. Anyhow, those are my thoughts. Thank you, as always, for compelling information.
  • This post very nicely clarifies the distinctions between different types of product-oriented blogging that are no doubt often blurred in people's minds (certainly in mine). I think most bloggers wouldn't be motivated to write about a product they hate, unless e.g. it's getting lots of buzz and they want to disagree, so perhaps this generally positive approach tends to confuse the distinctions. Of course a large part of the distinctions relies on the integrity of the individual blogger - as so much does in blogging, I suppose.
  • Question: You say you weren't "paid" by Panasonic, but did they pay for your travel and hotel? If so, that's quite a chunk of change right there and one could argue you were paid by Panasonic. In traditional journalism, this is definitely a no-no.

    I was following some of your posts from the show (mainly through Twitter) and had no idea at first you were there on Panasonic's behalf, meaning your posts didn't seem to show much bias. But once I did learn of your tie-in with Panasonic, it seemed to sully the experience for me in some way.
  • Hi Chris,

    The main problem is that we live in a world where we have to be suspicious, but in my opinion, in an ideal world, the best will be to simple not make any difference, because the blogger/marketer will be honest.

    All in our live, including love is an interested relationship, I'm not say balanced. But everything we do has an interest. Quite extreme.. but let me explain, If for example we give to a charity, is because (pick one) [ "I feel better", "I have to", "I want recongition", "I enjoy doing it", "I want to help", "I was in a wrong page ;-)", "your option" ]. Doesn't matter why, ... there is a "why" and this "why" is the interest.

    So if you are honest, ... I don't care if you write about company XYZ because you love them, because they pay you, because you get some samples, or because you don't have other thing to write about !

    Problem is that how I can be sure you are honest ? How I can be sure your point of view is personal, how I can be sure you are telling me the truth about the product... you know what, in my case I don't care, and is because if trust you and I'm not suspicious.

    When we see TV Ad where a Hollywood star promises that product XYZ solved his/her live... nobody ask for authenticity (perhaps we know that it's not true ;-)), why we are asking it to the bloggers ?

    Best Regards
  • The argument over what is sponsored content vs original content developed through a blogger relations campaign is an interesting one. The grey area is huge in my opinion. The rules of engagement are still being written as we speak and might not EVER be completed because this "game" is always evolving. With that said, however, bloggers that have street cred need to do a better job of outlining their pitch policies. What are they interested in? What sort of pitches would they entertain? Do they do product reviews and are they paid or not paid? If it's paid, what are the parameters? And, if the content is sponsored, how is it represented on the blog? Is there a graphic or disclaimer with the post? What does that disclaimer say?

    At the end of the day, however, it's really about the value that specific blogger would bring to your campaign. If they are a respected social media blogger like Chris or a consumer tech guru like Steve Garfield, companies WANT them to write about their initiatives because of the "company" they keep or their audience reach. A blogger could do nothing BUT sponsored content. However, if the reviews are fair and the blogger has an audience, it might be worth the $XX or give-a-ways that produce the result your company/client is looking for.

    The one thing I'm pretty opinionated on however, is the fact that IF a blogger does sponsored content, that doesn't mean that it's an automatic social media love fest or butt kissing. If you're product sucks, the blogger has every right to say what he/she wants to say about it - paid or not paid. Those agencies/companies that pay for sponsored content shouldn't expect anything other than coverage. Whether that coverage is positive or negative, all depends on your product and how it performs under their scrutiny.

    One last thing that bugs me about bloggers that only accept sponsored content is when you have a post topic to pitch them that's NOT attached to a product and you KNOW their audience would be interested in it. They just won't accept the pitch and if this particular target is THE target to pitch for this specific post topic, then you're pretty much up you-know-what's creek. That's a rare example, but I've had it happen to me, specifically when dealing with healthcare bloggers.

    In the end, it's an interesting conversation and one that I think will continue to develop and foster better ways to do what we all do - whether your pitching or posting.
  • DavidBoleyRN
    Great conversation tracking the evolution of this media. I'm green when it comes to blogs/social media but I have been around the advertising block in a previous career.

    Chris, when you wrote,
    "ADWEEK calling both a blogger relations campaign and a sponsored post an advertorial doesn’t really ring true to me," I read that as posturing by an old-school industry, armed with a little more knowledge, trying to wrest power from the social media brokers (e.g. you).

    I doubted my interpretation as I read through the other posts until I got to the comments made by @Jackster re: needing to spend time in the biz and also by @Tim who illustrated the ad biz power-playing style in a single post!

    In the end, moderating the dialogue openly as you've done here, keeps you out in front and puts your transparency right up there with Wonder Woman's jet.

    Thanks for your work, it's inspirational.
  • For me, it all comes down to full disclosure. I don't expect bloggers to be completely partial, quite the opposite since blogging is closer to an editorial than an unbiased article. If a blogger really likes a product or service and wants to promote it, I have no problem with it, as long as I know if they are profiting financially from it. But these are not mutually exclusive. You can endorse a product because you believe in it AND make money from it.

    And if you are only plugging a product because you are being paid, then I'm fine with that too as long as you tell me upfront. We all need to put food on the table.
    I don't mind playing as long as I know the rules.
  • I'm new to blogging - but it seems that authenticity is key. So I like your approach. I will start making sure any of our posts that talk about products or businesses clearly state what our relationship is with the product or business.

    On another note - you mentioned that your family does not watch much TV. Do you play video games. Just curious.
  • A couple of thoughts:

    First: I commend any corporation for stepping out of the box and exploring new options in advertising, including paying to have relevant bloggers write about their products / services.

    The relationship with the blogger and their readers is really the crux of the issue. What is the value of that relationship? At what point would you say, “The heck with this, it’s not worth sacrificing my readers over”? Essentially what you are doing is a social experiment. I applaud you for being upfront and honest about where the funds are coming from.

    I am a “consumer reports” fan – I go there because they do not accept advertising and know that I am getting an unbiased review of a series of products. While I trust your opinion on matters of social networking and value the information and knowledge you share with your readers, I doubt that I would shop in a particular store or purchase a product based solely on your opinion. Which really isn’t the goal… it’s being done to create a buzz… a buzz about a store, product or a service. I do not do sponsored posts (as of yet), but I am willing to recommend products, services or books that I use or have read. In other words things that I have volunteered to create a relationship with. When I recommend Paypal to my clients or in my blog, I use an affiliate link (and let them know that). When I recommend a book, I use an Amazon link and disclose that as well. The only difference in how I do it and what you are doing is that no one asked me to.

    This is your real estate and you will do with it what you choose to, as any blogger should. If you have not lost any readers over it, then I’d say you are doing it right.
  • "These types of posts are informative, but don’t usually leave me with a feeling of trust." I found this comment describes what you are doing, and its impact, on me, anyway. You are walking a fine line here, IMO. I can't help feeling you are on the wrong side of it. However, we don't know yet what the usefulness of social media will be as business model, mode of delivering information, news delivery channel, opinion leadership, etc etc. All those (old and traditionally defined) roles will be unclear online until we find a way to get them straight.
  • I appreciate all the comments here and Chris' position in terms of fostering this conversation. I'll be doing something similar next week with Brian Morrissey and some folks from Federated Media on my podcast. You're all welcome to attend of course. For scheduling info, check back here: http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/25133

    As part of the company that put this together and as a blogger myself who has participated on both sides of these types of programs, I would wholeheartedly underscore the value and importance of disclosure and transparency.

    It's funny though...that even with both of these present....some people are still not satisfied or perhaps I should say, convinced.

    To these people (and to all people), I'd also add in two words: authenticity...but perhaps even more importantly, integrity.

    At the end of the day, trust and credibility (now we have 6 buzzwords) are earned over a great deal of time and destroyed in the blink of an eye.

    If you think about it, the risk therefore is less about the brand or company engaging bloggers or influencers and more about the bloggers/influencers staying true to themselves and the communities they serve/inspire.

    I'm a glass half full guy and I inherently/implicitly trust that people are good and honest. For what it's worth, I think people will always do the right thing. That said, there always needs to be gates, checkpoints and explicit process designed to make sure everyone stays honest as well.

    We always took the approach in this program to trust and respect the participants....both their intelligence and integrity. We did not control what anyone said. We also built in what we believed was the necessary disclosure.

    Take a look at Steve's wrap up video and tell me if you think this is being read from a teleprompter or not :) http://stevegarfield.blogs.com/videoblog/2009/0...
  • I can obviously see the difference between blogger relations and sponsored posts. And obviously they are not advertorial. Transparency is so key here...

    Personally, I don't believe there's an individual with a personality so perfect a gift would not impact his/her views upon the company who gave the product. But hey, bloggers should try. And they can make a difference by trying hard.

    And the audience knows it. At least over time, they learn about your honesty. I believe people don't believe you just because they read one of your post. That happens through a process, perhaps because their friends endorse you, etc.

    At the end of the day, the growth of the audience speaks itself. When someone catches a blogger for his lack of transparency, perhaps he'll be forgiven, but after a while if it continues, the audience will start dwindling.

    I'd also like to add another thing. Entertainment. Well, sort of. I read your sponsored blog at the "daddy blog" and find it fun. I guess your audience doesn't like you just because you are transparent.

    If they can participate in a contest or anything, whether it is sponsored or not, they'd be happy because of the value and quality of time they spend. And that's an added bonus that I think is a breakthrough of the sponsored post format.
  • Clearly, this whole experience is giving you cause for concern. You know that something is amiss. The tone of your blog has changed as of late. While all seems to be completely transparent, there is something else. What is that something?

    Indeed, in any relationship there is a given amount of diplomacy required. You can't just jump up and down on Oprah's couch and scream to the world. Or can you? That thing that has been missing may well be Chris Brogan. Ah, yes, that may be the quality that that has temporarily disappeared. I have a feeling its sneaking up on us again. Can't wait.
  • Currently I am an unpaid blogger. I am developing my personal brand and delivering quality content on a regular basis on my blogs and social networks and would like to get paid for it. Adsense has proven useless to me. My daily impressions are decent by my standards and I feel I could offer value to a sponsored product or service if I wrote about it. The posts that get the most page view (by far) are my product reviews that I wrote just because I bought something new and wanted to write about it for my reader's benefit.

    This post makes me want to reach out to companies and offer my sponsored writing services. I'm not sure where I'd look to see what the rate scale is going for at the moment. Either way, this was a very thought provoking post.

    Thanks Chris!
  • Chris,
    As usual, thanks for the thought-provoking insights.
    I want to put a word of defense in for "Advertorial." I'm as much a lover of authentic, organic, editorial as anyone... but Advertorial gets a bad rap. Consider our "99 things to Do in Yellowstone" visitor guide, or our Things to Do section on YellowstonePark.com. WE provide 100,000 words about all the things one can do on a Yellowstone vacation. The advertorial is not only a benefit to advertisers, but most importantly a benefit to our readers, and visitors to Yellowstone who are planning a trip. We'd be doing a disservice to these customers of ours if we were to tell them they should go on a raft trip or go horseback riding but then not instruct them on how/where they can engage in the activity. The advertorial, in this case, is a vital part of the user experience and in us delivering to the customer what he/she wants/needs.
    Just wanted to stick my neck out a little for Advertorial.
    We have found a way to use it in a way that benefits both our customers, and our advertisers. A win-win that we'll all see more of in the future.
    Thanks again for your great insights,
    Shelli
  • Chris:
    May be I'm oversimplifying a bit here. But didn't you mentioned that 95% your income comes from sources outside of your blog?
    That I think puts the issue to bed with me. Based on your rep I think anyone who chooses to read your stuff and act on your commentary should by now understand the mechanics of your policy and style. Either they trust your judgment or not.
    later
  • There is a part of me that feels like our main goal in life shouldn't be to drive consumerism. There is also a part of me that believes that if helping our neighbors and friends is closer to our main goal in life, then we ought not expect to be compensated for it. But then there is a part of me that has to pay the bills each month.

    You've done a good job of delineating the ways that companies get placement in blogs. As you point out, though, this is entirely your view. You (obviously) live this every day - you eat, sleep, and breathe social media and you've developed a set of views and a moral compass, as it were, that have helped to build your community of trusting readers and have established you as a leader.

    I agree with David Spinks's comment above, especially his first line - only the community can answer that question. Because not everyone will share your views about placements, and not everyone will have thought as deliberately about this as you have. Plus, the world has a disproportionate number of bozos who just won't care.

    I also got some value from Chris Marsden's comment, especially the part about "would I pay for it?". This is tough to answer, especially if you try to put yourself into the shoes of "Joe the Consumer", because now you've had a chance to wrap your hands around it, so yeah, maybe you would pay money for it. Or maybe you wouldn't, even though you think it's a decent product. If you are "Joe the Consumer", and can only have *one* expensive doo-dad, it's hard to properly weight the opinion of Chris Brogan unless he is also reviewing the comparable products.
  • I've been thinking your Panasonic blogs have been a waste of my time lately and I was even considering unsubscribing. I like your blog though and think it is very valuable to me. Just not for the last few posts. If you were a photography or tech blog, then I could see you going off to CES and smooshing with Pano, but that's not who you are or what this blog is all about. I think that is the issue every blogger needs to consider when an industry calls them in.

    That said, I think this was a good exercise that really brought up some issues that make it all worth while in the end. :)

    Tony
  • Thank you for clarifying the difference between blogger relations and sponsored posts. One of the benefits of the new media tools available is that barriers are knocked down creating greater access and benefits to all; this also results in the potential for greater confusion. Media outlets like Adweek need to be able to depend on experts and thought leaders in any topic to help them to navigate new waters, and you are living up to your reputation by doing so.

    Regarding the relationships with companies, I see it a little differently. I think you are more than a consumer of media making products. You are a lead user of media making products. This means that you are in a position to influence both the people who aspire to be more like you and who learn from you, as well as the companies who aspire to make products to help you to be even better at what you do. The idea being "Hey, Brogan will really push the limits. If we make it easy for others to do what he's doing, we'll make something that's better for everyone." In that sense, you are helping to create a better experience for others rather than just "shilling."

    I think that the current perceptions of lead influencer/company relationships can limit the potential for mutual benefit before they even get started. These perceptions are not unfounded, but we cannot neglect the fact that we have more power now than ever to change that behavior. Ultimately, I think it's less about whether sponsorship is right or wrong, and more about consciously exploring the benefits of the relationships while shunning the push marketing tactics of the past. I think your review accomplished that well, and we need more examples like it.
  • Of course, it’s important that we look at this discussion as going far beyond Chris Brogan. As a de facto standards-bearer, you’re in the position of helping establish the accepted practices that will be used in all blogs (thanks for being a pioneer and testing the boundaries for us, BTW!). So, we should keep in mind that "integrity" and "credibility" lines can get blurred when other personalities are involved.

    As Dina and others have said, to me there is a big difference between a blogger relations-*encouraged* post and a sponsored post. I understand the distinction you’re making between sponsored posts and advertorials (the first has a measure of objectivity while the other does not), however many readers will always have a healthy dose of skepticism about both. I believe thinking of them the same way would remove all question, and eliminate the confusion that sponsored posts can generate.

    This is necessary in part due to bloggers' success at building credibility. As a group, bloggers have worked to get press credentials and treatment similar to that given traditional media, and in the process they've convinced most of the establishment that they are magazine-like. As a result, there is an expectation that blogs will have similar advertising policies to those of magazines. There is a danger that some of this hard-won credibility could be lost, if this phase of better monetization isn’t handled carefully.

    So, how can bloggers monetize without killing the golden goose? I think there are many ways to further separate sponsored blog content to more clearly differentiate them from your regular posts (place them on a separate page, use a different author, have a special graphic…). For large campaigns, perhaps sponsored posts from leading bloggers could appear on the client’s site. The compensated bloggers could then run a referencing post on each of their blogs, pointing to their client piece. These are just brainstormed ideas, but you get the point.

    The key issue: it’s not a question of disclosure, but of reader expectation.
  • Ditto to Jason Meserve above regarding "payment": you were paid.

    Also, the issue continuing to nag me, is your Twitter stream. *THAT* is the new variable for blog payment. To repeat Jason's experience:

    "I was following some of your posts from the show (mainly through Twitter)
    and had no idea at first you were there on Panasonic’s behalf, meaning your posts didn’t seem to show much bias. But once I did learn of your tie-in with Panasonic, it seemed to sully the experience for me in some way."

    Chris, guard your Twitter stream. Each Twitter post is a unique experience for each follower. When you don't reveal that tweet as sponsored, the experience, is, to quote Jason, sullied, when they find out the tweet was purchased.

    What does Panasonic think about http://be-a-magpie.com? Others?
  • A great article--it's been interesting as a "momblogger" to see how various PR firms handle the new phenomenon of blogging--specifically momblogging (though I cringe to call it that). I get 10-12 press releases a day from various agencies announcing their product or event--in effect asking for my free advertising as if it does any good for me or my readers to hear about the latest Oprah episode constantly.

    Then there are some firms who really get it. I've worked heavily with Weber Shandwick who represents Suave and when Glamour Magazine had their annual Glamour Reel Moments sponsored by Suave last fall Weber Shandwick picked seven of us in the blogging community, flew us down to LA, put us up in a beautiful hotel, took us to a Beverly Hills salon to have our hair done by a celebrity stylist with Suave products then took us to the Reel Moments premier and after-premier party to see the stars who produced the films.

    Not only was I impressed with Weber Shandwick and Suave's forward-thinking but their ability to see their target audience and how more and more women are sharing information and entering that conversation through blogs. But most importantly they gave me something to actually write about.

    I wrote about the salon, I wrote about the party, I wrote about gift basket of Suave products and all the fun details which my readers loved. Weber Shandwick not only gave me a great week but they gave me half a dozen great posts and a boost of readers to the point that I'm now pretty loyal and have wanted to help them with other campaigns as well.

    As a result when they recently sent me a box of Suave products along with the competing salon brands to do a test for myself on whether the Suave products are as good as the expensive brands I jumped right in. Again, that's a great idea and it's something I can actually write about.

    If PR firms want bloggers on board with their campaigns they've got to treat us like professionals and look to see how the relationship can be mutually beneficial. Give us something that benefits our blogs and our readers rather than treating us as if we're just hanging on every press release--that's somewhat insulting not to mention a boring way to blog.
  • Chris, as a blogger who has received product to try, without strings, it is risky for a company to send such gifts for the blogger to open up and start using, no rep from the company around to direct your actions or point out features. As long as you are transparent about it, I don't see a problem.

    One thing that smells a little is the value of the product in question. A $700 camera rig is powerful incentive to keep it positive. A $25 book, not so much. I think our minds subliminally smooth things over when the stuff is that expensive.

    That being said, I wouldn't mind if someone sent me a Flip Video or two to use in my Internet Marketing class. I promise to report all results, positive and negative! :~)

    In any case, your blog is extremely interesting, relevant and useful to me. Thank you so much for writing it.

    Claire Celsi (aka PR Princess www.publicrelationsprincess.com)
  • Chris,

    I think Jeff Korhan (#42) is onto something here. You've spent a lot of time defending your actions lately, where you used to just blog your ideas. You used to just follow your own advice of 'adding value' to people's work, and that trust washed back to you in the form of business. The model was simple, quick, and it flowed.

    Since you've been experimenting with "blogging arrangements", you've stepped away from that model, and into another. As you've clearly and thoroughly documented (and many agree), what you're doing is not unethical - and kudos to you for taking care in this arena. I respect and am grateful for your hard work on this important point.

    But I'd call a "supported post" (if not sponsored) to be less authentic. There's suddenly a third party in our relationship (you, your community...and now a patron) where before there were only two of us. I also see this as growing pains for bloggers; in the beginning they rose to power because readers knew they were peers - it was a dialogue between (informed) peers vs a top-down, shut-up-and-listen-to-the-experts model. As bloggers have gained stature and 'eminence', they've become experts. When companies pay those experts to help convey their messages, it starts looking a lot like the old model ... with comments.

    I don't fault you at all for these 'supported posts'; I'm glad you're doing well, and gaining respect for your good work. I find them less interesting, so I don't read them. It's a big web out there and life is busy - when you get back to posts on what's valuable to me, I'll hit that link! Maybe I'm just a cynical Xer - always wary of the agenda! :)
    ...
    The loyalty you've developed in me brings me to add a ps here, for what it's worth. Many years ago I was a young social worker with teens. My boss was very helpful in guiding me to learn about crossing boundaries (even very light gray ones that you cross without noticing). But we found a great indicator: whenever I'd get this slightly squeamish feeling in my stomach, even though what I was doing felt perfectly ethical, I knew there was a boundary somewhere that was being crossed. When I avoided those situations, I had internal clear skies...when I didn't, I could justify my actions, but there were clouds...

    Best to you in your process on this, Chris. John
  • How do blogger relations and sponsored content change the way I look at blogs as media sources? They don't change anything at all for me. The most important criterion in either category is crediblity. If a blogger is credible, that is if he or she has a reasoned perspective on a topic regardless of whether I agree with it or not, then I will hear what that person has to offer and consider his or her opinion as I think through the topic at hand. That is like reading George Will. I almost never agree with what he says, but I will read what he has to say. If the particular brand being discussed in sponsored content is credible - the company is a good corporate citizen, it provides good products or services etc. - then I will hear what the author has to say regardless of whether he or she is being paid to write. It's like watching TV ads put out by Best Buy. I may or may not buy the product or even shop at the store, but I think well of how the management runs that company so I pay attention to the company and that means even its ads. It's the reputation of the blogger or the brand that matters to me in deciding first whether to take the time to read and second in whether to factor that information into any decision I might make.
  • One of the earliest comments here made the point that Leno never asks difficult questions for fear of scaring off Hollywood. However, he and other chat show hosts have no problem working at the other extreme: heaping praise on their guests, deserved or otherwise.
    We have so far discussed the danger that a blogger with links to a company would perhaps steer away from criticising their products too harshly.
    What would have happened though if you'd found that camera to be the absolute dog's bollocks - the best example of video technology upon which you'd ever laid eyes or hands? I'm thinking that, unlike Leno and chums, you'd have felt the need to temper your enthusiasm in order not to appear as sucking up to the man. Blandness could ensue.
  • Excellent dialog! My input is simple.

    The only thing that makes Blogs and Twitter worth my time is the value (interesting, helpful or thought-provoking content) they offer.

    I'm not purist. -- we all have to make a living to be able to offer the good stuff. I'm a big boy and know how to skip over 'commercials', so for me it boils down to two things:

    1. The number of commercials I have to sort through (TV long ago passed my limit, thus the mute button and DVR recording).

    2. The transparency of what I am reading. (Is it a commercial?)

    If a blogger is 'laboring' to make something fit and working on it to sound relevant and interesting, I'll know. That blogger is 'turning to the dark side'. Like TV, I'll weigh the 'value' of the program I like and make a choice.

    Although, the great thing about blogs and tweets these days is that it is relatively easy to find the good stuff and the good people to follow. With more commercials and (marketing communications) on the station, there will be more channel switching and muting in the future.

    Excellent question. Thank you Chris

    My advice to me and anyone else who blogs "sure, why not" but WATCH IT! (he said with a stern voice) or I'll go where there's less commercial clutter.
  • @Jeff Korhan - can you explain that a little better? I don't disagree, but I'm not sure to what I'm agreeing.

    @Jennifer Jarratt - you said that the last time I wrote about this topic. What's your take on it all? You've indicated that when I talk about advertising-type content, you're nervous. How do YOU consume advertisements? I'd love your perspective.

    @Shelli Johnson- and as I'm a noob at Yellowstone, that kind of content would be really useful, so maybe it's a matter of HOW or the circumstances of such advertorials.

    @Chris Marsden - that's a really great question, the "Would I Pay for It?" I'm going to do something with that in follow-on posts. It's really powerful.

    @Tony Farley - while I'd never want you to stay subscribed if you don't find the value, I'm hoping you'll understand that I use my blog and all the work I do as a lab for figuring out what comes next. I signal ahead of every post and I try to call back to the first post when something is part of a lab experience. You'll see links back to the first Panasonic post with that. Does that make sense?

    @Ellen - thanks for that.

    @BarbaraKB - that really makes sense, what you and Jason mention above with regards to the tweet stream. 140 characters isn't enough to disclose. I will take that perspective forward.

    @John Eich - great point and thanks for filling in the other thoughts. I'm appreciating your thoughts and perspectives. Gives me yet another blog post to write, too.
  • @chrisbrogan - I like your point about lab (isn't that your company name?). I think it makes a huge difference if you are engaging in an experiment and reporting your findings and generating new questions and then digging in and researching those questions.

    Maybe your advice and opinions and experience with Panasonic are not as unbiased as you thought (going by some comments, I thought it was fine). Maybe you missed some angles like disclosure on twitter and whether you would have paid for the experience and products. But it is an experiment. You learned things about the process, not just Panasonic. Maybe you'd do it again, maybe you'd tweak some things, or maybe you'd running screaming in the other direction.

    Regardless of how I (or anyone else who read's your blog) have been influenced towards or away from Panasonic, I (we) should be looking at the experiment, not just the company/product involved. I have clarified for myself some self-checks for when I do reviews. If given a similar opportunity, I will already be a few steps ahead in the collaborative research project. This is the value I (we) take from your site. This is why I (we) subscribe.

    Thanks for experimenting and reporting.
  • I'm not nervous, I'm enjoying the discussion.
    The problem you have is that it is difficult to be a one-man-band. Old media has/had worked out how to have a successful business model and to preserve a proper distance between news, opinions, reviews, etc. and crass commerce. The people soliciting ads and sponsorship were not the same as the people criticizing and reviewing. In the new media, they can be all rolled up in one person, which is you. That's why it can make your readers feel queasy. Are they reading you as the honest broker of independent opinion, or you as the shill for whatever company you are currently in bed with. As a pioneer, you seem to be honestly struggling with these issues. You can't manage them all, however.

    It's interesting how blogs are being aggregated. Someone will soon work out how to build a business model of a blogging "community" that includes independent talent, information, sellers, buyers, opinion leaders et al. all in the same package, but clearly distinguishable from each other.
  • I really wish I had caught this post earlier, Chris.

    You know that blogger relations hits close to the heart. I like that you distinguished between blogger relations and sponsored posts, but you failed to address the real issue here: what constitutes good vs bad blogger relations practices.

    It's great that Personal Chef to Go, for example, sent you some free product in the hopes that you'd write about it. The issue: You're not a food critic! Your expertise is in the social media space. I can understand, then, if you were commissioned by a new social media service to try out their product; that would make sense to me (ofcourse, social media is, by definition, free, so how do you stand to gain from that). What does a social media advisor like youself have to do with food more than any other person online?

    The difference is that you are an "influencer;" and this is where blogger relations becomes bribery, selling-out, fake, fraud, exploitation of an audience for capital gain.

    I'm a firm believer that if you're great at something, you have the right to make as much as you possibly can doing it; but not at the cost of the people who depend on you.
  • Thanks for providing this information and really it is very useful and nice to read.
  • @Brandon Carlos - so here's my take on what you said. I'm not being sent this stuff to critique it. I'm being sent this stuff to experience it and write about the experience. The difference is HUGE. I'm not a tech reviewer. I'm someone who uses tech. The differences are monumental, and that's what these companies are experimenting with.

    Believe me, there are tons of people more qualified to judge which foods are quality and gourmet. I work with Justin Levy every day and he's better qualified than me.

    But what these people want when they send something my way is that they want MY thoughts and how I experienced it. One reason is that I write rather well. Another reason is that I have an audience, and within that audience are people who might be interested in the products.

    Why is Personal Chef to Go of interest to me? Because I'm busy. I fly all the time. My family is on the run. By having my food prepared and sent in a "just heat it up" method, I'm getting back some time that I can use different ways. Make sense? It's not because I'm a gourmet, but because I'm a user. Ditto the Panasonic.

    Make sense?
  • I agree with Chris. The companies are after his experience and many times, they may want to hear what a non-expert in the field has to say. Sometimes we can learn more from the non-experts. They don't approach the task in the same way, and that alone can bring interesting information. Chris might find the food great because his taste buds are not as refined as an expert, but he could have some interesting insights into the service or packaging.

    It seems to me that the main point is to be transparent. If you are clear about the relationship with the company and clear about what you are doing - telling us what Chris Brogan thinks about the product - then I don't see any problem with it. We are intelligent enough to decide if someone is being real and we can decide to continue reading or tune out. It is definitely clear to me from his blog that he is not a foodie.
  • @Chris Brogan

    Absolutely, I wasn't ever confused about the agenda of these organizations. And you obviously aren't, either. But there are plenty of places for organizations to try their products out on "every day" people *(see www.bzzagent.com or www.influencers.ca, entire word of mouth communities).

    And I have trouble believing that your writing has anything to do with it, either-- there are thousands of great writers in the blogosphere.

    You command an audience, and you gained that following by being a social media expert, plain and simple. People don't come to this blog to hear about your "experiences" with Personal Chef to Go, they come here because you're a social media authority.

    i equate your version of blogger relations to sponsorship. Call it what you want, you're being given a product with the intention of boosting sales. Sure, you could report negatively on it, but when have you ever done that?
  • I really like the way you draw this line, Chris (in all your work, not just here). None the less, there doesn't seem to be any inherent line of demarcation, more a continuum or spectrum. Which is exactly why we should be careful to distinguish the ideas: to keep alive the questions of bias and trust for _every_ individual post.
  • hey chris,

    im actually curious to hear your take on a post that david churbuck (vp web marketing at lenovo) put up around 2 months ago http://www.churbuck.com/wordpress/?p=2358

    "If bloggers want to be accorded the same respect and gravitas of a professional journalist/writer then they need to abide by the same code of ethics. Journalists don’t accept money to cover stuff. Period. They may do that in some backwards nations, but not in the USA. Bloggers who join any sort of program that compensates them for coverage of any kind — positive or negative — openly disclosed or not — are, in my traditional ethical mindset, crossing the line."
  • Good conversation here.

    On the one hand, you've done just what Panasonic hoped. You allowed them to pay for you to go to CES, you attended their events, took pictures, blogged about it and when you returned, raved about your experience and even did a giveaway on your blog. They received great SEO and coverage on a leading blog, and you got a trip to Vegas.

    You were transparent about it from the beginning. The part that disappoints me is that Panasonic did not participate in the social media part of this in any way throughout the process (even by just commenting on a post!). So is this an authentic approach by Panasonic or is it pay for play? I think that's the heart of it for me (which I see echoed above in some comments as well).

    Anyway, just waned to bring it up for discussion and hopefully get your thoughts.
  • re: Jacob Morgan
    Okay - admittedly I am new to this whole topic. But I was under the impression that Bloggers are not in any way journalists. They are people talking about subjects that they are passionate about, and thereby have some expertise. Obviously some bloggers are more expert than others, and one can easily figure that out.
  • EltonX
    Chris,

    Good read. I really like you creating a line here between the two camps.

    I still remember when bloggers did it for the love of publishing their voice and connecting to the "great ether unknown". Boy have things changed in just a few short years. Should we consider Blogs blogs if they are somehow getting something in return? Or are these now online amateur magazines.

    Also, find it interesting that being a retailer myself, our blog relations always are much heavier push than pull. The majority of bloggers we work with already "own" our product and are more than happy to write and evangelize when we contact them. They're like "Wow, Company X actually contacted me...how cool. I'm such a fan....I would be happy to write." Others....maybe starting down the "how can I make money on my blog", say, "Can you give me a free sample that I can have a giveaway for my readers."
  • I'm glad the CES is over, because I missed you.
    ~jon
  • @chrisbrogan As requested, I'll try to clarify my earlier comment.

    Communication is an art. As with any art, there is an invisible quality that connects. In music, it may be the space between the notes that makes it music. Otherwise, it's just noise. In blogging, it may well be the perceived presence of the blogger. In the recent posts, it's as if you stepped back a few paces and became more distant - a little less familiar.

    It wasn't just a few weeks ago that we were talking about Twitter DM's and bots. Virtually all agreed that for whatever reason, we all know when the message is not human. There is a lack of connection that is not readily apparent, but noticeable nonetheless at some level. That human quality is a complicated thing, but we recognize it immediately - and we applaud it..
  • @Jeff - thanks for the thoughts. I appreciate your circling back around to help. : )
  • Chris,

    I understand what you're talking about. There is a difference between Sponsored and Blogger Relations. And to be honest, even though you disclose your relationship to the product or vendor, many don't for whatever reason. Journalism has been around for centuries. Blogging in its present form has only been around for about 10 years max. The rules of blogging vary depending on the blogger and readership. If someone doesn't disclose that they are being paid to blog about something then their alliances should be questioned... is it to the person with the $ or his readership.

    But with that in mind, it's also up to the readers of the blog to have an dialog with the blogger and to find out what his intentions are for his blog. There is no set way to blog. If you want to write all sponsored posts, go for it. If you want to disclose your relationships with a product great. But in the end blogging as you've said is merely a platform for self-publishing.

    Blogs have been used for more than just online writing spaces. They be been used as CMS web sites as well. So I think the word blog and the ethics that some wish to impose on the practice should be left up in the air and dealt with on a per blog basis.

    As far as your site goes, I enjoy reading it and participating in the conversations that almost always erupt from them.

    Keep up the good work!

    -Seth Goldstein
    http://www.sethgoldstein.net
    http://www.twitter.com/sethgoldstein
  • I see that now. Thanks Chris. And it was a good "Lab" with some good learning for all of us. Thanks.

    Tony
  • In general, I hate the concept of sponsored posts if it's about that specific product, and since I haven't yet seen one where someone sponsors a post that's not about them, I guess that means I'm generally against it. Having said that, I believe that how the readers interpret it depends on the relationship they've built with the blog writer. I know a few who write sponsored posts and their readers love getting the information because they've established a nice rapport with their readers. I also know some who write a sponsored post, and it turns into a ghost town.

    My blog is finally getting to the point where I'm getting some requests to write a sponsored post for them, and I shut it down. Too bad because a couple of them were things I was about to try out for myself, but now have decided that, if I do, I won't write about it, unless I decide to "out" the company for trying to pay me before writing the article itself. I think some people can write a dispassionate article about someone who's paying them to write about them, but I've yet to see an article where someone said they were getting paid, then trashed the product.

    So, just how honest will someone be if they're getting paid for it? That's probably the million dollar question.
  • Great piece Chris. You've clarified for me the various components I think and, in doing so, suggested some rules around each of them.. I've been engaged in this activity with my company for a while and understanding the thoughts out there is useful in moving forward. Thanks.
  • One of the problems with online promotions is the area of trust. Certain people (such as yourself) are known and trusted. They are celebrities of the new world.

    However, people like me are unknown and harder to trust. There are millions of us and many are not trustworthy. Unfortunately, those of us who are will often be lumped in with the bad ones.

    It's like telling your kids to stay away from strangers. Not all strangers are bad people but you can't tell just by looking which ones are.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: