Preserve Your Authenticity and Stay Transparent

July 29, 2008 · Comments

Authentic Product PlacementImagine you’re watching the TV news, and your morning anchors have a couple of iced coffees sitting in front of them. Would you notice them? You might. Perhaps you’d wonder if it was Starbucks or another brand. You might even empathize, because hey, you drink iced coffee, too. What if the beverages were a plant? What if someone paid for them to be on the table? You don’t have to imagine.

Some of you might already be saying “so what?” But this is the news. We have a little filter in our head that says, “We hope the news is as authentic as possible” and “we accept that TV shows and movies have product placement.” Those are two completely different contexts. It’s like one of my favorite sayings, “If I have you over to dinner, but then present you with a check at the end, something is wrong.”

If You Are a Company/Brand

Placing a product into some other form of media isn’t evil, but it takes some consideration. Further, you might work up a quick set of guidelines for disclosure, especially if you’re thinking about placement in some kind of independent media. Entertainment might be an easier place to practice a placement strategy than something intending to be more editorial or newsworthy. Some blogs and other media walk the line between the two.

Also, think about a crisis strategy, in case something goes wrong. In the article I point to above, people weren’t all that pleased once they learned about the product placement. Be ahead of that possibility, and give some thought to an honest response.

If You are Independent Media

Here’s probably where the trickier part is. What do you do if someone wants you to promote their product? How do/should you disclose? What do you do to stay authentic and transparent?

One way is to consider building a disclosures page on your site. I haven’t gone that route yet, but might just, given that I have more opportunity lately to receive things to evaluate for free, and I want to be clear when I’ve had that opportunity.

Another is to just be clear when mentioning the product/service in a post. For example, when I talk or write about Utterz, I throw in that I’m on the advisory board. It’s just as easy to write about a product or a book or a software app you’ve received a free copy of, and takes not much effort.

Do it up front, though. Don’t wait for someone to “expose” you. We, as a people, and as media consumers, are really darned sick and done with people trying to pull the wool over our eyes. I bet you can name about five fake campaigns that rankle you. I know I can. Let’s you and me try not to be another such incident. Fair?

What do you think?

—

The Social Media 100 is a project by Chris Brogan dedicated to writing 100 useful blog posts in a row about the tools, techniques, and strategies behind using social media for your business, your organization, or your own personal interests. Swing by [chrisbrogan.com] for more posts in the series, and if you have topic ideas, feel free to share them, as this is a group project, and your opinion matters.

Get the entire series by subscribing to this blog, and subscribe to my free newsletter here.

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.

  • At its core, product placement isn’t too far removed from “friend of a friend” testimonial, that is, “Any friend of Brogan’s is a friend of mine”.

    Why?

    Because I’ve done my time building trust with you so if you tells me somebody is okay, that works for me.

    Product placement works on the same platform of implied trust.

    If you, Chris Brogan, like a product, based on my experience with you and the standards I know you demand, I’m able to make a pretty quick assessment about the quality of that product. If it’s something I need, I’m more likely to try it if somebody I trust is using it.

    If, over the course of time, this logic fails a few times, I’m less likely to trust your judgment, and while I still may enjoy the pictures you put on your blog, I may not be so quick to eat the same brand of frozen waffles as you.

    Whether you disclose your business association with the product or not, I’m choosing to try it because I trust you. Once I try something however, it’s got to stand on its own merits.

    I assume if somebody is associating themselves with a brand, they’re likely being compensated. If you or any other public person is silly enough to trade your reputation for money by pimping an inferior product, YOUR brand value will diminish accordingly and eventually the public will shift their trust elsewhere.

    Tell me, don’t tell me…I don’t care. In the end, good stuff and high quality will endure.
  • Awesome post, Chris.

    The future of product placement will probably make the Reese's Pieces appearance in Steven Spielberg's "E.T." -- and what's come since -- look positively quaint.

    Since digital television (and digital content distributed via the Internet) will soon become the standard in U.S. homes -- and since we can assume that the devices on which we consume that content will become more and more "intelligent" -- we'll likely see a viewing experience arise where consumers can opt-in to display the names and prices of all salable items seen in the entertainment they ingest. Think of it as a overlay of information identifying a hero's jacket (for instance), its brand, and even how to electronically order it from a corporate partner such as Amazon ... probably with the click of a remote button.

    It'll be a boon for advertisers and product placement deals, and may usher in a new breed of seemingly ad-free (but very ad-supported) content. If the 30-second spot is dying on the vine (as Joseph Jaffe claims), then embedded "metadata" commercials may its successor.

    Hailing from a traditional journalism background, I'm awfully hardcore about advertisements being clearly labeled as such in the news we experience. Call me old fashioned, but I feel the credibility of the news provider is as risk when it's not transparent about its on-screen (or on-page) revenue sources. Incidents like the "coffee cup" placement you mentioned in your post blur that mission-critical "church and state" line between Editorial and Advertising, a big no-no in ethical journalism as we've known it.

    If any industry should be forthcoming about its ad revenue, it should be the news business. If our perceptions define our reality (which they do), why risk credibility with a perceived conflict of interest?

    The topic of indie content creators being equally forthcoming is dodgier, since we're not beholden to the same formal ethical guidelines. However, I believe that -- especially if the creator is being monetarily rewarded for his coverage or content -- adding a disclaimer to such posts gives audiences the proper context and transparency required to fully understand the content.

    And it's dodgier still when one wants to help a pal by endorsing their work for no monetary reward. We all know my meaning; the informal back-scratch. In these instances, we have only our personal ethics ... and our commitment of honesty to our audiences ... as our guide. Developing a personal ethical guideline for such content -- and remaining committed to it -- is the best defense to avoid the indie creator equivalent of the "coffee cup" debacle, and the spoiled credibility it represents.

    Fascinating post, dude. Excellent work as always.
  • I agree about keeping the news a pure as possible and free of sponsors. And about bloggers revealing when they are promoting a product or link. I think most do a good job doing that. I stumbled upon one blogger who would tag his posts "link dump" when he was posting a link that he was asked to promote. Kind of feels negative towards the "sponsor," but that's the chance they take.

    Like you said, I think product placement in entertainment like movies and tv is totally acceptable. In fact, I prefer it. I think using incorporating brand products makes the scene more realistic. In real life we use brands and interact with/about them. Plus I love trying to guess how much the brand paid to get the spotlight.
  • I think the bottom line is to be honest about it. I know I'm far more tolerant if I feel I'm being dealt with honestly. Nobody likes to have their intelligence insulted.
  • yeah and as the perfect example of the dichotomy of truth and perceived truth look at commercials. Remember enzyte that'male enhancement' product that still has commercials on TV even though the president of the comapny is facing 20 years in jail for defrauding people about that very product(according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyte).

    TV will literally sell you anything regardless of whether it has been proven in a court of law to be a fraud or the FDA says it's bunk or whatever. There is no morality at all in TV, as much as we like to think it's just an annoyance it is teaching us that if you have enough money to make a commercial you can out and out lie and it's ok.
  • Chris:

    What struck me about your post was your desire that “the news is as authentic as possible” and in the same sentence acknowledging product placement exists in TV and movies.

    In my head, that’s the connection broadcast executives want you to make to excuse their behavior (and please note I did not say news directors, an important clarification I’ll explain in a moment).

    First let’s address the standard you’ve set: news is as authentic as possible. I understand what you are saying but your bar, I think, is set too low.

    My position is that mainstream media news was authentic, presenting the facts in an unbiased way in newspaper, radio and television and letting the viewer decide their opinions.

    It has been disappointing for me to watch that practice be whittled away through woefully lax news gathering and editorial standards (especially at the local level) brought about primarily by business executives making decisions that should be made by news professionals. This isn’t about liberal or conservative bias. It should be “just the facts, ma’am,” as the Dragnet character Sgt. Joe Friday was find of saying.

    But viewers get bored in the age of fast cut editing and video games. Research shows news should be a mixture of information and entertainment. That’s a bad mix for folks with no filter in place upstairs (more on that in a moment too).

    When corporations starting running networks and newspapers like any other business (and networks and newspapers are not) primarily to please bottom line focused share holders, authentic news presentation was a concept hoisted overboard without a life jacket.

    Which brings us to sponsor-logoed coffee mugs on the news set. Upsetting? Controversial? Well if you consider that on their early morning shows and early p.m. news shows, most local affiliates featured their paid advertisers in a segment at some point during a week, the logo mug thing is a wash. Sometimes sponsors have been identified in such news segments, sometimes not. Separation between news and sales….narrowing fast.

    So we’ve been long exposed to product placement in news, this most recent logoed cup example is only a little more blatant or maybe even transparent. Sort of like when college age children first smoke in front of their parents when everyone knows they’ve been smoking since they were 15 years old.

    The news-product placement horse has long ago left that starting gate.

    News consumers should be pissed but they’re not. In fact they are embracing other news gathering tools like blogs and often absorbing information there as unbiased truth because often they subscribe to blogs whose content they agree with. No ying and yang, no point - counter point.

    Offering the suggestion that social media content providers remain authentic is a great reminder that I think will likely fall on understanding yet long deaf ears.

    There is either no filter in most consumers minds anymore or the filter is long over due for a cleaning. Yikes!...either way.

    Best always,
    - Peter
  • Among my many concerns with today's news are celebrity and product placement. They destroy credibility and have no place within a news room.
  • Everything above my comment focuses on products as things. What about product placements of people, people who are so well known that even if you've never met the person you know something about him or her? Such as Madonna, Britney, Cher, Elvis, Beckham, McEnroe. People who are known by one-word names may as well be indifferent to Xerox, Microsoft, and McDonalds.

    Where do we draw the line? And how?
  • neilgorman
    I just recorded an Utter about this...

    Reading this poast reminded me of something that I read in the book "Pattern Recognition" By William Gibson. (I will not put any plot spoilers in this comment.)

    The main Character is talking with a secondary character.

    The secondary character is a attractive woman, and she tells that main character that she has been hired by a company to go places where she is likely to be engaged in conversation by other people (coffee houses, bars, etc).

    The company that hires her (based on her physical appearance in this case) to perform a service.

    That service = when a person organically engages her in conversation she should talk to them, maybe even flirt a bit, and then (this is how she earns her money) drop the name of a product / service that the company that hired her creates / produces / provides.

    The secondary character talks about how this provides a bigger ROI than any other form of advertising does.

    I had two reactions to reading this.

    1. Hot shit & happy damn! That is brilliant!

    2. Damn it! Now whenever somone who I meet talks about a product / service I'm going to wonder if they are being paid to do this.

    (Example: If I were someone else reading this comment I'd wonder if I -the writer of the comment- had been paid by the company that published "Pattern Recognition" to talk about it in this blog post.)

    (Side Note: I'm not beign paid by any publishing company.)

    @chrisbrogran -- This makes your idea of a disclaimer page a bit more interesting, eh?

    -N
  • Allen S
    Hi Chris,
    Your post hit home with me. Independent news media plays a vital role in our society as the public's watchdog. I would hate to see news media become just another profit center for greedy corporations (and individuals).
    -Allen
  • I think you have the saying mixed up - if you have ME over to dinner and you give ME a check at the end, then you can invite me over to dinner as much as you want, dude!
  • Wow. Some heady comments.

    I was wondering who was getting the "placement" in your photo: you, B&N, or Starbucks!

    Maybe a take-away is that along with being transparent, it's good to be clear too. :)
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: