Sponsored Controversy – Chris Brogan was in the clear

In December 2008, renowned marketer and public speaker, Chris Brogan wrote up a blog post about how he was given $500 from IZEA on behalf of KMart and just after disclosing this and writing a blog post about his experience, people were criticizing him on how he wasn’t being unbiased and essentially was paid to write that post seeing that it was favorable and all.

But what does it matter? Because in the end, there’s hardly anything that can be written in blogs that doesn’t have a hint of controversy – at least it’s true these days. Does it matter that the point of this expedition by KMart was not only to help highlight how the store has “evolved” but that if you accepted the $500 gift card, you needed to give to charity – in this case Toys for Tots? Everyone knows that at KMart you can buy a whole lot using $500 so what’s the big deal? Oh…it’s that bloggers are getting paid to write “favorable” posts thereby creating uproar.

In Chris Brogan’s case, it was definitely a favorable review – but if you read his pose closely it’s initially one of surprise. He was surprised that he could get so much and impressed by the changes.

At a “Social Media Town Hall” session during the Web 2.0 Expo last week, this topic was broached by Forrester analyst Jeremiah Owyang and was basically the talk of the session – even Social Media Group’s Maggie Fox came to the microphone to defend Brogan’s actions and the ability for bloggers to earn some money by being compensated for their writings.

But what would people say if Chris Brogan was paid and wrote a negative post? What should KMart have done? Some of the responses at the “Social Media Town Hall” was that other companies would not talk to that blogger anymore to do a similiar experiment. Why? The smart thing would be for the company to engage in the discussion. What’s creates more controversy is to have a blogger write a favorable review even though they hated the experience. If you wanted a blogger to write positive stuff about the company even though it’s the opposite, then you might as well make an advertorial or something.

If a blogger has written an unfriendly blog post about your product or company for which you have compensated them for writing a review, then engage with the blogger publically and on their turf.

  • Leave a comment on their blog post asking them for specifics. Don’t be combative but understanding – you asked them to write the blog post after all, remember? So be angry at yourself for creating that type of environment.
     
  • Respond using your company’s blogNOT A PRESS RELEASE. A blog post gives people the opportunity to respond to your rebuttal or update on how you’re making things better. Press release is just so stiff & will definitely not reach the intended audience. Think conversational…would you issue a press release when you want to refute or update your friends on how you’re making things better?

The idea that if you, as the blogger, writes something negative about a company which results in other brands not wanting to have you write on them, is absurd. A strong social media-saavy company will engage those who have the cajones to write some negative reviews because then companies will know the bloggers can write some unbiased reviews. And let me clarify when I say negative reviews because I’m not talking about someone who writes only bad things, but someone who has a favorable opinion about your brand, product, or industry but isn’t afraid to say something’s wrong or he/she has had a bad experience.

Chris Brogan wasn’t wrong in getting paid to write the blog post. In fact, he was doing what bloggers should be doing. It seems the majority of folks may not think that blogging is a legitimate form of journalism so why should they adhere to those ethics? How is it different from having Google AdWords on your blog page? You’re technically getting paid and it’s an unofficial endorsement of the products advertised because it’s somewhat contextual, right? As Maggie Fox said at the “Town Hall”, even bloggers need to pay their mortgage. I’m just not seeing it.

5 responses to “Sponsored Controversy – Chris Brogan was in the clear”

  1. Chris Brogan Avatar

    Thanks for the post. I think the more we talk about sponsored posts, the better. We'll all come to a better understanding. Two things:

    1.) Kmart didn't ask us to give the stuff to charity. That was just my twist to make it fun. : )

    2.) I think what scares people about sponsored posts is when people write posts without the disclosure. What if I'm sent a nice pair of Bose OE2 noice cancellation headphones, and I write about them favorably? What if I don't disclose that I was sent them? I've been given a few hundred dollars worth of product for free and one might think that could potentially sway the point of view of the post.

    That's the scary part. But then again, seeing the money changing hands seems to have scared people, too. One reason is that blogs are now the property of marketers *and* PR types *and* advertisers and several other factions that have different agendas. They don't line up nicely, and there's a lot of “you should” and “the proper way” and “what's right” type of talk.

    This is a hot topic. I'm just lucky enough to be at ground zero. : /

    1. kyeung808 Avatar

      Thanks Chris for the reply.

      I could have sworn that giving some of it to charity for Toys for Tots was part of the deal, but regardless in my opinion it doesn't diminish or enhance the issue.

      RE: disclosure, I think that it should be pretty apparent that you're writing this for some compensation but that's to make sure everything is on the up & up, but that shouldn't trick readers into thinking that as a result of this affiliation, the review will be positive. For example, I'm using Ad-Village on this blog to do some ad serving, but that doesn't mean I'll be giving them a positive review. I like the technology& there's something important for me to explore.

      Blogs shouldn't be the property of marketers and PR types, but like with market research surveys, the companies should offer some incentive for people to want to pay attention to them. The only control companies should have over bloggers is the incentive or enticement given (within reason and not crossing over to bribery). The review & everything that comes through the blogger should be pure & completely unbias. Freedom of the press is still with the individual.

  2. maggiefox Avatar

    Hey – thanks for the great post. I would, however, like to clarify my position on this issue. I don't believe that anyone, ever, should pay someone with the expectation (spoken or otherwise) that the outcome should be positive. As far as I'm concerned, if you want to play in the “sponsored conversation” space, you pays your money and you takes your chances. If you attempt otherwise, two things will happen:

    1. The bloggers you have chosen to work with will “poison their own wells” – destroying their credibility and audience in exchange for dollars.

    2. Your company will look bad. Could you not find someone to legitimately review your firm/product/service and provide a balanced opinion? Is it THAT bad?

    We have certainly been experimenting with facilitating sponsored conversations on behalf of our clients, but the expectation is ALWAYS that we have zero editorial control and there's full disclosure on every piece of content. The objective in most cases is simply to get people talking about things in a space where the client may have little credibility, rightly or wrongly. We prefer to think of it as the analyst model than the payola one 🙂

    Thanks again for the great post!

    1. Ken Yeung Avatar

      Maggie – thanks for the comments and clarification.

      I think you're spot on in terms of the expectation/compensation principle. Your comments during the “Social Media Town Hall” about how bloggers are also entitled to play in the same arena and other journalists but the expectations should be that companies aren't necessarily going to receive rave reviews 100% of the time. If that was the case, then why doesn't the company just put money into more advertising – at least 100% of the time it'll be to their favor.

      But that brings up another point…don't journalists get comp'ed for rooms and travel when they're invited to attend events or go on FAM tours for tourism/hospitality or to review something? Is that necessarily going to be a favorable article/piece that is featured in the New York Times or Washington Post or even the Guardian? No…so why is that any different from the expectations of having a sponsored post?

      And you're definitely right that it's all about the analyst model and not the payola one. No bribery allowed.

  3. Ken Yeung Avatar

    Maggie – thanks for the comments and clarification.

    I think you're spot on in terms of the expectation/compensation principle. Your comments during the “Social Media Town Hall” about how bloggers are also entitled to play in the same arena and other journalists but the expectations should be that companies aren't necessarily going to receive rave reviews 100% of the time. If that was the case, then why doesn't the company just put money into more advertising – at least 100% of the time it'll be to their favor.

    But that brings up another point…don't journalists get comp'ed for rooms and travel when they're invited to attend events or go on FAM tours for tourism/hospitality or to review something? Is that necessarily going to be a favorable article/piece that is featured in the New York Times or Washington Post or even the Guardian? No…so why is that any different from the expectations of having a sponsored post?

    And you're definitely right that it's all about the analyst model and not the payola one. No bribery allowed.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Ken Yeung

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading