« More evidence that Boston is the hub of social media | Main | New White Paper Addresses Regulatory Issues in Social Media for Pharma Marketers »

Paid blog posts -- still the wrong model, one year later.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: paying bloggers to write about you isn't blogging, it's copywriting. Unfortunately, today's Wall Street Journal article doesn't appreciate the difference.

Last year I wished that we would all help the paid blogging model fail quickly. Instead it appears to be gaining momentum. Some may mistake this as a sign of the growth of importance of blogging; in fact, this is a sign that marketers are still thinking in 1.0 marketing ways: whom do I pay to put the message I want in the place I want it?

This is the wrong model for blogging because it contradicts the essence that makes blogging different from other media: blogs are supposed to be the unvarnished thoughts, experiences, and opinions of We, the People. Blogs have attracted people because we no longer trust that the products in TV shows -- even the stories on the news -- are the result of impartial editorial judgment. We turn away from other media because we suspect it is all bought and paid for one way or another. If blogs don't offer a distinctly different alternative, they don't have a reason to exist.

But I'm no purist. If we must have paid blogging, let's all agree that the standard for disclosure should be no lower than the standard for traditional journalists: state that you're being paid at the beginning of the post. If a traditional publication or writer have a conflict, they state it upfront in the article, not buried somewhere in fine print, the masthead, camouflaged with some cutesy name or hidden in some disclosure document in a file drawer somewhere. And this disclosure isn't at the discretion of each writer: it is enforced by the organization writing the check to her.

(Does anyone else appreciate the irony that everyone's all up in arms that Rupert Murdoch will surreptitiously slant the WSJ's editorial approach, but the WSJ seems to think it is OK for bloggers to surreptitiously take money to slant what they write?)

The pro-pay advocates will say, "But if bloggers say upfront that they're being paid, people won't believe the post."

My point exactly. If readers will only believe it when you withhold material information about the motivation of the author, then it should only be published with the disclosure of that motivation.

Or better yet, don't waste everyone's time. 

Posted by Jim Nail on August 27, 2007 at 05:42 PM | Email this post Permalink
Technorati Tags: , , , ,

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/331182/21137233

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Paid blog posts -- still the wrong model, one year later.:

Comments

I have been struggling with this posting.
First of all “blogs are supposed to be the unvarnished thoughts, experiences, and opinions of We, the People... are the result of impartial editorial judgment.” Do you really believe this? Blogs are basically editorials and are often written with limited “facts” to back them up.

Secondly, “We turn away from other media because we suspect it is all bought and paid for one way or another. If blogs don't offer a distinctly different alternative, they don't have a reason to exist.” I also find this naïve. Everything that is written is paid for one way or another: most bloggers are employed and employers pay their salaries (if they were to criticize their employer’s business do you think they would still be employed?), some bloggers market their outside consulting services, some bloggers have google ads on their sites -- bloggers get rewards from blogging –- all of this affects “impartial” editorial judgment.

Blogs are another form of media and as such may or may not provide useful commentary – at best they share useful information...

Posted by: Steven Maimes | Aug 29, 2007 11:24:06 AM

Thanks for the comment.

The overall point I'm arguing for, is that blogs should respect the same line between editorial and adverising that traditional media has respected for decades. Just because it is a new medium, we shouldn't through out this very important rule.

If a marketer pays someone to write specific points about their brands and products, it is an ad and it is identified as such. If it looks like editorial, the writer and his/her editor have developed the content based on their judgment. Blogs are maybe more like opinion pieces than impartial editorial -- good point. In traditional media, these are on the Op Ed page, signed by the author and, if he/she is affiliated with a company, PR firm, etc. that is also disclosed.

Sure bloggers are paid by their employers. So are traditional journalists, yet they are expected to remain objective. Sure, blogs accept ads. Traditional media have developed the principle of the separation of the advertising and editorial sides of the business exactly to deal with the potential conflicts inherent in the fact that they have to be a business.

When I read a blog I expect the information/views/opinions to be the writer's. If it's not, I expect that to be disclosed.

Posted by: Jim Nail | Aug 29, 2007 12:25:26 PM

Post a comment