Cymfony's Influence 2.0

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. 

O tempora! O mores!

Since when is setting a standard for civility an attack on free speech? Why does the blogosphere think it is exempt from the bounds of acceptable content in the offline world?

I'm sure many of you have been following the storm of discussion surrounding blogger Kathy Sierra (this NYT article sums up the whole thing). I'm astonished that at the end Robert Scoble is quoted that he is uncomfortable with the idea that there should be standards. I'm with Tim O'Reilly, "...managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech."

I'm also surprised this is such a controversy -- and worried about what it says about the state of our society. We don't tolerate bullying by 6 year olds in our schoolyards. We don't allow it at public gatherings like Town Meeting in my little New England town. And don't even think about phoning a death threat to the White House ...

Why should we tolerate cyberbullying, just because it "virtual"? As Kathy described, the fear and revulsion that the threats caused are completely real. While the location may not be "real", one of the great things about social media is the reality of the relationships you create. And like all human relationships, they must be governed by some degree of etiquette, protocols, courtesy -- whatever you want to call it.

Like Cicero (I'm sure many of my readers are fellow Latin scholars ;-), I lament "Oh, the times! Oh, the customs!" that we as a society think the right of the individual to say and do whatever he/she wants whenever he/she wants with absolutely no boundary is acceptable. Of course, spirited debate must be allowed and encouraged. Topics that may be considered by some to be distasteful, or even offensive must be allowed. Irony, even biting sarcasm have a place and snarky remarks can add spice to the debate. Maybe some lawyer can correct me, but when the speech crosses the line into threatening "hate" speech, it is no longer protected.

For the record, I routinely delete all spam comments -- am I stepping on the spammers' right of free speech? I say no, he's violating my right to carry on a conversation of interest to all of you.

And I will delete any comments that are profane, abusive, threatening, and generally off topic. Not only do those things interfere with my right to conduct an intelligent, interesting conversation, they have no place in a civilized society.

Can this industry be saved?

A pair of articles this week got me really depressed about the state of advertising. They indicate that marketers' only response in this time of change is to shout louder and to make ever more outlandish claims. If the industry wants higher consumer "engagement", we'd better fix both of these problems really quickly.

First was Advertising Age's "Caught in the Clutter Crossfire: Your Brand." Not only does it cite a growing list of digital and physical places where ads appear outside of traditional media venues, it notes "TV commercial pods are fatter than they've ever been."

Then Business Week's "Why the Hype Just Keeps on Coming." Under increasing pressure to differentiate products, benefit claims are stretching farther and farther. The article quotes a spokesperson for the Body Vibe exercise product which the Better Business Bureau ruled made a false claim that celebrities and athletes used their product. Their defense:

"The sites and athletes who we are referencing do not use Body Vibe exactly but use the body vibration techniques and we will correct that in our Web site."

I have no doubt it is a better claim that the athletes use the product than that they use techniques that the product uses. But it is exactly these kinds of shortcuts that alienate consumers. And lest you think it is only small advertisers who make outlandish claims, the article cites a number of leading brands that have had to pull ads or promise not to run them again because the claims were deemed misleading.

Both of these are classic "tragedy of the commons" issues. Consumer attention and trust are the "common property" that all advertisers use, but there is no individual disincentive to abuse them. Meanwhile we can clearly see the impact of the aggregate overuse of the "resource": lower trust and more ad avoidance to all messages.

About a month ago, Ad Age had an article on the latest wave of proposed laws creating "do not mail" lists for postal mail. Another example where the consumer is going to privatize the commons to keep marketers out.

As co-chair of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association Ethics committe, I've spent a lot of the last year thinking about responsible behavior in the emerging WOM space. We have our share of tragedy of the commons issues as my fellow Board member Pete Blackshaw pointed out. But the stories cited above indicate ethics is a bigger issue than just WOM.

I know a lot of marketers think ethics is a mushy, altruistic concept, but evidence like this indicates we marketers are reaching the outer limits of tolerance for an attitude of "if-it-is-cool-and-we-can-get-away-with-it-let's-do-it" mentality. When we don't have our ethics right, consumers take more control to shut us out.

But I also believe the opposite is true: strong ethics will begin to emerge as a competitive differentiator and gain consumer engagement and loyalty.

The REALLY BIG story of the Wal-Mart/Edelman fake blog situation

Plenty of people have been criticizing Edelman, so I've been sitting it out. It is now time to take a step back and look at the big implication: The PR and marketing professions must commit themselves to changing course now, or they will crash into the mountain of consumer control.

Let's face it, this could probably have happened to any big PR firm or company that is blogging these days. The fact that it happened at Edelman, one of the self-declared leaders in using social media with some of the highest-profile bloggers out there, says as much or more about the chasm the profession will have to cross as it does about any one individual company.

For a generation or more, PR has been about spin. Finding a clever story angle is what PR people are trained to do. Marketing is the same, except they call it "positioning". Each new strategy starts from the basic premise of how to magnify the positives and deny any potential negatives. Exaggeration, careful selection of facts, and creating enticing ways to present the messages are not only accepted, but the fabric of every day work. In advertising, they are limited only by truth in advertising laws.

But consumer mistrust of advertising and media make these unspoken assumptions obsolete and dangerous to the health of companies and their marketing/PR partners. Before we launch a campaign, we must begin to put its concept through a new filter. After we ask "Is it on strategy" and "Is it compelling to the audience?", we must now ask "Is it ethical?". And we must train everyone in our organizations, down to the entry level assistant account executive, media relations manager, and marketing associate to ask this question.

The WOMMA Ethics code is a great start on specific areas of honesty in relationship, opinion, and identity. (Disclosure: I am a member of the Board of Directors of WOMMA). Now it -- or some similar guidelines -- must be incorporated into the curricula, training programs, and OJT learning that takes place every day.

Marketing and PR have been on autopilot for decades. The collision warning system just alarmed us that we're heading straight into the side of a mountain.

What are you doing to change the course of your organization?

edelman walmart micropersuasion richard+edelman flog public+relations wal-marting+across+america

Lots of Unhappy Faces at Facebook

In case anyone had any doubts about the power of the social web, the controversy about Facebook's plan to send RSS updates of members' updates should put it to rest. Here are some initial issues the incident raises....

290,000 members joining a protest group demanding a change of this policy...a promised boycott of Facebook next week...and no Cesar Chavez leading it. This is truly a grass roots reaction. (For those of you too young to remember Cesar Chavez and the Grape Boycott of the '60's and '70's, check out Wikipedia.)

This controversy will likely continue to grow and evolve over the next few days and I'll update my thoughts about it. But here are some initial thoughts and questions that I hope to explore more over the coming days.

• Is this about poor communications on Facebook's part or the boundaries of privacy? From my read, the RSS feeds only go to a small circle of friends, the people who most likely come to  the friend's site on a regular basis anyway. Mark explains this pretty clearly in his post. Is RSS so cutting edge that even these presumably sophisticated users don't fully understand it? Or did this cross some line which even these people who live their lives very publicly don't want to cross?
• What was Facebook's product development process? Did they get any user input before hand? Or are they developing these features in an engineering silo because they are "cool" as Ruchi Sangvhi says in her blog post announcing them.
• And why didn't Facebook have a blog long ago? They just started their blog on August 22; thank goodness they did so they have a platform to respond to the uproar. Mark Zuckerberg did a nice job on jumping on it with his Tuesday post. But nothing since. I think the members would like to know what his thinking is two days later, even if it is just to stay "we understand concern is growing and we're looking at some options." But they probably could have avoided this whole issue if their blog had been active during the development process and they pinged their members for feedback.
• Why didn't Facebook learn from eBay's mistakes? Several years ago, eBay had similar user backlash to changes in policies and fees. eBay has since developed a philosophy that while they own the platform, the community should be empowered in large part to govern itself.

Craig's List Lawsuit: Free Speech vs Social Goals

NPR reported this morning that several months ago a suit was filed against Craig's List over apartment listings that violate the Fair Housing Act non-discrimination laws. Should operators of sites be held to the same standards that newspapers are? If this succeeds, what does that mean for negative comments people make about companies or products?

The gist of the NPR story was that listings for renting apartments on Craig's List often include criteria such as they will or won't rent to gays, minorities, Christians, etc. etc. etc. Years ago, newspapers were forced to screen their classifieds and reject ads like this. So far courts have held that the Internet is different than a newspaper, and is not bound by the same legal requirements. But as classified ads increasingly move out of newspapers and online, should this change? And if it changes for Craig's List, how will it affect all the Blogger.com, Typepad, etc. Will they be responsible for editing and removing offensive, illegal, etc. information?

The extension for word of mouth marketing is that these services might have to monitor discussions of companies/brands/products for accuracy. If a company didn't like a blog post or a review, they could claim inaccuracy and sue or threaten to sue. Most blog and review sites, being small companies, would probably take the posts down rather than incur the cost of the suit. The word of mouth world would be a much poorer place.

But being a Child of the '60's, I believe these laws serve a laudable social goal of creating a truly free and equal society. Beyond that, as a country, we decided long ago that property owners don't have the right to discriminate whom they sell or rent to based on their personal biases. On the other hand, living in New England and going to my town's Town Meeting every year, there is a great tradition of each individual having the right to stand up in public and state his position. The Internet has expanded that to the world and it would be a shame to lose it.

Censorship to serve the greater good vs free speech is a paradox as old as the country. It looks like it will continue on the Internet.

What do you think? A quick search on Sphere and Technorati didn't turn up much discussion of this yet....here are a couple of other posts:

TechnologyTalk

Technology and Marketing Law

I'm off on a week's vacation and celebrating the big 5-0 birthday. Some of my colleagues will be posting. I'll be back the week of 7/17 -- at which time I will be in my second half-century!

Payperpost.com -- Let's all help it fail quickly

I don't think it will surprise any of my readers that I am vehemently against this model. It is the worst of Influence 1.0 thinking: whom does one pay and how much in order to get a carefully controlled message into this new medium? But why is this model worse than advertising or product placement? When reading a blog, the expectation is that you are reading the honest beliefs of a real human being. If the medium loses that value, there is no reason for it to exist.

I managed to get away to a long holiday weekend with family without hearing about the controversy of Payperpost.com. I'll try to summarize the key points that have struck me today as I have caught up.

(If you haven't already read them, read the Business Week article that started it and TechCrunch's post before you go further.)

While there are a lot of businesses trying to harness the power of word of mouth, this one step over the line into blatant exploitation because 1) the advertisers sets requirements for what the author writes 2) Payperpost.com must approve it before the author gets paid 3) there is no requirement for disclosure. Whatever is written is no longer the author's true opinion, it is the advertiser's opinion written by another hand. It is not word-of-mouth marketing, it is copywriting by another name.

Pete Blackshaw offers the best summation of the damage this could do to the idea of blogs, consumer-generated media, and a trust-based relationship between consumers and marketers.

You don't have to feel a sense of moral outrage to think this is a wrong-headed use of the blogosphere. Postbubble makes a good argument that it isn't economically viable because thinly veiled sales pitches will chase away a blog's audience, while Marshall Sponder on WebMetricsGuru says $5 - $10 isn't enough money to attract writers in the first place.

To these economic arguments I would add that 1) few product categories could even approach affording this kind of money and 2) even then the economics are still out of whack. Let's compare to classic snail mail: you pay roughly $1 per person to mail to them but you've carefully selected them so that they have some level of interest in the product. Paying even $5 for some unknown number of readers who are completely unqualified just doesn't work. Better to spend your $5 on a radio ad that reaches 1000 people.

The other way for this is to fail is for marketers not to get sucked into this misuse of emerging media. I've been encouraged in my conversations at WOMMA conferences that marketers are reluctant to engage in shilling, if only for fear of exposure. Hopefully, that fear will deter them from trying out Payperpost.com.

The defenders have two basic arguments for it:

1) It's just advertising, it's like Google offering paid links.

Wrong . Without disclosure this is lying, pure and simple. That's why all other media must label sections as "advertorial" or "special advertising section" when the content is bought, paid for, and created under the advertiser's total control. Google labels their paid links and clearly separates them from natural results.

2) It's human nature, it's the capitalist system at work.

One particularly cynical person who signed his comment at Naked Conversations "El Hakeem" said that people are naturally "venal, duplicitous, and self-seeking" and goes on to say "the only ethical test is if it delivers economic value to all participants." Human nature and the capitalist system have their dark sides to be sure, but isn't that why we form civilizations and governments, to keep these in check? "El Hakeem" clearly didn't attend any of the readings of the Declaration of Independence this holiday -- or better yet, let me direct him to the preamble of the Constitution, in which "We the People" formed a government to "promote the general welfare." Enron, Worldcom, etc created plenty of economic value, too, for those smart enough to get out in time.

So as long as we reject laissez-faire capitalism and survival-of-the-fittest law of the jungle, we accept that our behavior is bounded by certain limits. The minimum requirement for a business model like this is transparency and disclosure. Then, if people chose to read and act on the comments, and it creates economic value for all, fine.

I'm surprised no one has brought up the analogy to product placement -- this is more problematic than the advertising model. Product placements in TV shows and movies aren't disclosed (yet) and this is one of the hottest areas in marketing. But here there is another difference: that content is fictional, the characters aren't real, the events never happened, and the viewers know that. Blogs are supposed to be different: more real, more spontaneous, more honest. If they become fiction too, they lose their uniqueness in the media/entertainment world and will lose to the more compelling story telling of other media.

payperpost.com blog

A Boon For Online Privacy

Due to the nature of CGM analysis, we are regularly asked questions regarding blogger/poster privacy. Sometimes these questions arise out of a desire to peel-back the semi-anonymity the Internet provides, and sometimes these questions come from the other side, from people or companies concerned with the implications (though to be forthright, the concern stems more from potential impact on corporate reputation than from any moral objections) of privacy breaches.

I have always stated that we will never use information not publicly available, and would dissuade anyone from trying to track down users for any reason other than to redress problems the bloggers/posters identified. But I know not every company takes this sort of position, and as a result was quite pleased when I saw this.

The Delaware Supreme Court just overturned a ruling by a lower court, stating, essentially, that a strong legal standard of harm must be established before forcibly piercing the veil of anonymity, and by doing so at least partially safeguarded the right to free anonymous speech on the Internet.

It’s heartening to see that at least some courts still see value in extending real-world rights to electronic mediums.

I know who you are.

Yes. You. That's right. The person reading this right now. I know who you are......... and wouldn't you like a new shirt? The one you have on is looking kind of dated.

Okay, so I don't really know who you are (and I'm sure your shirt is very nice). But I do know your IP address, and from that can likely find out where you live or work, your demographics, and very possibly your name, address, phone number, social security number, and a few other lovely tidbits. I mention this after reading endlessly about identity theft, and more recently, reading this article in Wired, talking about Google's decision to blacklist C-Net after one of their reporters use.....you guessed it....Google, to discover some personal information about Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO. Apparently this displeased Mr. Schmidt, and he ordered that no one at Google should talk to C-Net until mid 2006. The irony too juicy to ignore, the story quickly became national news.

Which all brings me to by greater point, privacy, or rather, the lack their of. In my own line of work, I often hear people ask, "how can we find out if our employees are blogging?" or "how can we tell if our employees are saying something bad about us?" While I'd be willing to help people find on a macro level if their employees are satisfied, I try to discourage anyone from using that information to go after individuals, from piercing the veil of Internet pseudo-anonymity, and would actually refuse to do so. It's bad PR for them, bad PR for us, and all-around bad practice. That said, with tens of thousands of firms scanning people's e-mails and listening to their phone calls, I know not everyone shares my beliefs, or at least, my morality. With information becoming more pervasive, and access to that information democratizing, there's an almost inevitable march towards the ability to find out most anything about most anyone. Anonymity, and in particular anonymity through obscurity, will all but disappear. The only way to stop this would be very strict laws, with accompanying strict penalties, for data leaks and information sharing, but unintended consequences aside, that's the opposite direction of the one in which we're headed.

I suppose we might as well get used to it.

Media Transparency

At Los Alamos, Blogging Their Discontent (subscription required) appeared in yesterday's NYT.  The article was about a blog at a public institution, Los Alamos that while not revolutionary itself is a dramatic example of the power of blogs to bring credible information into the public spectrum and potentially effect dramatic change.

There were several things about this incident that struck me as an acceleration in the trend of blogs as an instrument to vent areas of frustration and unease with authority and leadership.

First of all, this was Los Alamos, one of the most secretive parts of our defense research organization.  Next, you had anywhere from an estimated 200-500 employees share their thoughts who are normally some of the most tight lipped of any public and private institutions.  Then of course the timing of this blog is very auspicious in that the Univ. of California is under pressure for renewal of its contract for running a portion of Los Alamos. The aggregation and inclusion of a large number of employees in one place is another factor that I believe gives their complaints about an abusive leader more credibility. A reader can instantly see the common themes among the blogger's comments It is true you could have several people place different comments but there are some who have signed openly. Another concerning issue is that Los Alamos may be in danger of losing other senior and accomplished researchers such as Dr. Brad Lee Holian which is a important issue not to be overlooked.

As more traditional media sources such as the NYTimes pick up and research this story there is even greater likelihood that the call for accountability will cause some sort of change.  Jeff Jarvis, editor of BuzzMachine calls this a " New Ethic of Transparency."  Maybe this swelling public voice will cause leaders to reexamine some of their strategies when they know it will be harder to keep everything confidential.  I think it gives new power to the individual voice to bring to light areas and issues that deserve further scrutiny without pronouncing anyone innocent or guilty.   If bloggers can create this call for accountability at Los Alamos, maybe it can occur before the future Enrons arise again.