Seems I touched a nerve yesterday with the defenders of paid posting in blogs. It's not every day that I get called "small," "bitter," and "mean-spirited," to use the more polite names hurled at me. Apparently some people are fine with selling their integrity, but they don't like it when you call them on it.
And before I go any further here, I'd like to offer an apology to Sandra at the Work at Home Newsletter, who sould not have received one of my comments yesterday. I made a point of not commenting on any blog that clearly labeled its posts as paid. Sandra doesn't flag the individual posts, but she does clearly--and rather eloquently--defend her position in a link in her bio.
I don't agree with her position, nor do I agree with the position put forward by Eric Lituchy, the president of Delightful Deliveries (who shall have his company referred to by its proper name from here on out for taking the time to respond).
They both make the same argument: "Newspaper and magazine writers get paid to write about products and companies, so what's the difference?" Speaking as a former newspaper journalist, managing editor for a regional film magazine, and newspaper owner, I've looked at this issue from more angles than most people, and I can say that there's a world of difference.
Yes, journalists get paid to write about products and services, but they don't get paid by the providers of those products and services. Any journalist in America who took money from a company to write a review would be fired on the spot. Journalists' opinions are not for sale. If they were, newspapers would be nothing but advertising sheets, and nobody would read them. Anyone who's studied journalism knows this, and I count a great many reporters and editors among my friends who would never take a cent for their opinion, because they know that doing so would destroy their credibility.
I'm also a radio host, and this situation calls to mind the payola scandals that surfaced in the 1950s and again in the last two years. Record companies paid disc jockeys to play certain albums, either through cash or gifts, thus unfairly influencing the Top 40 charts. The situation got so out of hand that the Federal Communications Commission got involved, and anyone who works in radio now has to sign an agreement that he or she will not accept any gift or cash payment to play any song or promote any artist.
Pay per post is nothing more than blogola, and I'm hardly alone in my condemnation of it. John Fine at BusinessWeek (a legitimate journalist), summed up the outrage at blogola in a June article entitled, "Polluting the Blogosphere," which features this rather telling quote from PayPerClick.com's Ted Murphy: "You can't believe anything you see or read." There was a time, Mr. Murphy, when you could, and it's people like you that are destroying our faith in the media. Mr. Murphy jumped into the Comments fray over at Naked Conversations, if you'd like to enjoy more of his "wisdom."
Marshall Kirkpatric at TechCrunch puts his opinion succinctly: "TechCrunch does not accept payment for posts." The words of a true journalist.
In the interest of offering some balance, Mark Woodman at inkBlots makes the argument that the blogosphere doesn't have much credibility anyway, so why not have at it? I think that's a bit of a cyncial view, because bloggers have been instrumental in breaking some major news stories to the mainstream press. The bigger question here is why don't we have more credibility? Maybe because people are selling their opinions and not telling their readers about it?
If you disclose the status of paid postings, plainly and clearly, I can almost live with it. If you don't, it's blogola. Either way, wouldn't you be better off seeling some things on eBay? Because while you're making a few bucks a post, you're also showing readers that, as Ted Murphy says, "You can't believe anything you see or read." That devalues your genuine posts, along with the blogosphere in general.
I hope that clarifies my opinion on this in a way that's not too mean-spirited.
As for the accusation that I deliberately went after a competitor, that's true. I make no claims toward being unbiased here--read anything I've written about our products--but I do not, and would not, under any circumstances, allow someone to buy my support in any blogging endeavor.
And to that end, I'd like to quote Mr. Lituchy:
"What I've asked, through PayPerPost, is that bloggers go to our website or be customers in order to write a blog about DelightfulDeliveries.com. I believe this is essential to our post otherwise it would be junk. I've also asked for bloggers to review the site. While they are only paid if the post is postive, bloggers are free to write whatever they like. I think that is were you are missing the point."
I think you just made my point, when you said, "they are only paid if the post is positive." That's the point where ethics get thrown out the window in favor of making a buck, and that's why journalists get paid by newspapers, not advertisers. If you paid equally for a negative review, then there's no problem, so why not start doing that? We run negative reviews on our site, right next to the product descriptions, because we value the honest opinions of our customers. I can't seem to find any reviews on DelightfulDeliveries.
By and large, Mr. Lituchy, you run a good business that's an example for the industry. Why would I chastise you for looking for an innovative way to promote your business? Because you only pay for the good reviews, and that's unethical from a journalist's perspective. You're buying links instead of earning them on merit, and you're contributing to the distrust readers have of the commentary found on blogs, which is bad for the entire blogosphere.
I think your company is above this kind of behavior. You're a category leader in part because you've taken an honest approach on your site and in your promotion, apart from this bit of blogola. My hope is that you'll see this as I and many concerned bloggers and journalists see it, and that you'll also understand that while this may be an easy way to get blog recognition now, it will hurt your ability to have legitimate bloggers write about you in the long run.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A behind-the-scenes look at the life and times of an unlikely venture in e-commerce: baked goods retailing.
3 comments:
Derek, I disagree with you in that blogs are rarely authoritative. They are often just personal journals available to the world to read. This is one difference, compared to newspapers and magazines, that I don't think you undertstand.
Journalist blogs aren't the one's posting reviews about DelightfulDeliveries.com. And I agree with you that they shouldn't unless it is clearly stated as "Advertising", "Sponsored", or "Advertorial".
If you are against such practices then I think you'll agree that your blog is deceiptive. You run a website that sells many of the products you are reviewing. Isn't that a conflict of interest? Since you stand to gain financially from your blog shouldn't you clearly state that to your readers?
I'm pretty forward the content of this blog. I don't think I can state it more clearly than I do in the header, which reads, "A behind-the-scenes look at the life and times of an unlikely venture in e-commerce: baked goods retailing."
I'm confident that anyone reading that would understand that I'm writing from my perspective as Senior Producer of 1-800-Bakery.com. I also fully disclaim my bias when I talk about products on our site. This blog is actually an interesting hybrid, half promotional and half about the business side of things. I try and tag posts as such, but I do sometimes forget. In the grander sense, everything posted here is about--and to the benefit of, I hope--1-800-Bakery.
That said, I've found no shortage of authoritative blogs on the web. I'll even point to the blogs on www.bostonherald.com as a good example of how blogs compliment standard journalism.
I'll agree that there's a perception that blogs are rarely authoritative, but that's more to do with individual authors and the care and professionalism with which they approach their blogging.
Bad bloggers are a black eye for anyone who takes this form of new journalism--which is what it is, at its best--seriously. Blogola is a double black eye.
If it's clearly stated that something's sponsored, there's no problem. PayPerPost doesn't require that, so now the rest of the blogging world has to say, "I don't take paid posts?"
First, thank you for your apology.
Although, I must admit that I am a little confused on why you say "Sandra doesn't flag the individual posts" and then point to a blog that every ad posted on it is very clearly marked as an advertisement. Not to mention there are no PPP ads on the Work at Home Newsletter. But anyway...
You say in a comment here that:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If it's clearly stated that something's sponsored, there's no problem. PayPerPost doesn't require that, so now the rest of the blogging world has to say, "I don't take paid posts?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have done extensive research, and double checked this morning just to be sure it was still that way (I check about once a month in case of guideline changes), and it is not just PayPerPost that says it is not required to disclose having been paid; the FTC and BBB both say it as well in their guidelines.
According to them: As long as the person does not have a pecuniary interest in the company/product/service being endorsed, in which case such an interest must be clearly established in the advertisement.
Note that pecuniary means the stockholders or owner of the company etc, not a person being paid to advertise the company. Personal opinions can be expressed without disclosure provided the person that is making the statement is not seen as an expert in their field. Experts must disclose having been paid because their opinion will sway the average reader.
Post a Comment