Several things I’ve read this week have me thinking about integrity.
A Forrester report revealed that only 16% of those online trust company blogs as an information source, falling far below traditional media. And personal blogs didn’t score much higher. The percentages increased dramatically among regular blog readers and bloggers.
Then today I read a tweet by Forrester analyst Jeremiah Owyang about a campaign where Kmart paid bloggers to write posts about shopping in their stores. He pointed out that such tactics were cost-effective, and would lead to more of the same, and he questioned whether it would hurt blogger credibility. I followed the first link he provided and read the blog post, by Jeremy Schoemaker, someone I’d never heard of. Fair enough, I thought. The blogger clearly stated right up front that he’d been compensated for the post. It seemed ok to me. I replied to Jeremiah that as long as bloggers choose their paid gigs with integrity, credibility shouldn’t be a problem.
Then a few minutes later another tweet stated that Chris Brogan had also written a paid-for Kmart post. Reading it, I had exactly the opposite feeling. I’m not sure if it’s because this time I did already know the writer, have been following him, reading his social media blog posts and thinking of him as a guru. Or maybe because it seemed to me, based on his opening paragraph, that he wouldn’t have been caught dead in a Kmart if they hadn’t offered him $500 worth of free junk. But it left me feeling that he’d sold his online integrity for a very small amount of money (albeit, with the great discounts, for an enormous amount of junk). I’m not saying he did anything wrong, he was completely transparent. But I do view him differently now than I did a couple of hours ago (and in my mind, I can’t erase a picture of him holding a cardboard sign that says “Will blog for junk”).
Here’s the lesson I’m drawing from all this for myself: bloggers frequently say that the blogosphere is more trusted than traditional media (although the Forrester report doesn’t support that), but just as the news media has lost a great deal of its credibility as it became more about business than news, so will individual bloggers lose the trust of their readers if they write without integrity, whether paid-for or not.
Barbara, You and I were some of the few following these tweets early this morning. I too wrote a quick blog post about this as well. I agree with you but disclosure up front doesn’t take away from the fact that our trust or perception or value of this persons opinion can now be bought.
So you’d have to wonder why someone might blog a sponsored post for only $500. Might be that it wasn’t the money, and maybe there’s more to the story than the sponsored post itself. Maybe it’s exploration into the various ways advertisers might operate in the social space, and into how bloggers might work with them on campaigns.
The title of the post states that it’s sponsored. The first sentence states that it’s sponsored. The first paragraph states exactly what the campaign was. The last sentence talks again about the sponsorship.
It couldn’t be more disclosed. Magazines disclose advertising and advertorial relationships all the time. ALL the major magazines have this model as a revenue base. Further more, research is pointing to the fact that in-context advertising is the only thing people are really paying any attention to on a blog.
I enjoyed the opportunity to work with Izea on this campaign (I’m on their board of advisors), and I think it was an interesting exploration into how the social space might try to interact with brands in a different way.
You’ll note that on my primary blog, [chrisbrogan.com], I am dedicated to helping businesses understand social media strategy. If I don’t explore advertising methods, do you think I’m a good advisor?
I’m happy with the experience, and I’m glad that Kmart was happy with their results. I gave my readership a chance to experience it themselves, and I also gave several hundred dollars in toys to Toys for Tots for the holidays thanks to Kmart. Seems like a win to me.
There was a time when celebrity endorsement would be enough to persuade the public in the desired direction.
We now know better. They do it for the money. So here lies the paradox: the endorsement will work if we have enough evidence that it is authentic, unselfish and not paid for. If it is an sponsored endorsement, the fact that money is involved will surround it with a shadow of doubt and distrust.
So I guess Chris Brogan will need a different strategy if he wants to monetize his blog.
There is a price (and a cost) for everything. This is a natural result of individuals building value thru the relationships they form. The currency of this relationship economy is simple: trust. Each of one us in this space are building and gaining trust in each interaction we have. Those who forget that trust is what had built their market position, will find out the hard way.
@scottyhendo
I myself went through similar thoughts.
For me if someone is open and upfront about why they did what they did that should be fine. I think we are all trying to figure out the rules here.
To sell yourself out, to me, means not sticking to your own personal morals and ethics. Who are we to decide what the ethics should be for others.
Chris,
First, thanks for taking the time to comment here. I’m sure you feel barraged by the flood of tweets (which I read after I had posted this).
Second, let me be clear that I did not intend to imply any lack of disclosure. I stated that you were completely transparent.
And I can respect that you feel a need to explore the medium and experiment. And in evaluating the outcomes, you should take into account the potential negative costs to the bloggers too. I’m sure this campaign was good for Izea and for Kmart, that’s not what I questioned.
One more note in answer to your points above: while magazines do indeed do advertorials, they’re usually not written and bylined by their star journalists.
Finally, let me clearly state again that I don’t think you did anything wrong. Didn’t mean to attack you, and didn’t jump on a bandwagon of Chris-bashing. I just shared my thoughts, then saw that a few others felt the same way.
Barb
I have been following this conversation from the moment it started.
First, Chris Brogan is the BEST kind of person, in my opinion. Maybe many people haven’t been following him long enough or didn’t see the video he did after the Orlando tweetup..If this guy, is not sincere and genuine. no one is.
Chris, here is what I think: you were completely transparent. However, you ARE THE GURU and many look to you for leadership. I think the mistake you made is in not ANNOUNCING AHEAD OF TIME that you were going to be doing this on behalf of Kmart and why.. If you had told everyone that you were going to do an experiment with Kmart for money and then to ask for people’s feedback on it, then I think there would have been no issue.
What happened is that it was a SURPRISE from someone we all love and trust and that caught everyone off guard.
Many people following you for a longer time will not care because they know you, but will hundreds of thousands of new people entering the space veryday, what happened is that YOU downgraded brand credibility for yourself a bit to them, because they DON’T know you yet..that’s why you should have announced ahead of time.
For all of us who are on twitter a lot, we feel like we know you, what you stand for, but other do not. That’s why Jeremiah felt, I think, that bloggers have to be careful about their OWN brand credibility..it’s not about the money, it’s about the perception given how many new people follow you everyday.
I am going to call this out publicly on twitter, but want you to know I understand and see that you were being transparent and know that it is not your personality to do ANYTHING unethical or hurtful to others.
David Taboada makes an important point above, without realizing it.
Yes, celebrities have endorsed forever.
Just listen to RadioRevisited by Don Coury weekend nights on the air, and online. He leaves ads in, and throughout, the live studio audience, and listeners are advertised to many times by the lead sponsor. Whole monologues are dedicated to the product, but you don’t know it at first.
Some are trust agents from back then.
Jack Benny, Bob Hope, Orson Wells.
Products are Maxwell House, or Ivory soap.
Fast forward 60 years. We have bloggers.
And we have TV.
We have Tiger Woods pushing Buick’s that were a horrible financial injury to American families.
He got millions.
Tiger Woods got millions for endorsing a lemon that hurt American families by the thousands.
Chris Brogan puts up flashing lights:
“*EXPERIMENTING with a Sponsored POST*”
Where he tells ADULTS;
“…maybe check out Kmart this Christmas”.
Think for yourself while shopping,
but check out Kmart.
That’s where they sell the SAME shit everyone else does, only cheaper.
I sure hope the economy rebounds, and
guys like Chris have the most inscrutable
of brands begging to be associated with him for
long dollars, so he can blog deep.
I wonder what the outcome would have been if Chris was appalled at the narrow shopping aisles, the dim lighting, the unhappy customer care employees and the stinky smell of day-old hot dogs grilling as you enter.
That’s my memory of Kmart which I haven’t set foot in since 1996.
As a blogger myself, am I worth converting?
Just my 2 cents.
Since this blog is on right on the subject of what im trying to learn. If a brand pays you to blog does that mean you have to take a subjective or objective approach toward writing the blog post. I have never written for a sponsored post before but I was wondering do they give you the freedom to voice your opinion or do they only want positive feedback?
steve
grindvision.com
We are congruent in our perspectives.
As a consultant in online reputation management (something we don’t overly publicise but rather advise our clients in once we have been retained) this intrigued me. In theory, we could pay anyone (even Chris Brogan) whatever the going rate is to to flood the internet with positive info under the guise of “paid blog reviews with full disclosure.” Where is the integrity in that?
I’m not trying to jump on the Brogan bashing bandwagon either but my opinion of Chris has been swayed by this post. Is it possible to “sell out” or de-value your “guru title”? For $500, I guess so.
-on Twitter @WebEstate
Obviously transparency isn’t the point here but whether companies should be paying bloggers to pimp their products.
Thing is, whether it’s the company that pays them to blog or just sends the product, invites them to visit and they’re paid by the company they work for to write the blog, it’s all paid endorsement. It’s been going on for a long time on the sites we trust to review.
Maybe the issue is that it’s Kmart and they’ve been caught flogging many times before? Clearly they are still struggling with the whole concept of social media.
I follow Chris and I thought it was great that he found a way to monetize his efforts and share the wealth with his followers. It didn’t affect my trust at all.
Advertising makes the world go ’round and wouldn’t you rather it be transparent then a secret payoff for favorable publicity (which happens in traditional media).
Personally, I think this whole conversation is silly. It reinforces my opinion that some people in the blogosphere don’t really live in the real world.
Barbara:
First to disclose, I am also a friend of Chris, but we haven’t had any discussion about this.
I think it is fair that he tried this experiment, on the Dad blog and not the Chris Brogan blog.
I agree that this pay-for-posting was never my favorite business model, but as Chris says, unless we test stuff out we don’t know how it works. As communications professionals, we have to try lots of things to understand their value for our clients. Witness my MySpace profile - not exactly top 10, but I get on there to learn what people are doing.
On my blog at http://www.howardgreenstein.com/blog I have a SocialVibe “ad” for Apple - which funnels money into Stand Up 2 Cancer, a cause I believe in. The same widget is on my Facebook boxes. I don’t think I’m selling out for Apple or a charity. I’m learning if this helps the cause.
To those who think Chris sold his integrity on one post - they obviously don’t read Chris on a regular basis.
I don’t see him slipping kmart references into other posts, nor am I now “on the lookout” for such things, because I know he’ll disclose it.
The 2009 economy could be harsh. If you can “blog for food” and feed your family, and be clear about your disclosure, that may not be a bad thing.
As “traditional” media shuffles quietly off stage, we’re all going to have to figure out what fills the vacuum. Is Huffington Post (which is stealing audience and revenue from NYT and others by the second) better or worse than what it’s replacing?
Is transparent advertorial by famous bloggers an improvement on celebrity endorsers that have never even used the product in question?
Are brands supposed to restrict their efforts to clumsy banner ads and increasingly expensive PPC campaigns because media is now “social” and therefore subject to new rules?
We don’t have any of these answers yet, but the fact that the questions are being asked, and are important is both confusing and exhilarating.
Barbara, good for you in questioning the big picture of blogger and brand relations. I think Chris handled the whole thing well, but not enough people are willing to say “maybe this merits some additional thinking.” WAAAY too much “yay, all social media is good” group-think going on right now. I appreciate a voice of reason, and I’ve RSSd your blog.
Chris, I think you were in a no-win situation, which is the albatross of the pioneer.
-j
Barbara (& Chris, if you’re checking back in):
I’m the Co-Founder and Strategic Director of a ad agency in NYC. This is a huge topic and will generate enormous debate. Thanks for the report.
I admire Chris Brogan and follow him actively on Twitter and his blog. He is generous and helpful to everyone…and he religiously follows the Twitter ethic of “I won’t spam you but I’ll help you out.” He’s smart, honest, and spends tremendous time to help people.
But, I think he’s taken a misstep here.
A respected brand is a precious thing, and Chris is a very respected (and valuable) brand in the social media universe. Is this withdrawal from the brand bank worth it? Well he’s commented above. He has every right to view this as an experiment. Was it with the right client in the right environment…I don”t think so.
Usually celebrity spokespeople (and that’s what we have here) should, ideally, be expert in the field). Is Chris? Or is being a parent enough?
My problem is in the Izea Kmart piece he seems to have lost his voice. The smart, considered Chris Brogan is struggling to find a voice to match the assignment.
Too much shilling–not enough of the very smart, helpful objectivity I’m used to. Ironically, he’s out of his domain.
I’d look to U2’s Vertigo TV spot for Apple itunes. U2 adamantly refuses to do spots to protect their very carefully crafted brand.
But iTunes was a perfect opportunity. Tie into a very cool custom product (and a pre-loaded U2 black iPod). And then just perform Vertigo beautifully shot and produced as an association with itunes. Great promo for both brands.
Chris…you deserve much, much better. Try it again. Choose a better sponsor. I have some thoughts. Tweet me up @scottlackey.
Scott Lackey
Jugular Advertising
New York, New York
Barbara,
I appreciate this post. I am a fan of Chris Brogan’w work as well, and I’ve learned a lot from his blog and his tweets, but I’d like to steer the conversation away from him.
I think you have an important question for all bloggers to ask themselves- Am I selling out?
The answer will be different for each person. The day you find me posting about shopping at WalMart is the day I’ve crossed the line, but if Target offered me a promotion like this, I’d jump at the chance to take it as I shop there often. (FWIW, I’m indifferent to KMart.)
As bloggers are offered more opportunities and more swag, it’s important that we take time to listen to our inner voices and evaluate whether such opportunities resonate with our true selves, or our brand, if you will.
Thanks for a great discussion!
I have worked in around social media for the last three years. I have written articles through Izea’s networks, and I have advertised through their networks. I have also signed on to work as an Izea Insider in January, when I will be working with bloggers around the country to help them navigate this path with a goal of creating better content. My compensation for my efforts is a modest travel budget for select trade shows. (I was already doing this work and would have continued to do it, but I will now be doing it under this program.)
I have experimented in this medium with many other ‘knock-offs’ of Izea as well.
These are the areas where people seem to get confused in social media and blog marketing:
- A Blogger is not a Journalist ~ Just because they write, and just because they are read by people, it does not make them a journalist. Throw this assumption out and rebuild your understanding of bloggers from the ground up before attempting to understand their motives, morals and ethics.
- A Popular Blogger is not a Celebrity ~ A person may have millions of people following, listening, reading and even watching them. It does not make them a celebrity. Sanjaya may be a celebrity, but most bloggers are not celebrities.
- A Blog is not a Magazine or Newspaper publication ~ Most blogs, almost all blogs actually, are one person productions. So the comment/reply above “magazines do indeed do advertorials, they’re usually not written and bylined by their star journalists” is misplaced. A magazine delegates these duties to the most appropriate person to do the work at a marginal cost. Blogs run by a single person can only delegate work to themselves. Every assignment will have an opportunity cost, but the blogger makes that choice(and usually does it alone).
So what can we take away from this?
The value a blogger provides is in the wisdom of the words that they craft everyday. Its in the entertainment they foster and inspire. Its sometimes even in breaking an aspect of a story.
Anyone that believes what they read in a paper, book, report, or blog just because it is printed is walking on dangerous ground to begin with. We must each constantly evaluate the media we consume. Yes, a certain amount of trust does develop as a person’s name, image and blog or branded, but in this age of new media, people, all people, have to pay more and more attention to the value of the message, the wisdom of the words and more. That’s just the way it is, and in many ways that is the way it has always been and always will be.
I’m a former accountant and completely believe in transparency and sunshine. Now, part of what Chris & Jeremy have done is take a journey to Kmart and blog about it.
It was an atypical journey, because they received money to go shopping there. It is safe to say that most Kmart shoppers do not go there with money in their hand from Kmart.
That said, the opportunity here was to provide people with some new perspective on what might be found at Kmart. This is very similar to a product placement by Ford on American Idol, or Extreme Makeover going on a shopping spree at Sears.
We know that not everyone is going to win a Ford Mustang for their singing ability and we know that we are not all going to get to go on a shopping spree at Sears. (Disclosure I went on a shopping spree at Sears 2 nights ago.)
That doesn’t happen for everyone. As consumers, we know that doesn’t happen for everyone. That said, we get to glimpse through the looking glass and see what is happening on the other side with the perspective and wisdom provided by a person, a singer, a home improvement guy with a bad hair cut, and sometimes a blogger or two.
Bloggers can live or die by their content, but lots of times we just tread water. Every now and then a blogger can catch a good wave and surf it in to the beach with everyone looking. It doesn’t mean that we will be an instant celebrity, that we will be ‘trusted’ over night, or that we can even do it again given the chance.
It means we did something good for that moment in time, and that we will try again over and over.
The important thing is that we are trying. We are creating new content, creating new conversation, evolving thought, experimenting in a brand new medium (It took radio close to 70 years to ‘make it’ and that was after the tech bust of the late 1920’s.)
We are going to be on this path for a long time. Its definitely going to require experimentation, analysis, great discussion like this one, and also a little bit of understanding.
Just because someone tries something new from time to time, it doesn’t make them the anti-christ of media. Now, in a paparazzi world, it may actually be that way. Maybe Brittany forgets something important one day, and steps out of the car at the wrong angle. Maybe an actor gets in a DUI and the press have a field day knocking that ‘celebrity’ down 10 pegs.
In New Media there will definitely be buzz about it, there will be talk, but the cool thing is there will be new content, something creative that will immediately replace that and our readers, our viewers, our listeners will enjoy the new experience.
All that said, we have a long way to go with this evolution of new media, and it will not survive if there is no money funding it. If someone has a better source of monetization for bloggers outside of advertising then stand up, put your money and business where your mouth is and don’t knock people trying to survive what appears to be a coming global depression.
We may just need the wisdom of bloggers, the counseling and soothing voices of podcasters, and the humor and entertainment of videocasters to survive it!
I just want to say thanks to everyone for the great, thoughtful discussion here. I really appreciate all the points of view being shared, on every side of the discussion. Although there’s a bit of nastiness elsewhere, I feel like the conversation here so far has been really healthy debate, and I’m learning from it.
I’m going offline for tonight (it’s almost 10pm here), so additional comments won’t get posted until tomorrow (I’m only screening for spam, not points of view). G’night.
Barbara - I’m late to this conversation as have not been on Twitter all day today.
In terms of Chris I can understand why you might have that opinion though as you say he was very transparent in his post and I am sure that one of the reasons he was approached is that he is a well known blogger within social media and influencer. Therefore Kmart would gain additional eyeballs to their current offerings by connecting to his network of readers/followers.
@krishnade
For me I don’t see it as a challenge to his personal integrity or his authenticity.
I think it does however call into question what we associate with and if it’s seen to be aligned to our personal brand.
Given household income for many people is becoming more restricted the fact that Kmart may offer an alternative less expensive shopping experience as Lidl and Aldi do here in Ireland (they are attracting A and B consumers looking to show on a budget) the post I am sure is helping them to increase visiblilty, consideration and ultimately I am sure what they are after is market share.
It’s interesting that the point was made that it might have just been the lack of coolness in the Kmart brand. That’s pretty snobby…
I was struck by the partnership when I first read about it because of Chris Brogan’s “guru” status. But I wasn’t thinking why did Chris do that? On the contrary. I was wondering what Kmart had done to attract someone like Chris. I’m thinking $500 isn’t the going rate for integrity in Chris Brogan’s world. And I have to go back to what he said in his comment:
“I am dedicated to helping businesses understand social media strategy. If I don’t explore advertising methods, do you think I’m a good advisor?”
And I agree with Lisa… this whole discussion is silly and does seem to prove that some of you are not living the reality of most.
Kudos, Chris for the Toys for Tots donations. If you can’t make these guys happy, at least you made some kids happy.
[…] Gibson from ABC wrote an interesting post here that Chris replied to in the comments. Barbara’s post starts from the viewpoint that a […]
Barbara, you said bloggers like Brogan and Shoe have made you think about “integrity” and “selling out” then say here and on shoemoney.com that you didn’t mean to criticize them? At least they were both honest and completely transparent in their intentions regarding the KMart gig.
Great debate, Barb! Thanks for starting it and taking some heat. (It’s cold in London, anyway, right?)
This discussion further points out how we desperately need a new business model for old and new media. Just as I believe in the separation of church and state, I support the separation of editorial and advertising in traditional media as well as new media, but it’s getting harder and harder to do….
Some really great comments and I’m grateful for your thoughts, too. I’m checking back periodically, but as things get busy for me next week, don’t hesitate to contact me directly, if you want to talk more about it. For now, leave the conversation here. It’s really a great conversation to have.
[…] jobs of the newspaper. I am both the editorial staff and also the business side of the house. In this piece by Barbara Gibson of ABC, Barb Gibson says in her comment to me: “One more note in answer to your points above: while […]
I thought the point of the Kmart thing was to get people who don’t typically go to Kmart into the store to see what it has to offer? I can’t believe Shoemoney is a regular Kmart shopper either. With that thought in mind, doesn’t it make perfect sense to give $500 to the Shoemoneys and Chris Brogans to see if they find anything worthwhile in these stores?
If they do, then Kmart is going to be getting people who trust Chris and the other bloggers’ opinions, coming into their stores. Still, if the experience is negative, I would have expected these bloggers to be honest and say, “Hey, Kmart is way overpriced!”
Chris Brogan didn’t have that experience. He mentions he found a coat his daughter would love (Disney Princess I think?) and clothes for his son, but that he wasn’t overly fond of the clothes for adults. I agree. I’d buy my nephew and son clothes at Kmart if I found something practical and fashionable (which I have before), but the styles for adult men aren’t that hip. I don’t shop for myself (clothes wise) at Kmart for that reason.
By the same token, Chris mentions he was surprised to find many brand name toys, which allowed him to give some Toys for Tots families an excellent Christmas. He mentioned the positives of his experience (and even pointed out, he saved money).
I’m not sure if people would be more satisfied if he lied and said the experience was horrible and Kmart sucks. Truth be told, if it were between Chris Brogan’s and Shoemoney’s posts that got me to Kmart, Chris would win. He told me more about what Kmart had to offer. All I learned from Shoemoney’s blog post was that Kmart has fishing gear, drivers, and they don’t sell computer stuff. That’s really not a way to get someone to Kmart.
I’d rather go for the deals, the brand names, and offerings that pertain to myself and my family. Thanks to Chris, I know a bit more about Kmart, and isn’t that the entire point?
Thanks again for all the discussion here. For anyone who hasn’t seen it yet, Chris has written much more on his own blog: http://www.chrisbrogan.com/advertising-and-trust/, responding to all the comments raised by other Twitterers. He’s elequently shared his thinking, and based on that I think it’s clear that he did make his decision to participate in the promotion with integrity (meaning that his choice was true to his own values). While I don’t agree with all his positions, I understand where he’s coming from.
I’m still absorbing the lessons I’m taking away from all this, and I think there are many. I’ll blog about them soon.
Ms. Gibson-I’d like to add something to all of the excellent points that Brett made above. I find it incredibly elitist of you to refer to items sold at Kmart as “junk” THREE times in your above article. How much is your yearly salary? Enough that you can shop anywhere you want? I’d like you to imagine for a moment that you live on Disability, or Social Security, or minimum wage. Or maybe you just have a really tight budget like many people in this country. Where would you shop for clothing for your children? Where would you go to replace worn-out bath towels and bedsheets? Where would you shop for a few special Christmas gifts for your kids?
What you call “junk”, other people call the things they need and can AFFORD. And if Kmart and IZEA want to team up to spread the word that Kmart has a wide variety of gifts for the holidays, so what?
And why should it bother you if Chris Brogan or anyone else gets paid to write a blog story? Bloggers provide a valuable service to companies, we drive traffic to their websites, improve their ad revenue, increase their sales. And if in return we get paid a small amount of money, then good for us! You get paid to do your job, don’t you? You provide value to your employer in exchange for pay? Well, SO DO WE.
[…] jobs of the newspaper. I am both the editorial staff and also the business side of the house. In this piece by Barbara Gibson of IABC, Barb Gibson says in her comment to me: “One more note in answer to your points above: while […]
Elizabeth,
You’re right to call me out on that, and although I certainly didn’t mean it the way you interpreted, I’m very sorry for causing offense.
I think my use of the word was actually more about the general uneasiness I got from the whole idea of going on a shopping spree just to try to spend $500 for the sake of spending it. But I wasn’t writing about that aspect of it, so I didn’t explain or explore those feelings (that’s a whole other post). The word, then, was left to sound judgemental and elitest — two things that generally don’t apply to me. I’m truly sorry for that.
I also don’t have a problem with anyone getting paid for their work, and I’m not trying to impose my values on anyone. I was simply sharing my thoughts, in response to a question raised by Jeremiah Owyang, about whether this kind of blogging would or could affect the credibility of bloggers. In thinking about it, in this particular instance with this particular blogger, the honest answer was that it did.
I’m still quite new to all this, learning as I go, and I’ve learned from you and the many others who commented here, and from Chris’ own response to all of the people who shared their thoughts about the campaign. I really appreciate your feedback, and hope you’ll continue to correct me when I’m wrong. Thanks for commenting.
Interesting point about accepting money. However blogging is just another way of talking, using new technology. I don’t see any particular reason to expect it to be more ethical as such than other forms of conversing.
I’ve casually known Chris about 6 months or so and I completely took his post as an experiment. Also, the disclosure was BLATANT. He gave ALL of the compensation away.
As a marketer myself, I thought it was an interesting way for Kmart to reach shoppers. Whether it worked or not, I think nothing less of Chris or Kmart for doing it. Loss of integrity? I don’t think so.
Readers have the right to disagree, comment, ignore, unfollow or unsubscribe if they want. Or they can take it for what it is: advertorial with full disclosure.
I think the ease of publishing via blogging has given more than enough bloggers a crack hit of ego and the mob mentality that can occur is such a waste of time. Bloggers and Twitterati need to get over themselves.
[…] was in support of Chris there were a rabid few who thought that he had done everything from sell out his brand to demean the whole social media […]
Hi Barbara,
I just got off of a Skype call with Chris Brogan that we recorded and was released as the latest episode of my Podcast, Six Pixels of Separation. I think it adds a new layer to the conversation and Chris did not hold back (and I don’t think I did either). You can be the judge: http://www.twistimage.com/blog/archives/spos-134-six-pixels-of-separation-the-twist-image-podcast-1-206-6666056-chris-brogan-on-trust-and-advertising/
[…] one hand we have people saying he’s a sell out and other negative things (please, why does Chris Brogan need to sell out for $500??), on the other […]
I have to second Lee’s comment. This is not the first time Brogan has been called out on his questionable receiving of swag. This is probably the reason why he was so transparent in the K mart post. Still, I have a problem with the way he (and others, because there are plenty) blog for bucks– and that’s why I choose not to follow his blog, or his Twitter stream. If anyone sides with that opinion, I suggest you do the same.
Whats the difference between this and being paid to speak in front of hundreds or thousands of people? and lets add the twist of it being in front of the United Steamfitters of America for example? and Chris speaks to them for a half hour about authenticity in marketing? He speaks, they ask questions, he gets paid and he goes home. Boom.
You go to Web 2.0 Expo and you watch a keynote. Or a featured speaker. Are they there for free, on their dime? Are you pissed when you find out they’re getting paid? No. At the end of the day we all have to get paid.
Like I said though on Chris’s and Jeremiah’s blogs and thru numerous tweets, this is new territory and I think a lot of us got penalized for thinking out loud. Lots of lessons learned, but good to see that the mob mentality is still intact.
I have found this discussion fascinating. Whilst I personally find Chris Brogan to be one of the most genuine and helpful advocates of the social media, I do find the content obtained from posts such as these insightful to a point. I do however, feel that a number of considerations have been overlooked.
Firstly,Brogan was not paid for a post; he was invited to spend a designated amount within a given establishment and asked to convey his experiences. Whilst much of the commentary has identified the inherently positive messages conveyed in Brogan’s post, perhaps that was simply because the experience was just that; positive. I trust Brogan enough to suggest that had the experience been negative, then he would have felt equally inclined to express it such. Had the intention have been simple monetary gain, then would he not simply have assigned his name to content produced by the organisation? Incentive or no incentive, I am convinced that Brogan’s approach would invariably remain honest and open.
I think what bloggers need to realise is that Brogan’s intentions have always been to add value for the community; very rarely does he ask for anything in return. In my opinion, Brogan has nothing to prove to those he freely helps on a daily basis. As a blogger, if you feel that Brogan has jeopardized his integrity and choose to unfollow him as a result, consider first who will be losing out under such circumstances. It is unlikely to be Chris Brogan.
I find it somewhat embarassing that we are calling someone out who has on so many occasions freely added value to the community. Are we really going to jeopardize our access to sources such as Brogan over something as trivial as this? I truly hope not…
As long as there is disclosure and the product or service is a good fit for the community that the blogger represents, I don’t see a problem with it. I think it’s very much like a celebrity endorsement but with much more credibility since it’s disclosed. Remember Michael Jordan chowing down on Big Macs before shooting nothing but net? Banner advertising had led to banner blindness and publisher inventory is losing value every day. An alternative needs to be found and I think the marked disclosed paid post is good alternative.
[…] and online sites move at the speed of greased lightning, and the blogosphere has lit up with criticisms and […]
[…] Baer, commenting on IABC Chair, Barbara Gibson’s post about Chris Brogan’s experiment with a sposored post for […]
[…] is push-back to this blurring of lines – as both FM and Chris Brogan have witnessed. The key is maintaining full transparency. And there are certain lines that must not […]