Sunday, June 26, 2005
For 5 measly bucks?: An interesting and slightly depressing story about bloggers who accept a little cash and freebie tickets etc. from corporations in exchange for mentioning products in blog posts. Local examples of bloggers who have failed to mention and/or "usually" mention an ad connection include Jeff Cutler and Sooz and Linnea Dates. ... Jeff is quoted in the Globe story as saying in his defense: "People should be trained to take what they read with a grain of salt." Gee, thanks, Jeff. How about bloggers being trained to be upfront with said readers? Huh, Jeff? ...
... Not to get on a high horse on this one. There isn't a journalist reading this right now who hasn't had, at one point, to write a puff piece about an advertiser or pull a punch about an advertiser -- or else they've heard of a colleague having to perform such a deed. It doesn't happen often. In fact instances of media outlets knowingly sticking their fingers in the eyes of advertisers far, far outnumber the puffy pulled punches, as helpless pull-their-hair-out ad directors know only too well. But it happens now and then. (Fortunately, it's never happened to me at the Herald. But in past jobs, well, ...) So think of that before criticizing bloggers too much. Still, the "they-did-it-too" argument sucks. Suggestion for bloggers: Don't go down the product-mention road. If you do, be upfront. And, for heaven's sake, try to get more than 5 measly bucks for risking your credibility.
Update -- John and Adam have good posts on the issue. ... Re John's comments: Eight figures for a blog? I wouldn't hesitate. I've always loved eminent domain. ... Get off that property, you obstructionist New London scumballs!
Update II -- Sooz says she did have a disclaimer pointing out she was paid (via UH). I still don't like product mentions in posts. It's not exactly from-the-gut writing. But she did have a disclaimer. I also certainly don't begrudge her making a buck. ... Update to Update: I should have said 'disclosure' and not 'disclaimer.' Sooz links to the icon that she said she had up. OK. But why not mention within the post itself that she got paid to pitch something? The answer is self-evident. Not to harp on the issue. It's her blog -- and her credibility.
... Not to get on a high horse on this one. There isn't a journalist reading this right now who hasn't had, at one point, to write a puff piece about an advertiser or pull a punch about an advertiser -- or else they've heard of a colleague having to perform such a deed. It doesn't happen often. In fact instances of media outlets knowingly sticking their fingers in the eyes of advertisers far, far outnumber the puffy pulled punches, as helpless pull-their-hair-out ad directors know only too well. But it happens now and then. (Fortunately, it's never happened to me at the Herald. But in past jobs, well, ...) So think of that before criticizing bloggers too much. Still, the "they-did-it-too" argument sucks. Suggestion for bloggers: Don't go down the product-mention road. If you do, be upfront. And, for heaven's sake, try to get more than 5 measly bucks for risking your credibility.
Update -- John and Adam have good posts on the issue. ... Re John's comments: Eight figures for a blog? I wouldn't hesitate. I've always loved eminent domain. ... Get off that property, you obstructionist New London scumballs!
Update II -- Sooz says she did have a disclaimer pointing out she was paid (via UH). I still don't like product mentions in posts. It's not exactly from-the-gut writing. But she did have a disclaimer. I also certainly don't begrudge her making a buck. ... Update to Update: I should have said 'disclosure' and not 'disclaimer.' Sooz links to the icon that she said she had up. OK. But why not mention within the post itself that she got paid to pitch something? The answer is self-evident. Not to harp on the issue. It's her blog -- and her credibility.
