How I Use Blogitive – The Ethics Debate
I get the occasional email from people asking me how I would suggest they create posts for Blogitive. There is also a lot of debate right now about disclosing sponsored postings, and whether or not Blogitive should insist on it. I invite your feedback below, but here are my personal feelings on this issue.
First, feel free to check out how I use Blogitive. My personal blog is www.oneblogtoomany.com. (It’s under a little construction right now, so please excuse the potential mess when you get there) You will notice that I don’t get to post as many Blogitive releases as I would like, and I of course don’t want to take opportunities from our users by doing them myself. But when I do post I use 2 different ways of posting.
The first way is to simply place it under my Press Releases category. Since this is an editorial take on a press release, I don’t feel the need to tell readers that it’s sponsored. I’m sure some will disagree with that.
The second form of postings I do is under Website reviews. For this I do a basic, and honest review of the website. Once again, I don’t feel I’m pushing people to go to the website or buy a product, so I don’t mention that it is an endorsement.
My personal feelings are that this is my blog where I just talk about stuff that has to do with my personal life. I don’t claim to offer world news, or unbiased product information. I usually rant about things that barely interest my friends and family. I am an ethical person, but I don’t feel there is an ethical breach in doing paid reviews or mentioning a press release on my personal blog.
That being said, I do agree that there are blogs where this wouldn’t be a good idea. Obviously TechCrunch is a highly regarded source for news. I would love to get my company mentioned there, and I would even be willing to pay for it (call me Michael, we’ll work out a price), but I’m pretty sure that Michael Arrington wouldn’t be interested in giving me a mention at a price. That’s what paid advertising is for. But TechCrunch is not a personal blog. It is a site that has set out to be a reliable source for unbiased news and information.
Some would say that even if TechCrunch disclosed the fact that a posting was sponsored, that would be a breach. I don’t agree. I get plenty of business magazines and see sponsored advertorials all the time.
Now, on to whether or not Blogitive should make bloggers disclose sponsored posts. I’m sorry if this offends anyone, but that is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. What authority do I have to tell you how to manage your blog? I’m simply paying bloggers to post about our client’s press releases. It is up to each individual blogger how they wish to manage their blogs, and determine what it ethical for their blog.
But when I say that, people like to think that I’m encouraging bloggers to not disclose the sponsorship. The truth is, I don’t care either way, either does the client. When you write about the press release, you are helping them build buzz, and giving them a boost in the search engines by linking to them with a relevant page of content.
So, each blogger should decide how they feel comfortable working with Blogitive and proceed with a clean conscious.
I’m sure this will spur some opinions on both side. Please leave your feedback here and let us know what you think. Remember, we work for you.
[tags]blogitive, blogging, ethics, techcrunch, michael arrington[/tags]
December 1st, 2006 at 8:25 am
I try to do the opposite for my blogs at this point. I want the link to appear to be seamless in both the post and in the blog.
Sometimes that is hard to do, and that is why I don’t have a lot of blogitive qualifying posts yet. If the ad can not be part of what I normally blog about I usually don’t accept it.
I know sometimes I have to shoe-horn it into an article at times, but I want the reader to click on the ad because it is part of the story, not because I am a paid spokesman.
And I don’t have a problem with that ethically since I get to choose which company I put my meager reputation behind. Blogitive is not assigning me clients to publish statements about that I might have a personal or professional problem with.
I even take it a step further. So far, for each client I have considered accepting I have done some basic background checking. I always check with bbb.org to see if they have any grievous problems with customer service or quality control.
I have even checked with domaintools.com to see who really owns the business and see if they are on the up and up. If I don’t feel comfortable with my findings I simply don’t accept to blog on their behalf.
So, with the control we are afforded by blogitive itself, and the vast amount of information we have at our disposal personally, ethical questions about the presentation of the clients does not have to be a real heart rending decision.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:22 am
I don’t mention that a post has been sponsored and I don’t have a problem with that. I’m not trying to force people to click on a link, I’m aiming for my post to be interesting enough for them to be curious. Some of the posts I’ve written for Blogitive have drawn interesting comments and brought new readers to my blog.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:49 am
I agree with biggandyy on trying to make my post seamless. I don’t disclose Blogitive offers or any other paid blogging post because my goal is that my readers will trust my opinion whether it is prompted by payment or not. I also feel that disclosing each paid post devalues the worth of the post. It’s like I am saying “this post is not as good as the other because I got paid to write it”. I don’t got to such lengths as biggandyy to find the legitimacy of the company but I do check out the site and try to find out as much information as I can. I also don’t say anything about the advertiser that I don’t believe is the truth. I do however talk about paid blogging throughout my blog so it is no secret that I am a paid blogger. Blogging should be about making connections with other people. It is my opinion that each blogger should make it their goal to build a relationship with their readers.
This controversy seems be fueled by people who assume bloggers can’t be honest and given enough money people will say anything. This may be true for some but there are also many honest people in world. Disclosing that a post is prompted buy payment does not make the post any more trust worthy in my opinion. A blog is in actuality a person. So if the person is trust worthy then it will come through in the blog (as a whole).
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:33 am
Prompted by a different service, I run a disclosure policy which I have fine tuned to cover my own goals. I only disclose around 5% of my articles.
I also work to try and make them seemless in the article, and I try to take posts that fit with my blogs. I have several blogs and some of them are more open to various topics than others.
I’ve chimed in on TechCrunch’s perspectives on sponsored blogging several times. I generally view TechCrunh as a hypcorite. They sponsor articles as well, they just don’t take direct funding for it. They will cover articles under circumstances that are a little more old fashioned, ergo its not what you know or what you do, but who you network with in silicon valley that seems to drive articles there.
I do not think there is anything wrong with TechCrunch finding their sources for articles in the way they do, its their way of writing about what they know about. The Wall Street Journal covered them pretty thoroughly a few weeks back, and it was rather humorous to hear main stream reporters from the WSJ questioning the journalistic ethics of TechCrunch when TechCrunch so often questions the journalistic ethics of bloggers.
Arrington gets his info about things to write about from his extended network and so do we. Ours happens to include people promoting press releases versus someone that hosts parties paid by companies that later on get stories written about them. Either way its about making a connection.
Everyone is subjective, its impossible to be completely objective. Its an excellent goal, but at the end of the day we all act on our own self interests, to act selflessly is to do yourself harm and be dishonest with yourself. I’m paraphrasing Ayn Rand a bit, but the bottom line is that blogs are characterized by our subjective bias.
People get bored reading the same drivel with no subjective perspective and sometimes its that perspective that actually brings a story to life, if we do our job well and write well!
December 4th, 2006 at 2:45 am
I do have a disclosure policy on board. It’s a separate post and I link to it in my side bar. I don’t have a problem with having it nor do I have a problem with those who don’t have it. It’s America. We can choose that.
I do post reviews for Blogitive and I don’t think of it as poor ethics to do so. I won’t post reviews for sites, products, or services I personally find offensive. Only for those where someone might be able to get some good from them. And I continue to post my personal stuff and try to incorporate myself into the review posts so that they don’t seem too spammy. To be honest, there have been very few sponsored posts I’ve felt compelled to reject, and the ones I’ve accepted actually did play into what’s going on in my life. So posting about them was relatively easy.
Not only that, but I’ve located some good things for myself through those press releases and have returned to some of the sites again and again.
December 4th, 2006 at 2:57 am
I think you’re bringing up a good point that I didn’t hit upon. You can chose what you blog about. Just because you sign up for Blogitive doesn’t mean that you’re required to write about a release you don’t like. You still maintain for control.
December 4th, 2006 at 9:20 am
I also have a disclosure policy with a link on my sidebar. I don’t feel the need to remention it in any or every post I decide to do.
December 4th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
TechCrunch is biased and does get paid for a number of its articles. Don’t be fooled.
December 4th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Something that I think bears mentioning here is that the BBB and the FTC both state that a person that advertises something in printed form (whether it is in a magazine or on the Internet or wherever) does not need to disclose that it was an advertisement unless they have a pecuniary interest (owns stock or the company etc) in the product/service/company advertised, or have a name that is recognized enough that they will influence a substantial portion of the readership to act in accordance with what the advertisement suggests.
That is what I figure annoys the big names the most, the fact that us little fellows can decide not to say we were paid if we are expressing our genuine feelings about something, but the FTC requires the big names to disclose having been paid, or given free stuff, even if they are being honest about their opinion on something.
My personal stance on if I say it was an ad or not is based, in part, on FTC guidelines. As a result, if the advertiser wants me to represent them favorably, even if I was going to do so anyway, I quite often say that it is an advertisement. The request for a favorable mention is an implication that the view is somehow swayed by the advertiser, which according to my understanding of the FTC guidelines affects the weight of the endorsement. If I am allowed to respond in any manner I desire, even criticize if I choose, then I am less likely to tag the post as having a payment behind it since the post now falls under personal preference. Which the FTC explicitly says that, as long as the views are honest and able to be supported by the advertiser, neither the amount nor the fact that there was compensation needs to be made - even if the compensation was substantial.
Another determining factor for me is just how seamlessly the post blends into the subject of my blog. Yes, I may feel something is of interest to my readership and that they may find it interesting or of use, but does it necessarily have 100% pertinence to my efforts at dieting, or to life as a family caregiver? If not it will probably be marked as an advertisement just so the readership knows that, while I may think they might be interested in it, there is a reason why it is on the blog.
So, should Blogitive require bloggers to disclose that someone paid them to post about something? As far as I can tell in my research, the BBB and the FTC already defines who does and does not need to disclose it. I also believe that many, if not all, of Blogitive’s bloggers would fall into the category of being able to choose for themselves, on a post by post basis, whether or not they disclose payment.
I expect a good percent of you want to verify for yourselves if this is right or not - so, what I am basing my understanding of things on are the following two sources. The BBB and FTC guides on endorsements, testimonials, and codes of advertising in print media - including the Internet.
BBB - http://www.bbb.org/membership/codeofad.asp
FTC - http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/endorse.htm
February 13th, 2007 at 10:26 am
As long as you clearly indicate that you have benefited from writing the blog entry, I see no problem in receiving funds for promoting a brand or product.