We all know that the most respected and credible media outlets never allow their journalists to be “bought” in exchange for editorial. These media have traditions of anti-corruption and thus their editorial is trusted by many.
Is the same to be expected of the blogosphere? Of late, I’ve seen an increase in bloggers being “bought” with products to keep after a review is done or other freebies received in exchange for a posting or two; not to mention controversial services such as PayPerPost.
Two days back, an senior colleague mentioned to me that she (a grandmother believe it or not) felt that some bloggers who were receiving and keeping some products PR folks offer them are starting to loose credibility.
She said quite plainly that she finds it hard to trust these bloggers simply because they so obviously can be bought.
We’ve all seen the discussions on proposed codes-of-conduct, but this got me thinking. Are we as PR practitioners just hungry (or even greedy) for clippings or do we truly want to help our media friends?
Product reviews are by no means wrong, but creating “ambassadors” through gifts can dramatically “cheapen” a blogger and his/her blog. No matter how you dice it, a blog is still a media platform powered by a corruptible human. That means credibility in the eyes of the readers still matter.
What makes things worse is that most bloggers are not trained as journalists and have no tradition or culture in media credibility. This is dangerous and could seriously damage the blogosphere as a media.
Being a blogger myself, I understand this quite personally. When a journalist looses credibility the newspaper takes a hit, but can recover after firing the corrupt and striving for excellence again. When a blogger gets hit, it’s a mark for life.
Filed under: Marketing, Social Media
Precisely, you hit it on the spot. Which is why I never believed in these blog-for-money initiatives.
To me doing advertisments and advertorials in a blog is a matter of give and take. I dont mind a credible blogger doing some every now and then, I dont see anything wrong with wanting to have a bit of cash in exchange for a little promotion. I dont really see it as ‘cheapening’ a blogger, as long as he or she truely believes in the product.
But when the blog becomes overrun with advertising, or that the advertisments has nothing to do with the flavour of the blog, then the blog would be a turnoff to me.
In assessing if a blog is credible, the sum of all parts must be analyzed altogether, and not by judging if the writer occasionally ’sells out’ to advertisers by endorsing their services or products.
After all, as an example, does the fact that the NY Times publish advertisements on its editorial page make the content therein any less credible?
Even credible bloggers, especially full-time bloggers, cannot live on words and oxygen alone. If the occasional advertorial brings in the necessary income to sustain the writer, why not?
A hungry writer might be a good one, much as oppressed and depressed artists usually paint the best pictures, but they won’t last long without actual food and drink.
Depends on how you see these bloggers – journalists, or a writer-celebrity. Present company excepted, I think the blogosphere is more about the latter. And as a marketer, if I can get endorsements from a celebrity blogger, why not? I think the blogger just needs to stay true to their charisma – whatever that may be. If the blog becomes a turn-off, then that’s market forces at play – all celebrities need to constantly reinvent themselves.
This was one of my points at the recent PR 2.0 Conference organised by IPRS. When I spoke to Ian McKee from Vocanic, we both seemed to agree that sponsored bloggers are going to be a tough sell if it happens too often. For me, the greatest turnoff is to see a blog with half of its posts sponsored and plastered all over with ads, google adsenses and what nots.
I think a better approach in how marketers could work with bloggers is to invite them to be a part of the action. This could be through product launches, focus groups and other less advertising-oriented approaches.
Actually, if you think about it, offering incentives for editorial have happened for the longest time in mainstream media. Who hasn’t brought a journalist to lunch before or offered free passes to editors? The thing however is that it needs to pass off as real content (re: your earlier post) which is objective and unbiased as opposed to marketing speak.
There seems to be a fine line between “buying” editorial and advertising. I believe advertising on blogs from networks such as Google Ads, or Advertlets are fine because the blogger has no control over the ads coming through. But if say a vendor negotiates for a blogger to run a certain ad/campaign, and as a result the blogger doesn’t blog about (although he/she could have) the competition. It’s ideal form a marketer’s point of view, but ineffective if you see it from the reader’s perspective.