Lasica on ethics, blogging and advertising

<![CDATA[J.D. Lasica has an excellent comprehensive article in Online Journalism Review about the questions and evolutions in ethics springing up as bloggers begin to accept advertising, sponsorships and more controversial forms of compensation. I’m quoted extensively in the article, but that is not why I think J.D. did a great job with this.
Two clarifications to the story:

(Interestingly, Ratcliffe criticizes the Silicon Valley 100 operation as “creepy,” while SV100 founder Hoffman criticizes the Marqui program as “out there.”)

The reason it is creepy is that it is not disclosed. The influencers who receive hardware and software for nothing (a form of compensation) are seen using these products, they talk about these products and endorse them without explaining that they didn’t have to pay for them. They aren’t wearing a sign that identifies them as a paid endorser when they pull out the product in a meeting and most don’t blog. By contrast, a journalist/product reviewer always returns product they are loaned in order to write informed stories.

Others agree that the line between content and promotion is being fudged. Rob Greenlee of WebTalkRadio commented on Ratcliffe’s blog: “It is unnatural to think that Mitch would post negative criticisms about a sponsor. … I think we are mixing the concept of objective product review and advertising. This is the ethical dilemma.”

[Disclosure: I often appear on Rob’s show.] I think Rob’s meaning is not fully represented here. This is the full quote:

I think it is crazy the criticism of ethical violation with the Marqui sponsorship. I think it is black and white. Mitch is doing nothing wrong and is going over the top with his disclosures. Mitch it is grand that you are willing to disclose so much about your business relationships. I just don’t think you need to do it. Most people trust you enough to read what you post and evaluate the validity of it. The only danger is if you post positive about Marqui in a major way without disclosing the sponsorship. I do have to say that it is unnatural to think that Mitch would post negative criticisms about a sponsor. I would never think to do that on my WebTalk radio show.

I think we are mixing the concept of objective product review and advertising. This is the ethical dilemma. By mixing the possible good and bad review into the advertising message you are assuming that any exposure is good exposure and that the sponsoring company gets value from the open criticism and discussion about the sponsors product or service. It is an interesting way of looking at sponsorship, but one that is driving questionable value to the sponsor.

I think that Marqui is going to get great exposure and value from the sponsorship of these blogs. But, the next advertiser will get less value from it as the buzz of it will be less.

Everyone needs to climb down from the mountain of ethical purity and Zen. What is going on with blog sponsorship is not really all that ground breaking, but an extension of an already accepted media sponsorship practice.

The combination of sponsor blog posts, banner ads and possibly audio mentions in podcasts will be the ultimate path for sponsoring and funding blogs. My show WebTalk has all those pieces right now. My WebTalk blog is not as popular as the blogs being sponsored by Marqui, but I could start mentioning sponsors in my blog. I don’t see why a double standard exists with people in relation to blogs and sponsorship. Blogs are just another content distribution method like radio, newspapers and TV. They all run biased promotional mentions all the time. Look at PaidContent.org as they are a practicing case that is walking the ethical line very well.

I think the only real change is the sponsors’ willingness to accept negative criticism of its products or services as part of the sponsorship package.

]]>