A recent article in The National Post had a discussion about mommy-bloggers, and how they represent a coveted marketing demographic. The article went on to discuss how companies are using (and trying to use) the community nature of blogging to market their products. It was a very interesting read.
In the interest of being upfront, I have never had, nor do I intend to have, advertisements on my personal blog. One of the first questions I asked when approached to write for this site was whether or not I would have to carry ads on my site for their sponsors. (I voluntarily put links to this site and my column on my blog. My concern was not with link exchange or site promotion, but with having commercial sponsors.)
Returning to the article, they discussed how some bloggers were being compensated to review products, and the powerful demographic that they access. Of note was the ethical question of whether the blogger was expected to disclose their relationship to the product or its parent company. They explained that it is difficult to differentiate between an honest, unbiased review and someone shilling because they were being paid or given free stuff.
It brought to mind a recent situation where two blogs I read regularly both wrote about an upcoming event. One blogger mentioned that they had been provided tickets in exchange for promotion while the other did not. Later, both reviewed the event on their respective blogs, and both did so favourably. After reading the second blog (the first one I read made no mention of comped tickets) I felt somewhat deceived by the first blogger. When neither mentioned the comped tickets again when discussing the show, I also felt they were being disingenuous.
As someone who values the community nature of blogging, especially parent blogging, I think it behooves writers to acknowledge the true story behind their relationship with the product, service, or event they are discussing. It allows the reader to take the comments with the appropriate grain of salt. One does not read an online review with the same eye as they read a paid advertisement section in a magazine.
To differentiate, I see no issue with blogs carrying advertising. Banner ads or Google ads or the like are sponsorship for the site as a whole. However, paid endorsement without a disclaimer or otherwise is dishonest, and ultimately will incite mistrust and skepticism amongst one's readers.
Follow-up From Friday
To follow-up with my previous Daditorial, the injured boy died on Friday. Visitation services were held Monday, and a Catholic funeral is being held Tuesday. Peel Police have charged the offender with aggravated assault, and are considering upgrading the charge to manslaughter.
Very well said, SciFi Dad. I think disclosure is the key issue here -- being honest with readers. That's what blogging has always been about.
There was also an interesting article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal about the flood of "blogola" being offered to bloggers. Not sure if you saw it.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117919274561702788.html?mod=blogs
It would be great to see the revenue model for online reviews moving more toward the traditional model: reviewers get paid in cash, not product, and they get compensated fairly for their time.
I think it's great that both Mother Talk and Parent Bloggers Network make it clear that you can't buy good buzz by asking their bloggers to blog about your book/product.
As Parent Bloggers Network puts it: "Reviews may be positive or negative - we’re not “yes-moms” or “yes-dads” - but they will be honest and detailed."
Posted by: Ann D | May 16, 2007 at 03:02 PM