(See updates below and Izea response in the comments)
While keeping a cursory eye on my Twitter feed Saturday afternoon I could see a conversation about blogger payment unfolding, involving several people I follow in the US including Ben Kunz, Gennefer Snowfield, Jeremiah Owyang, Damien Basile and Amber Naslund.In a nutshell, a lot of brands now pay bloggers to write favourable posts on their behalf - most at least ask that said bloggers specify they are being sponsored (fake blogging is now actually illegal in the European Union).
Even someone who is pretty small-time in the blogging world such as myself occasionally gets approached - most recently for a pay per click deal to promote an ad viral.
US retail giant Kmart recently got on the bandwagon, paying bloggers in $500 vouchers to check out their stores with reviews. Chris Brogan, who is well known in tech / blogging circles followed suit, which prompted the discussion, essentially about whether blogs for cash devalues the whole sector.
My initial reaction just from glancing at the Twitter discussions, was big deal - it's simply the Internet version of a magazine advertorial: those paid for pages you see that are meant to look like editorials but are sometimes so full stuffed for brand messages to be effective.
I've got more of an issue with what's behind it:
Kmart worked with a company called Izea, which in turn owns a fairly direct and in your face service called Pay Per Post: This features a top bloggers list with people who have made $500 (£370)+, an exhortation to get 'paid for doing what you love', and even a link to the 'PayPerPost University', which 'builds better bloggers'. It reminds me of those 'get rich on the Internet' schemes, which I guess in a sense it is.
(Update - to clarify in response to the comments, I understand that the Kmart activity wasn't part of payperpost but was a bespoke promo done with six bloggers via Izea. However, Izea uses the Kmart activity on its front page to push its whole product line, including payperpost. I still think it's fair to say that it's part of the same 'universe'.)
Editorial and advertisingWhat's wrong with it, and why is it so different from the humble advertorial?
First of all, seeing a glossy advertorial in (say) Conde Naste Traveller is accepted practice. You know that it is what it is, the nice pictures might cause you to give it a read, and it's a way of the magazine to make extra money.
Inserting paid messages into social media editorial however is different. Look at the negative pick-up Magpie (a service that allows advertisers to blast out messages to your Twitter followers) has had.
Some of us sell ad space on our sites, but we also write the editorial material. In magazines and newspapers advertorials are handled by the ad departments, it's not something editorial writers would put their name too. 99% of us however are one man / woman bands who are editor, writer, seller of ads (where appropriate) and publisher all in one go. That dividing line doesn't exist for us.
Which brings us onto the second reason - credibility.
Something that a magazine like Conde Naste Traveller has (yes we could get into the argument of paid junkets etc), but we as a sector arguably struggle with.
Hence we have Wired talking about the end of blogs, corporate blogs earning a 16% trust rating according to Forrester, and even personal blogs not scoring much higher. It's why so many ordinary consumers are in a state of blog denial, claiming not to read them, when really they do.
Blogs are very much alive and well, see the latest Technorati report on the state of the blogosphere. But the sector is still new enough to arouse suspicion among the public at large, many of who swear blind not to read blogs, even if they do.
And so though bloggers are obviously free to do as they please with their spaces, what Ben Kunz of Though Gadgets now fittingly calls 'o-pay-nion' is not going to do us any favours.
It's also a sign of the relative immaturity of social media marketing, that so many brands evidently think it's a good idea. Any brand manager thinking of doing this? It might make that online marketing metrics chart showing that you've hit X number of people via Y number of blogs and ticked the 'buzz' box (except it hasn't)...but in the long term it's a bad, bad idea.
And with consumers being less tolerant to ad clutter online than they are in the offline world, it could harm your brand as well.
Update (14 Dec) - Payperpost
To avoid misunderstandings - I have absolutely no problem with someone (Chris Brogan) who is a highly respected commentator and blogger, working with brands. Chris asks in his blog why shouldn't he test out this kind of work with Kmart, and if that was all that was to it, I'd agree.
The main issue for me is with Izea and Payperpost - which sells itself as a full network to give advertisers (sponsored) blog endorsement. Yes, the Kmart promo was done as a one-off via Izea, but the overall mission of the company is still to deliver blogs to brands, of which Payperpost is part.
Payperpost requires disclosure, but the fact is, it still markets itself as follows:
- "We regularly stage "Postie Patrols," when our team descends on a unsuspecting Postie (paid blogger) to have them compete for cash and prizes."
- "When you see the PayPerPost Direct widget on a blog you would like to sponsor you can quickly create a sponsored post offering within the blog itself. The widget then transmits that offer to the blogger, allowing the blogger to accept, reject or negotiate different terms."
- "Do you have a computer? Do you have a mouse? Do you have a piece of cheesecake? All you need are these three things and a credit card or bank account and you are on your way!"
Posts
16 comments:
Hi Dirk
I'm in agreement with the more explicit position you state in your update.
I have no issue with sponsored posts as a general practice - used occasionally, it could be an effective way of reaching a highly connected audience. But pay-per-post is like a zombie application in facebook - essentially a competition with no meaning (aside from earning a few pennies), no value and no credibility
Cheers
Simon
This is an interesting take. Not sure I agree with the criticism of Kmart or Chris Brogan though.
Chris was honest about the $500 gift card. I think that absolves him of much blame in this regard.
I wish Kmart used social media better-- to connect with its customers, rather than giving notable folks gift cards.
I would have loved to hear what a typical Kmart customer would do with $500 much more.
I wrote about this on my blog: http://www.nooozeguy.com/chris-brogan-kmart-are-w...
Thanks,
Josh
Thank you for the comment Josh, I've just updated my post a little bit to say that I've got no issues with individual bloggers (after all how they run their blogs is up to them), but with the system of making an industry out of having a paid blogger network.
I'm actually surprised a major brand like kmart took part in something like this.
Dirk, as you know, I am a subscriber to News from the Herd. It is consistently a good read. I appreciate your willingness to think about and then write about issues in social media.
The issue under current discussion is rather complex. As you can attest, publishing a blog is time consuming. In a perfect world you might receive financial compensation for that time.
So let me be clear. I am an advocate of monetizing blogs. But I am far and away a fan of doing so indirectly. Chris Brogan is a master at that. However, in his case, I think he also makes a good case for his Kmart gift card experiment. As a consultant he was able to learn first hand whether similar promotions would have value to future clients.
My own thoughts about the issue are informed by my many experiences offline. Here is the story of one of them.
Back when I opened my law practice somewhere in Ohio, I was immediately approached by an advertising sales rep for the local paper who promised me a splashy feature article in exchange for purchasing a package of display ads. Attorney ethical rules in most US states do not permit such things, so I never gave her pitch the slightest consideration. However, it left me with questions that remain today about the true nature and value of editorial content.
Unfortunately, I cynically believe that much of the editorial content in print and possibly online publications is on some level "pay to play" without the benefit of disclosure.
None of what I have written above justifies "pay for post" or recommends it. Instead, the point I would make is that deciding what to read and how much credibility to attach to it will always be the responsibility of the reader.
This is a really interesting discussion, My instinct is to say, if you've got a good product, a good strategy and smart people around you then do you need payment?
But endorsement can be a successful brand communications strategy So are the rules different online vs offline? Bloggers vs say celebrities?
Food for thought
Kate makes an excellent point about possible branding benefits from endorsements.
There could be ancillary benefits to a blogger's credibility as a blogger as well. An example would be the Walmart Moms.
While I am not particularly a fan of Walmart when I learn that a mommy blogger is a Walmart Mom, I immediately think of her as someone whose blog is significant in terms of the size of its audience.
Kate and Kay, I think that's right. If you have a combination of product + strategy / targeting + people to make it happen, then ideally you should be able to get brand advocates on board.
I mean, I guess by default I am endorsing several external companies on this blog simply by using them: Zemanta for my blog posts and intense debate for my comments (though I'm starting to think this is slowing things down a little). Meanwhile the trend hunter (I have a friend who writes for them, and regularly read their stuff) and Kiva slots on the right are not paid for.
So, all of the above, I've incorporated by choice. No one gave me any money to start using / featuring them and there would be no kind of penalty were I to remove them tomorrow.
Well, Dirk, (said laughlingly) clearly you are beyond reproach. As for me, I hope not to be quite so pristine. I have two blogs "under development." When they go live, nothing would please me more than becoming known factually as a blogging whore for both Baby Ruth candy bars and Prada shoes and handbags. I feel rather strongly about this and would be willing to do so even at the expense of your good opinion.
In the meantime, let me state my belief that you are following the best model for monetizing a blog--the indirect method. Through the quality or your thinking and writing you are establishing yourself as a social media thought leader.
This will undoubtedly result in some sort of well-deserved financial benefit.
Oh don't get me wrong Kay, if someone offers me something for free, I won't necessarily turn it down!
But for me to take money for it and guaranteeing exposure would be a different matter altogether.
The reason I didn't go for the pay per click deal I mention in the post (nb, they specified they'd obviously want disclosure), was simply because I didn't think I'd look very credible if I started accepting cash for coverage.
I guess that's something as bloggers we need to look at - does a sponsored post devalue the whole content? I thought yes, but others will have a different view.
Hi Dirk, Kay pointed me your way...
Interesting post - with some very valid points.
One of the things I keep seeing - and I do see it here as well - is the confusion that the K-Mart/Izea promotion is part of the Izea Pay-per-post program. It isn't.
The K-Mart promotion is a separate thing wherein 6 prominent bloggers were asked if they wanted to participate. They were offered compensation - the $500 gift card - and offered a chance to give away the same to one of their readers. This is a contest/giveaway, not a K-Mart review per se. Yes, they did blog their experiences, but there was no 'we'll pay you to endorse K-Mart' to it.
Was Chris's experience positive? For the most part. Did I believe that was really his experience? Yep.
The pay-per-post discussion is a valid one and a timely one. As we move into rougher economic times, I believe we'll see more and more bloggers trying to find ways to monetize.
But the two discussions need to be separated. Because the only relation between the K-mart/Izea/Brogan project and the Izea/pay-per-post/Brogan relationship? Are the names Izea & Brogan. They are actually separate issues. :\
I cannot really comment on Payperpost... I was an early registrant but never followed thru. I don't get the business model...it seems sneaky to me. That said, I do approve of brands connecting with bloggers to write posts - and paying them.
The key is to be honest, to acknowledge you received product or cash, and to present an honest review. If the brand cannot allow that...then, there is a problem.
Smart brands take the good with the bad, knowing the blogger is being professional and not "just saying something nice" because they already deposited the check. Readers need to read the blog regularly to decide what their opinion is.
IF my blog is useful in reaching a particular market, and you want me to write about you...let me know. For instance, I do a lot of book reviews on Lipsticking.com - and I get free books to do so. I tell the PR firms that contact me that my review will be my opinion, good or bad. And it is. Good or bad.
So be it. As this medium grows, as brands decide to test the waters, they may engage bloggers on a regular basis...why not? Bloggers who understand the need for guidelines (is there anything you absolutely do NOT want me to write?) can participate and remain open and honest, or bow out.
For instance, I write a blog for Nestle Purina...about dogs and cats. It's my blog, they sponsor it, and I chatter away. I do send people to the Purina.com site - when I want to. I do support some of their outside activities with links in my sidebar, because I really like what they're doing. They do not ask me to support anything.
However, I did agree not to write about lizards or birds, because Purina doesn't make petfood for lizards or birds.
Since, I've always used Purina petfood - and still do, what's wrong with that? You can say I'm their spokesperson - and they get far more benefit from my chatter than they would get from some movie star. Of course, that's just MHO.
Hello GeekMommy and Yvonne, I really appreciate you reading the post and commenting.
Re the Izea issue, well yes and no.
My understanding is that Chris is part of Izea, Izea owns payperpost, and on the front page of the Izea site, you have mention of the Kmart campaign.
So sure, an A List blogger like Chris isn't going to be treated in the same way as a common garden variety blogger like myself.
But it's all part of the same universe as it were. The Kmart activity is used by Izea to pull other advertisers into the core offering.
I think you bring up a valid point Yvonne, you post exclusively about pets and it's clear who supports your blog. It's kind of a different situation.
As you say, your blog is almost a semi-official one, and as mentioned in an earlier comment I think this is one way bloggers could earn extra money:
Take on the running of the often fairly dull corporate and brand blogs, and do a better job of it.
As I work for IZEA, I clearly have a different take on this and also wanted to point out a few inaccuracies in your post. :)
First, Izea is an umbrella company that houses PayPerPost, CloudShout, IzeaRanks and SocialSpark among several other sites.
The KMart campaign was run through SocialSpark which requires both 100% disclosure & 100% transparency through badges that are published with each Sponsored Post.
In addition, all links through SocialSpark (including those for KMart) are no-follow which has garnered SocialSpark a thumbs up from Matt Cutts of Google.
PayPerPost began in 2006 and was much-maligned for not requiring disclosure which was quickly corrected by CEO Ted Murphy and PPP has required disclosure for ALL posts since 2006.
In fact, our disclosure practices across all of the IZEA sites have earned us a Governing member spot in WOMMA (Word of Mouth Marketing Association).
Second, Chris Brogan does NOT work for IZEA. He is on our Blogger Advisory Council which means that from time to time he graciously allows us to pick his brain on best practices in the industry. As I understand it, there is NO compensation for this aside from a small stake in the company which may or may not be valuable in the future.
This relationship has been publicly disclosed and discussed on the Izea blog as well as on Chris's own site.
That being said, having read the majority of coverage on this, I think the real issue is that people are looking at a whole new game and trying to play by the old rules.
Blogs are NOT print ads and bloggers are NOT journalists. As such, you cannot expect them to behave in the same way.
Also, believing that blogging is sacrosanct and that bloggers should be "pure" of advertorial or advertising content is naive.
Advertisers and marketers reach people by going to where the conversation is taking place. From traveling salesmen to billboards to Google Ads, the basic idea is the same. Advertisers want to be where they can get their product in front of the most people they possibly can.
Increasingly, conversations are taking place online. There are currently more than 1.6 BILLION people on the internet Worldwide. Smart advertisers realize this and even smarter ones recognize that the game is changing from simply telling people about your products to being able to interact and converse with your consumer base to create brand awareness and brand evangelists.
So, while Chris Brogan may not (yet) be KMart evangelist, KMart had the foresight to recognize that in order to become an active part of the conversation and jump right back into being relevant, it needed to be exposed in new ways to a new audience.
The KMart campaign was EXTREMELY successful in that it got people discussing KMart, whether good or bad. It essentially put KMart back on the map.
Of course, this is just the beginning. This campaign has given KMart a leg up, but they have to now take the ball and run with it. They need to capitalize on this buzz and engage with the consumers in this space. At that point, they CAN begin to approach "everyday" bloggers who ARE KMart evangelists.
What the rest of us need to do is to take a deep breath and realize that sponsored content (or paid posts or whatever semantic interpretation makes you comfortable) are not going away and it would behoove us all to create and agree on a code of standards and ethics for this new medium, based on the parameters of the new medium, that we can all follow.
All the Best,
Carri Bright
IZEA Communications
Hi Carri,
Even though we'll have to agree to disagree on a few things, I really appreciate you taking the time to respond.
First of all to cover the easy bit of what you say:
No, I don't believe blogs are sacred, and yes I absolutely accept some people want to make money on them.
Yes I believe brands should engage with blogs and have the opportunity to do so - actually it's part of how I make my living!
I don't think blog advertorials are a good idea, but - and I think I should have articulated this in my post - I generally think advertorials are a bad idea full stop.
This is a consistent point of view I hold across all media, off or online.
The reason is simple, I don't feel they work (there are exceptions) and brand budgets are better spent elsewhere.
However, as I said in the post, if this was all that was at stake, I wouldn't have given it too much thought.
Onto Izea, which as you pointed out is the main topic of my post (in some ways Chris is a secondary issue).
I accept that disclosure is mandatory, and said so. I also accept that you have different product offerings for different target audiences. For A List brands, you obviously want something more bespoke and also smarter.
Finally, I happily stand corrected that Chris isn't a director of the company but a consultant.
However, the fact remains, payperpost is part of your core portfolio of products, which seems to lead towards delivering blogs for brands.
And some of the wording that's used is to be fair, direct and in your face.
All brands in whatever sector highlight certain 'hero' products to get buy-in into their others and it's no different with Izea.
The kmart promo is after all one of the first things you see on your home page...right below a button for payperpost.
So I think it's not credible to claim the two are completely separate, a point that's been made to me via a few other blogs and comments. They are in fact in a continuum.
I know I haven't taken everything you've said on board, but I really do appreciate you stopping by and commenting, and being constructive - especially since I know this whole issue has stoked up a lot of heated debate!
You've obviously built a thriving business, so I guess ultimately plenty of brands / advertisers agree with your approach, but as far as any client I advise - I'd suggest they take a different tack.
I also follow your blog Dirk and think you have some great insights.
You are a treasure trove of obscure information and especially good stats that I use for the day job.
Now that I've said that, allow me to say that this isn't one of your best posts.
Not because I don't agree with you, but because I think this is a rare instance of where you didn't make your point very well. Maybe you've been paying too much attention to your Twitter feed!
Your last comment makes a lot more sense than than the post itself. It's consistent and clear.
I can now see that you don't really care that much about Chris Brogan, but about Izea's business model, which you are strongly against.
Whether you are right or not, I feel that this is a valid argument and point for discussion.
Anyway, keep up the great work. But I don't think this is one of your best.
BTW, the Izea rep who commented is being a little disingenous. Chris Brogan is a consultant to Izea, but I understand from Jeremiah Owyang's blog he also holds equity.
Hi Dirk,
You're right in that we are using the success of the KMart campaign to promote all IZEA services. We'd be terrible at what we do if we didn't!
And I think there are also many ways for all of us in the industry to come to the table and make sure that we're all playing by the same rules.
I am personally excited to be part of the conversation and hope that this "kerfuffle" (don't know who said it, but it's my favorite summation so far) will lead to all of us really getting to the heart of the matter and start developing a universal code of ethics specifically designed for what we do.
So, I hope the dialog remains even after the flap has ended.
Also, @Maggie I apologize for being disingenuous. Although I am not privy to the details, I have also read that the Advisory Board was given stock options for their participation. At the moment, these are not actually worth anything and may never be (although I hope they are, I have them, too!). The only way that they will be worth anything is if IZEA goes through a liquidity event such as going public or being bought out by a larger company, neither of which seems to be happening anytime soon. So, in that way, they're kind of like an affiliate link. We'll only get paid if something converts.
All the Best,
Carri
Post a Comment