Over the past six months Microsoft has been spending huge amounts of money trying to buy new friends while ignoring their old friends.

Personally, I would like to see the line drawn at writers not being actively involved at all with advertisement for a company/product that falls into the area they're publishing about (I really wouldn't care less if you endorsed a brand of whiskey), but I don't have to make money publishing, so that's easy for me to say.

But again, I appreciate your thoughtful stance on the issue, it assures me as a reader you will continue to be open and careful while experimenting.

'...using the term "people ready" in an otherwise from-the-heart text was something I shouldn't have put my name to.'

makes me feel that you too have succumbed to pressure and this is your way of expressing Mea culpa .... But I think you yourself put it better here:

"This is a new form of publishing, which we're making up as we go along."

People are finding these ads wrong because this is the first time we are seeing this kind of advertising. I think the same ads might look completely unobtrusive a decade later!!

I would prefer to think that I have an open mind about these things and that I can admit I'm wrong, if that is the case. Right now I definitely feel like using a corporate catchphrase was lame (at best). That experiment didn't work, lesson learnt.

http://www.microsoft.com/business/peopleready/overview/default.mspx

In an era where some see technology as a force that promises to make people subservient to highly structured or automated processes, Microsoft sees a better way to unlock the potential of every person. Systems can only create efficiency: It is people who create value.

I also appreciate the fact that you're giving this serious thought before taking a position.

I really like your approach to this controversy - a calm, thoughtful appraisal of the situation and possible lessons learnt, this is much better than a shoot-from-the-hip-and-cast-invective method!

Admittedly I'm a media-newbie, I still don't understand the main issue here: your quote was pretty benign. Other than using the "catchphrase", it wasn't much of an endorsement, and certainly wasn't pushing any products. Oh, well - I must live and learn!

This echoes Arrington's initial response and likewise misses the issue. It's not that you're running por-MS content that's piad for it's that you (and others) WROTE the content. While my respect for you has not lessened at all, it opens the question of why you wrote that and allowed it to be used in an ad. Now, here's the thing - I don't see anything wrong with you writing an honest testimonial for someone... but the inclusion of 'people-ready' made it quite obvious that your words (and those of the other bloggers) were artificial to some degree. And we can't easily tell to what degree - did you mean any of it? Or did you sign off on a quote that was written by MS PR? THAT'S the issue, not that we can't tell whether an ad is a paid item or not.

"This is a new form of publishing, which we're making up as we go along."

As Jeff Jarvis has pointed out, simply because blogs are a new media form doesn't mean you have to toss all of the old rules and start from scratch. Some things, like the wall between editorial and sales, are independent of media type. Ethics are not always situational...

Like others above, I think you've dealt with this ina thoughtful and revealing way. Kudos on that.

don't think the problem was that people didn't realize the ad was paid for

As one of the people who engaged you in an email conversation I have to say that you probably took the most measured approach to this situation.

The conclusions you have drawn seem like the correct ones. If you had said something about starting blogging without the whole "people ready" thing, it would have likely been fine. Just an interesting anecdote from a publisher.

Thank you again for taking the time to hear your readers, this entire thing has only made me a stronger fan of R/WW. It's hard to take a controversy and deal with it with class, and I think you've managed to do just that.

Thanks again and happy blogging.

When I see names attached to it, that's an endorsement of whatever is in the ad.

I see a lot of people on your side thinking readers can't be that naive and caveat emptor - all I can offer is that I don't have time to research every single ad you guys run and figure out if it's a catchphrase or an actual product or if you properly disclosed.

The caveat emptor rule I will now use is any of your blogs that are associated with FM, all the content is effectively an ad.

For those who still fail to see the admittedly unintended endorsement, "People Ready" *is* a product, except not a tangible one at first glance. Microsoft owns both the trademarks and the service marks and nobody else can use them without risking being sued. So saying "I became People Ready when..." is like saying "I switched to the iPod when...".

And it has nothing to do with Microsoft. They do good and bad products like everyone else.

You make an excellent point that you are a self-made blogger, and rely heavily on advertising for your income. Well and good, TV anchormen shill for products all the time, and there is nothing inherently wrong with it. UNLESS said anchorman does a story at 6:05 for the product he will shill at the commercial break.

I think the question is whether you really want to be considered a "serious" journalist or not. If not, marketing-related news and PR are entirely honorable professions (and a damn bit more lucrative than journalism, methinks).

If, however you desire to maintain a reputation (and a deserved one, I think) as a fair and impartial tech journalist, then this is a situation that calls for a clear, bright line.

Unfortunately, lioke most things in life, you just can't have it both ways.

--> RM: I can confirm that the words were all mine (apart from the slogan) and I certainly did mean it all. As I said to Dave Winer when he commented on that point in the previous post, I wrote almost exactly the same thing that I tell people who ask me how I got into blogging (and I get asked that all the time).

Steve, thanks for our email conversation - it was very helpful.

Webomatica, I respect your right to disagree (altho I think your conclusion is over the top), but to repeat the point of this post: the lesson I learned was not to use a catchphrase. Which is what you seem to be upset about.

Richard, I'm still working on that whole 'is blogging journalism' issue. For me, it's not so clear cut. You're not either a journalist or a marketer - nothing is ever that black or white in this world. But it is definitely something I haven't totally figured out yet.

I would agree that not all the rules for blogging have been written yet and may not be for several years to come. The one rule though I would maintain as a constant is transparency as far as it can be taken.

It should also be noted that while everybody would love to claim journalism is impartial, we all know we can find the bias in every journalistic media. Bloggers are not just journalists and should be free to express their opinions freely.

True, but reading a blog post about evaluating one's behavior and standing by one's position while thoughtfully accepting criticism--that's definitely worth reading about. Thanks.

As for the line between journalist and marketer--I work in traditional publishing, and think that conversational marketing--a three-way conversation--definitely has value. Surely we can figure out ways to disclose our allegiances--whether ideological or financial--with more subtle tools than Chinese walls and gag orders.