I agree with you, in fact, I've added a new section to my blog that shows the different kinds of sponsorships that exist with bloggers. I encourage you to see this list and chime in.

http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2009/03/03/running-list-of-sponsored-conversations/

For someone with pretenses to journalistic credibility or who writes from a professional POV (e.g on law as a lawyer), paid posts can destroy credibility, permanently and swiftly.

But that's a small subset of bloggers. Most bloggers do not aspire to be Serious Journalists. Their blogs are not about social media, marketing or whatnot, but about shoes or sports or life in general. And for those bloggers, pay-for-post does nothing to damage a reputation. Their blogs are more like afternoon talk shows. Not the evening news. (Not to imply that one cannot write about shoes in a serious journalistic fashion, just that most participating on here tend to see the world in terms of social media blogs such as this one.)

Had you made that distinction, acknowledging that not all bloggers have the same goal, your argument would have been much stronger.

Forrester is wrong, but not because of a sanctimonious position for purity in the idea space of social media, but because it doesn't make good business sense.

There are much smarter ways to leverage new media than to pay for promotions. Forrester’s research for a profit model for blogging as par per post should embarrass them, because that is not how to leverage social media to build connectivity with client and customer bases.

This is another example of a tactics and tools business approach to social media, this time forwarded by people who claim their ideas are big enough to pay for. If Forrester or any other research organization doesn’t emphasize business strategies that align with business function for social media connectivity, then your business is overpaying for the ‘big’ ideas those researchers are selling.

Make a buck, Spend a buck

As long as it's clearly stated

Who gives a F#CK

I really think we need to move off this topic and on to things that really matter:

Twitter ruining and taking away our audience 140 characters at a Time!

Thats what has my panties in a tither!

ZuD

This argument depends on what kind of blog you write. If you became a thought leader in a specific area, and you wanted to earn advertising revenue from your growing audience, you'd better keep your independence as a 'journalist' and not accept product for endorsements - though it's a fine line between sponsorships, endorsements and advertising, says I. For example, does Stereogum accept band schwag and records and free tickets to shows? Does Gizmodo accept product samples worth thousands of dollar so they can use and review? I'm sure they do. Because by doing so, it adds to their media's quality and value. Staying uninfluenced by that free stuff is up to them.

If you're a blogger that's in it for the fun of it, and you happen to grow an audience or become some kind of taste maker, and your goal is not making money, why shouldn't you accept product to pass on good vibes about a company? I don't write my personal blog or my Twitter for money - I do it for fun. But I have an audience, and out of the blue ad agencies and companies are inviting to pay me to blog about their stuff. I admit I'm on the fence, I haven't yet accepted anything in exchange for a blog post. Not all companies are worthy or worth it, but boy are the deals are getting sweeter and sweeter by the day. And some (smart) companies have sent me schwag after I've already written something nice about their product. I don't send it back.

The bottom line is however fragmented and micro-scale blogger audiences are, they have value. And however you choose to turn that audience value into money is your choice, but slamming anyone for accepting money to write a post is like throwing stones in glass houses.

I think this is a bit like filling the voting box. It just isn't all that ethical. But, I think it does point to people looking for other revenue streams in online content. It also points to the way that to really make any money online is ad sales.

I don't agree with sponsored blogs to sell products. But, there is a place for them in non-profit. To what everyone says above, transparency is key for integrity. I just hope sponsorship doesn't push out real conversation.

Thanks for taking the time, I admire how RWW continues to test out new media, thanks for dialogging with me.

Let's try to think bigger here together:

The title of the report is about "Sponsored Conversations". Brands (Mashery) want access to your audience, your influence, and all the trust that RWW has respectfully earned.

So while I completely agree and understand that RWW did not write the post by Mashery, you did sell your editorial agenda to your audience that expects transparent and authentic content in a RSS feed (editorial stream). Mashery got paid for a blog post, and received "sponsored conversations".

With that said, RWW did it right, it was transparent (clearly disclosed) and authentic (Mashery provided content they believe to be true as Marshall states above), which meets the recommendations we made in the report.

Can we agree that Mashery bought access to your editorial stream and it resulted in a sponsored conversation?

I was reminded by a friend today that 8 years ago, it was taboo that Google would allow sponsored links in the search engine results page.

I agree with Janet Johnson, it's great to have this conversation, it's healthy for the industry.

Not sure I completely agree with Forrester's stance on 'sponsored conversations', but I'm also not sure I get why you are criticizing them. Seems like you are calling for a rock fight while living on different floors in the same glass house.

- Honesty of Relationship: You say who you're speaking for
- Honesty of Opinion: You say what you believe
- Honesty of Identity: You never obscure your identity

Source: WOMMA Ethics Code - 2005

Thanks, Marshall, Jeremiah and Richard for letting us tackle this big subject with you.

Jeremiah, with respect I do think you're trying to change your argument slightly to suit your conclusion. Your new post talks about "bloggers [who] have talked about a brand" - but the Mashery sponsored post is *not* an example of that. It is Mashery talking about their brand, not RWW writers. As I understand it, your definition of "sponsored conversation" is when a blogger is paid by a company to write about them. It may seem like a grey area to you, but for me it is quite clear: RWW was not paid by Mashery to write about them. What we did was give them the chance to write their own post, which we labeled clearly as a 'sponsored post' so readers are 100% sure it is not written by RWW.

Also to reiterate Marshall's point in the comments, our earlier coverage of them was well before the sponsorship. But we do of course from time to time write posts about our sponsors, as it would be very unfair to exclude them for that reason. We always

I took a $500 gift card from JC Penneys for my honest review of a product line for the same reason. I absolutely love and trust reading other blogger's experiences doing the same thing. The fact that it's a free spree is kinda the whole point sometimes. And sometimes BlogHer makes these widgets where you can read about everyone's experience and what they bought, and I click on every link because it's so fun. Further, when I'm going to buy something, I do a blog search to see if anyone's talking about the brand or the products. Second best is comments on a product page, but anything like that, or Twitter, is much faster to jot out and more likely to have planted comments. No, I want to read a blogger who took the time to really check out the goods and write about it. If they got the stuff for free, it really doesn't matter, because it's peeps I know and I trust their opinions and the fun pics that usually go with. They are real people out in the space. And if they flat out lied about a crap product, OMG, any other blogger who bought it would be like, "Hey! This is crap!" lol

Finally, I'd like to point out that the actual readership of any one blog involved in a campaign is not the point. It's more a spiderweb effect, plus the massive value of real words that someone took the time to sit down and write authentically, which come up on Google when you search.

All that said, I still have *way* too many M&Ms Premiums... Thank goodness everyone loves them; I've been bringing them to parties for months now.

I don't question your editorial judgment, I trust you very much, in fact that's why I call you to interview you for my research projects.

I have started however a list of sponsored conversations, leading off with the Mashery example. RWW did a great job following our mandate of disclosure and transparency, I've highlighted this as a great example.

http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2009/03/03/running-list-of-sponsored-conversations/

1) "Bloggers are replacing mainstream media". This is simply not true. Do bloggers have a space within media? Absolutely. But I don't see a future where there is no space for balanced reporting of news. At least not any time soon. Bloggers are not journalists (and nor should they try to be).

2) You say essentially that sponsored post and a shopping spree that results in a sponsored post are two different things. Nope. They're not. One post was written by a sponsor about their product. The other post was written by a blogger about his experience with a product. Doesn't matter who writes it. Money still exchanged hands and a post was still written. At the end of the day the reader doesn't care who wrote it. What they care about (if said advertiser and said blogger have done their jobs) is the product (and the disclosure).

Money makes the world go round. At what point can we as media makers (old and new media) stop feeling like we have a apologize for wanting to make money in our field?

Thought provoking post. Thanks!

I am not a blogger, so it's not really my call, but I do think that there's a lot of excellent content out there (blogs) and that the authors *should* think about alternative revenue streams. If sponsored and paid blogs are the solution - the market will tell...

How about "licensing" blog posts to other sites and distributing them via APIs?

Different blogs will draw a line differently and audience will decide what goes and what not.

The journalism has always struggled to stay independent while taking different kind of pleasures from 'pushers'. I think in most times it fails, but it's not very tragic, since on the whole things get sorted out eventually.

But I do agree strongly on the point that these kind of advertising right now is so cheap for corporations, that it makes sense for them. But it will get more expensive as each blogger realizes his specific worth and a limit to what his audiences can take.

It could also be argued that Chris Brogan actually made way more advertising for himself than for Kmart by taking Kmart's offer. A clever PR trick on his part! :)

bye
Andraz Tori

1) Companies
2) Bloggers
3) Search Engines

Should weigh their evaluations well. Search Engines like Google are very clear on their policy. For them use a nofollow meaning drive the traffic and not the PR. I think that there's more to how your search engine reputation will get affected if you are a blogger indulged into sponsored posts.
For companies, if you are doing it for the purpose of PageRank, then it's as good as doing black hat and Google has clearly mentioned their point of view. If you are doing it for traffic and direct visibility/sales to the readers of that blog, then I think you are fine.
Bloggers, it's your prerogative; after all no one here is going to help you meet your financial needs. Ethically I have never done it and I don't think I will ever do it.

If you write paid articles, tell us they are advertorials... We won't be angry or dissapointed if so.

Be clear on what you are doing.

And if you are good in selling other peoples products, hey, why won't you let them pay for it.

Do agree with the fact that, if you blog, you blog because you want to share something. Just try not to sell us nonsense, we will run away from your blog. Unless you are clear about that.

At 50 cents bloggers are paid as much as a Mechanical Turk by Amazon.

Fans should blog.

If you hire fans to blog, that's weird. Give them access to the people & the product/service that makes them the fan, as a token of appreciation. Not as a $/word or a gift card dangled in front of them as motivation.

And tell your public, in the write-up, what the exchange was.

I got a nice recyclable shopping bag from Michelin, a shopping bag, and it was a worth a lot more to me than any $/word.

Bringing a new "fan" on to write, in exchange for money or goods, or whathaveyou, isn't what readers want to see. They want to hear from the fans before the reward.

Let me clear, that several of us analysts are regular readers and fans of RWW's analytical coverage, in no way was I suggesting the editorial of RWW is impure. Just making a point and reacting to the assertions of this post.

I find the judgemental tone of this post to be ironically amusing, especially given your clarification.

I was one of the Kmart bloggers, and the only way I would be willing to participate was if I could write my sponsored post on the section of my blog network that is established for commercial content. I would not write it on my editorial blog, nor would I ever sell the ability to write on my editorial blog to an advertiser, as you do.

You put the line between editorial and platform. I put the line between users and user experience. Ultimately it's not for you to say where others should draw their 'lines'.

But we can agree that it is good to draw that line no matter what.

The line gets really gray, would you mind entertaining my point? Regarding Mashery and RWW:

1) Yes, I get it, they didn't get access to your voice, but they got access to your platform and your 'editorial stream'.

What's an editorial stream? It's the content that ends up in people's RSS readers that were subscribed to the editorial from RWW.

2) You just wrote the following:

"The only thing this post says is that it would be wrong for us to write editorial content about a company that was paid for by that company."

That's not true. You have ads on your site, such as Mashery, and wrote a glowing post here:

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/mashery_funding.php

It starts off like this "Mashery, possibly the coolest company in Silicon Valley that most people have never heard of"

I don't know if Mashery was an advertiser of RWW when this post was written, but you can't possible say you're not going to write about a company that doesn't pay RWW.

I'm picking at the details here, because the details really matter.

Our report was very clear: Disclosure and Authenticity are key.

I agree with your last point, we're still working out what this looks like in the new media world.

I appreciate you taking the time to discuss it here.

But as Marshall also said at the end, this is an evolving form of media. So we're not for one moment claiming to have this figured out. The only thing this post says is that it would be wrong for us to write editorial content about a company that was paid for by that company.

I consider you a friend, but this time, you've proven our point for us.

While you suggest that sponsored posts aren't right, you point to a paid brand (mashery) writing in your editorial stream, just as other paid bloggers have done.

Our report says that sponsored blogging is ok if it's transparent and authentic.

RWW has sponsored blog posts that are transparent and authentic. (so you say above)

What's the difference? The outcome is the same, Mashery gets access to the editorial influence of this blog, the same as Sears did to other bloggers.

I'm glad we agree.

The problem is that while the mombloggers came to general concensus that transparency was the key, and that getting compensated for their time, effort, and skills in order to write a valid review or to create and host a contest of giveaway was simply as valid as the company paying an ad agency for creating a piece of copy or a webmaster for creating, maintaining, and holding a contest.

So now y'all are just now realizing that the game has changed - what you also need to realize? Is that you can't control the change - you can only control the way you adapt to it.

Paid/Sponsored posting happens. Just like hollywood stars get on TV and hawk hair dye and aftershave and beer. It is how you do it that determines how it is received.

Sure, blogs are generally small, and products of passion. But they do garner loyal audiences based on their subject matter, particularly if outside the realm of technology and politics. For those blogs who represent a 'growing voice' in their niche, whether it be diapers or dandelions, pushing sponsored pages will probably provide significant revenue enhancement to the site at the outset. This, however, should quickly become the same old same old that drove people away from traditional publications. Traffic will simply die, and other bloggers in the same circle will pick up the slack.

It's always going to be the few and far between sites that figure out an alternative revenue model, continue to entertain while everyone else scratches their heads, that will lead in their respective environs.

As for...

How Much Marketing Would a Marketing Blogger Blog About If A Marketing Blogger Could Market Marketing?

I did pull an abdominal muscle reading that. Thanks - I'll send you guys the physician's statement post-care.

Still, that was bound to happen, as the costs of generating marketing blather via the internet are inversely proportional to the number of folks you can pull into your downline. You could have just as easily added 'Social' to the front of each and every instance of 'Marketing' - there are plenty of folks out there charging for Twitter, Facebook, and Friend Connect classes. But as they say, go with the flow.

http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/03/02/jeremiah-owyang-defends-sponsored-conversations/

Everyone I meet in social media tends to be anti-paid blogging and those I poll who don't who consider themselves 'social media' types (read: normal folks) think the idea is cool because they get paid.

Seriously, the gap is huge.

If anything (and I say this having been paid to blog way back in the day), it's more a credibility issue. I'd be more worried being associated with a brand than whether or not I was paid to blog. I'd have turned down K-Mart, the same way I refuse to do any Go Daddy advertising. If Red Bull comes knocking, well that's much, much different.

Social Media works well for small & medium businesses because those people are used to wearing more than one hat and developing enduring relationships. But in large corporates where customer interaction is spread across multiple functions with hundreds of individuals involved how do you scale that to be both achievable, meaningful and productive.

One way that has been discovered is to pay 3rd parties to act on your behalf. Does it work, yes sometimes. But it depends on the relationship the person in question has developed with their own audience.

This is an age-old conversation about selling out which gets brought up ad nauseum in the music industry. Journalists and old media are both a dying breed. As our information moves to the internet and is delivered through social media more and more each day, people are looking to bloggers for clues to how to interact in this sphere. As Jessica said above in #16, "Am I rich from blogging? Heck no." Right now bloggers are the indie musicians of their time but as each day passes there will be more who transition to profitability and a place of high level recognition.

What it comes down to is a sliding scale or a spectrum. Each action and decision made by the blogger is interpreted by the reader to mean something to them personally. Regardless of what the original intent was the meaning always is with the recipient.

People buy things and make money. They understand that you do this as well. As long as they feel that they are not being taken advantage of then it's fine. They know that timely & relevant partnerships that speak to them is not only smart but considerate. If you think that is not true I have news for you- you're being sold AT in every single moment of your life. When someone looks to sync your interests up with theirs it thinks of you first and not them.
This brings us back to my original statement:

Be true to your readers. You are speaking with them not to them.

There are lots of kinds of bloggers out there - even within the mom blogger (which, by the way, doesn't need quotes the same way "tech blogger" doesn't need quotes) community. There are review bloggers and personal bloggers and journalers and people who just want to be funny. And so there are plenty of ways to do a paid review that might be kosher with your readers. If Maggie Mason of Mightygoods.com did amazing design finds at K-Mart for $500 her readers would go nuts.

The real issue is that there aren't too many bloggers savvy enough to think it through and amply pull it off.

Yes, I will be working with Ford and driving a Ford Flex for a year as part of a campaign.

However, I'd like to point out something very important.

I blogged about shopping for a car BEFORE I even knew what the Ford Flex was. A lot of readers along with Ford and GM weighed in on their opinions on what a entrepreneurial mom like me should drive.

After I checked out the Ford Flex and wrote another post about it, that's when Scott Monty reached out and offered me a week long test drive. There were no strings attached. I vlogged and blogged my experience and got lots of feedback.

Following that experience was when I met with the Ford team to discuss getting a car for a year (you can see how all of this unfolded if you search by car at jessicaknows.com).

So, in other words, I swooned over the product myself before it was even offered up.

Listen, I worked in marketing and business development for a long time. I decided to stay home with my son but wanted to have the best of both worlds and still do the work I did 9-5 as a consultant from home.

When I work with a company, I don't look at it as being paid for a blog post. I like to share how the product fits into my life not just merely list the product features and the price tag. I enjoy doing that... and being able to do what I love is priceless.

Am I rich from blogging? Heck no.

I make my bread and butter from the businesses I work for...but there are a lot of bloggers who are talented writers and that companies would like to work with.

We keep telling companies how social media is great for conversational marketing. But then we disparage those who are successful at melding the two.

I think Izea and other companies are doing a great job at figuring out the best way to approach marketing in a transparent, authentic, and ethical way. Add creative and thoughtful marketing to the mix, which is what I strive to do and consult companies to do - and I think you have a recipe for success.

In addition, marketers too should be wary of this relationship. Readers will see through a sell-out: marketers beware.

So thoughts are why don't companies consider paying bloggers who have already written a review of their product or services that offers an even analysis with pros and cons along with some suggestions for improvement. Essentially real, usable, feed back.

Paying a blogger in gift cards usually leaves me with the sense that the review or write up is biased in favor of the company and is just a cheap way to get copy written. If bloggers gave honest reviews with a clear analysis without any real promise of making money, may lead to better information.

Companies may also want to sponsor bloggers to attend trade shows and conferences to cover new and interesting information that is then posted on the company web site is another possibility that might be acceptable.

in other words, are you going to talk about the biggest internet company censoring the most important issue of our time?

clearly, the answer is no.

so do you think you are in a good position to talk about blogger integrity?

you're probably a cool dude, definitely very intelligent and offer excellent internet analysis. but until you are ready to take being a journalist seriously, your comments on journalism cannot be taken seriously.

9/11 was an inside job,
kid mercury

The unfortunate thing is that it seems readers don't care - if they like a blog or person, it seems that they will allow the person or blog to get away with anything - that includes paid shilling.

The defining factors appear to be the quality of the sponsor, the quality of the blogger and the longevity of the advertiser-blogger relationship. I have not read Forrester's report, but I know that their clients tend to be well-regarded companies that can afford to maintain sponsor relationships with highly admired bloggers over extended periods.

So, I really don't mind the advertising but the content needs to be good, otherwise it brings the entire site down. Everyone deserves to get paid =]

This is exactly what the large and well established analyst houses do; they write for pay. With the sole exception of in-house sponsored, quantitative research on trends and the accompanying surveys (very expensive to compile), all of the paid, retained research by these whore shops is 100% worthless, even to read on the toilet.

I wills say, however, that some of the longer-lived analysts have cultured some enduing relationships and have, as purely a byproduct, formed some insight into the industry sectors that they cover.

Overall, though, very bad and historically detrimental to the industries that they cover. Magic quadrants my hairy Jewish ass.

I am shocked..shocked that Forrester would take such a position. As one of the IT industry's most highly paid whore shops, they should have more cleverly hidden their agenda.

Gartner, Forrester, etc. They all write what their clients pay the to write, or take self serving positions on just about anything. How do I know this? I have interviewed and eventually refused to work for just about all of them.

Self respect as an analyst may have cost me a few hundred grand over the years, and lately some near starvation, but I can walk into any client that I get on my own, and look them straight in the eyes and offer my candid opinions on the state of the industry or product positioning.

Some, nay, most of the Gartner, Forrester et al analysts have been lying so long, that they have all developed a permanent squint.

Yes, bloggers are different from the mainstream media, but it seems like the journalist principles remain the same for both mediums. As a reader, I would stop reading a publication if could no longer tell when a writer was discussing something they cared about and something they were paid to give a positive review to.

Jeff, to your point, I think there is a big difference between a non-media company hiring someone to help them share their story or shape a blog post than a news outlet writing about a company just because they were paid to do so. Just my two cents.

I love how this discussion has centered around big name bloggers that were getting paid $500 in gift cards. Their case and other cases like that are really small.

The real discussion is the numerous people getting paid $15 from Izea to write about a product they really have never used. A mommy blogger army of shills. It just all seems so dirty to me.

While it might be verboten to some to pay a blogger with her own site to blather on about your product. What about bringing that blogger's words to your venue?

Is it OK to pay writers to create communications for your company for exhibit on your blog?

What about twitter missives? What if your staff is so overextended or so poor at interacting via the written word that a professional is needed?

Where does it end?

Ghost blogging has been mentioned as a 'bad' move for both writers and the 'transparent' CEO. But if I - a professional writer - get a byline for a piece I write on THEIR blog, why shouldn't Ford, Obama, Wholefoods and others pay me for that service.

If I added a plugin or some code to the site you'd never know my name yet you'd still agree that I should get paid for my service to the company.

Where does it end? Where does it split?