People Ready
I'm bemused by the latest blogging 'controversy' to dominate Techmeme. Normally I don't blog about these things, but this one has me as a central character - although I wasn't mentioned in the Valleywag piece that started it all. The Silicon Valley gossip blog has a headline reading 'Microsoft pays star writers to recite slogan', referring to this FM campaign.
Pic: Dave Winer
I had noticed the Valleywag piece when it first sneaked onto Techmeme, as one of the links near the bottom of the page. At that time I shrugged it off, thinking it was a bit of a non-issue - a) because these ads have been running for months (so what's new?); b) because FM's 'star writers' were not paid to endorse Microsoft products, just to write something with the phrase "people ready" in it. So I went about my Saturday business, then went out for dinner and watched Ocean's 13. When I got back, I discovered an even more theatric drama was being played out on Techmeme and in my inbox amongst the FM team and authors.
Om Malik seems to have taken this to heart and requested the ads be pulled, but Mike Arrington (who along with John Battelle has been a regular target of Valleywag) gives a scathing response. As for me - not a Valley insider worthy of gossip, but nevertheless one of the 'star writers' in question - I think it's a storm in a teacup. And I'm disappointed the ads have been pulled!
Anyway, judge for yourself. Here is my 'People Ready' text. What do you think about all this?
Share6 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2302
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
i think it's much ado about nothing. slow news on friday evenings makes for these kind of things.
here's my take
http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2007/06/why-is-nick-den.html
Fred
Gossip and controversy related to IT blogging is like gossip and controversy related to official synchronized swimming rules. a) boring, b) nobody cares. Plus, in this case, it's unfounded, since an ad is an ad; at first I thought that the quotes were fake or something, but since they aren't, this is a non-issue. It's less interesting than a storm in a teacup - it's tea in a teacup (:
Hmmm...You guys are pimping a product, may be obtuse but just the same.
----------
Reminds me of this little story/joke...
Man goes into a bar and offers a gal a $1,000 bucks to go to bed with him. She accepts. He then withdraws the offer and offers her a measly $100 instead...
She: "What kind of a girl do you think I am?"
He: "I thought we already established that and are now just bickering over price."
----------
At first I thought this was nothing until I read your people ready statement with the sponsored by MS at the top. Clearly using their slogan in the text directly endorses the slogan, and thus the product along with the slogan. And if you are a trusted writer, your influence have been sold to highlight the product. Of course that's ok, when it's clear that it is advertising, but when it is clouded in a 'conversation', then it has the potential to damage the level of trust people have with you.
While my first reaction to all of this was "where's the story, these ads have been out for quite a while", I find your contention that you were "not paid to endorse Microsoft products" ridiculous. Appearing in the ad at all is an endorsement, plain and simple. If you didn't endorse the product, you wouldn't have appeared in the ad. The clear impression that these ads (and all ads) give is that by appearing, you endorse.
I think its funny that Valleywag would question anyone's integrity as they are the equivalent of the National Enquirer in the blogosphere.
As to the post made by Kip. To follow his reasoning, adSense ads placed on your blog are tacit endorsements as well. Where does this self-righteousness end?
Om caved but I'm glad you and Arrington stood by your positions.
Who are kidding who here? Of course it is an endorsement of Microsoft. I have moved the affected bloggers under the "MS-Bloggers" heading in my Reader.
I disagree Randy. Adsense ads are *very* clearly advertisements. Having an opinion leader quoted as supporting something (even tacitly) is obfuscated advertising at best.
Now, I do not care in the least about anyone accepting anything to write anything (I don't use PPP, but I have nothing against it). What I must point out is that this is the cost of having a large following. Less popular bloggers could do this exact same thing and no one would care. As a result of belonging to the "A-list", whether you like it or not, you are held to a higher standard than us plebeians.
This standard also comes with the fame, opportunities and monetary compensation that the "A-list" affords; nevertheless, it's a price you have to pay.
I think Nick was trying to start the "A-list" equivalent of a flame war, but he still raises an interesting question.I have nothing but respect for this blog, but that's one of the things that worry me. If I had not heard about this from Valleywag and I had seen the Ad, I would have given it more weight because your name was attached to it.
Maybe it is a lack of due diligence on my part, but I would not have spent the time to look for the Federated Media connection. I would have just said, "hm...maybe Microsoft has something here". Of course, I would have almost immediately realized the entire campaign is a bit silly, but it would have cost me several seconds of time.
No one is asking for you to retract ads, or to be a poster child for ad-free blogging. I think if there is any source of contention it's with the idea that there was no clear disclosure as far as anyone could see. If there had been, Nick could have been derailed with a quick link to the post where you mention it.
As an opinion leader (whether you accept that title or not) many of your readers expect that of you.
A little food for thought that you may ignore at your leisure.
In my opinion it crossed an important line leading to less credibility and more "insider A list" BS. Maybe not for individual participants but if this was the birth of conversational marketing I suggest ... infanticide.
"What do you think about all this?"
I think it undermines your credibility.
You wanted to get paid and you wrote something that reads like an endorsement which was posted on a web page.
It's like Pay Per Post for A-Listers.
Why does microsoft want to quote A list bloggers? Because readers trust their opinions as more objective, factual, and outside of mainstream media.
This is true of this first campaign, but now that it's been done once, that trust has been broken between the readers and those individuals.
Meanwhile, I have no idea what this people-ready-microsoft thing is supposed to mean. As far as I'm concerned, a lot of ad dollars have been wasted, and I have an even worse opinion of MSFT than I did before. Way to go ad geniuses!
So do all you people who are up in arms about this totally and completely believe that Michael Jordan thinks Nike are the best shoes? Or that Tiger Woods or any other athlete that gets paid to endorse a product actually give a crap about the product? Do all those guys actually eat Wheaties for breakfast?
The mere fact that Nick Denton is the one that spun this out should have screamed non-issue. Do you still pay attention to Michael Jordan's basketball tips? Or Tiger Woods' Golf Tips? Or .... yeah, that's what I thought, they still have all their credibility.
There's nothing new here and the only 'story' is people realizing that experts in technology can do 'endorsements' and get paid - just like athletes.
There is a half dozen trademarks for "People Ready" at uspto.gov and they all belong to Microsoft (duh!). So I find it funny that they did not put the trademark symbol on that People Ready promotion web site (but they still capitalize the expression). I think they took advantage of you, but as you say, it is still merely a tempest in a teapot.
Phil, the difference is that Jordan and Woods are not journalists. And bloggers want to be treated as journalists. So they have to choose. It's a question of ethics.
@#12#14: Phil and Jean-Michael - the real difference to me is that when I see Michael Jordon endorsing Nike, I know it's a TV commercial. It is clear that it is an ad. But in this case, the people ready statements are not clearly ads and seem more like opinions or 'conversations' as some are calling it. This gives it the potential to gain my influence because I trust the opinion of the writer. In Michael Jordon case, at least I *know* that his influence is being used. With this, I don't - that's what make it a bit deceptive.
"And bloggers want to be treated as journalists".
Clearly, not all do. The question of how one wishes to be treated is one of the issues. Frankly, I doubt very much that Paul or Fred do. And clearly, whether the old paradigm of either / or will survive social media is one of the issues at play here.
As a long time reader of your blog I find it very disappointing, for several reasons:
* MS trying to associate itself with the idea "people ready" is naff and dishonest, given their hegemony over workplace tools has had the opposite effect
* If you are so cheap that you would not only take those ads (fair enough I suppose) but write your own little pseudo-endorsement, then it makes me re-evaluate your blog
* Surely you could have seen this coming?
It is not for me or others to judge, and you can do what you like, but you asked for feedback...
I wouldn't have known that they were *paid* ads! If I'd realized that they were, I too would think less of those who were quoted. Now, if they gave quotes b/c they were solicited and not paid, then I wouldn't really see an issue. I would think that MSFT was pretty clever to get quotes from all these top tier voices. But that they were paid, that takes it to a different level. As someone said in another forum, imagine if Walt Mossberg suddenly appeared in an ad by Apple for the iphone? I would question his integrity on any future discussions he had on the iphone.
You see actors get paid for endorsements. You do not see journalists. In fact a start-up I worked with wanted one of the experts in a particular field to be on the advisory board which he (wisely and politely) declined b/c it would affect the impartiality he tried to portray.
In another situation, a tech org once asked David Lazarus, who writes for the SF Chronicle on fraud and often bashes companies like banks and online companies for instances of pushing the envelope on privacy violations and fees, was asked to be on a panel on internet security and declined b/c he didn't want to be associated with the very companies he decided to write about.
Rob, fair point. So what the readership needs is clarity. Maybe Arrington et alii can add a new bullet point to the Disclosures paragraph of his About section. Also, since blogging is fairly recent, it may be a good idea to put a little warning on the home page for the many readers unclear about the differences between blogging and journalism. Something like: This is a blog [click here for more information]. This can go away once blogging and its nature are clearly established in the minds of the general population. Just my 2 cents...
for me, this is advertising, like every known blogger has been doing on the internet. and everyone who see the quotes know they are ads. valleywag's post is ridiculous. and why are you making a fuss about it, TC's, RW/W, and gigaom's readership are way bigger than valleywag's. they are just making some noise.
No big deal for this reader. I read R/WW almost daily, and I know that you mean what you post.
The things that really mine credibility are posts like the one Michael Arrington did for Silverlight.
There, to me, is the line.
So that you don't have to look it up, this is the post I am referring:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/05/01/take-time-to-understand-silverlight-its-important/
Then editorial advertising IS an issue. But if the editor is always honest, no worries.
#14 - As a blogger, *I* don't want to be treated as a journalist. Sure, getting some of the perks of a journalist is/would be great, but there are some KEY differences between bloggers and journalists - the biggest, in my mind, is that journalists generally work for a journalist company. A reporter actually is employed by a magazine/newspaper/station etc and gets paid for researching and putting stories together. Bloggers (with the somewhat exception of being in a blog network) on the other hand have to not only produce copy, they also have to figure out a way to monetize their blogging (if that's what they are trying to do as a living). In this sense, journalists and bloggers are not and perhaps never will be the same. I know that there have been outbursts before by bloggers wanting to be treated as journalists, but when you really get down to it, it's still differenet. Bloggers are Bloggers - they're not going to be 'journalists' they're an entirely new breed of information reporting and there are pros and cons with that - one of which is needing to generate revenue on their own (not saying whether that's a pro or a con at this point). To aspire to be a "journalist" is to aspire to go back at least a decade.
The page of 'ads' in question very clearly says at the top of it that it's "Sponsored by Microsoft" that should be more than enough to let you know it's an ad - someone "sponsored" or "paid" for it.
#16 - Well put.
#19 - I like your idea there - I agree that it would be useful for bloggers to clarify (especially ones that are 'well read') that they are NOT journalists, but they are independent content producers - bloggers. For those who are just getting into reading blogs, it would be helpful to make sure they aren't confused.
#15 - You're speaking specifically about TV ads. What about the clothes athletes wear all the time, the clothes/cars/other products that celebrities wear all the time? A huge amount of what people "in the public eye" wear, do, are accompanied by are 'sponsored'.
Nowhere in the "conversation" did any of those people endorse Microsoft or their products, they talked about when their busines was 'people ready'. What are they supposed to be being deceptive about? Are you saying they're lying about when their business was 'people ready'? What is it that is supposed to be gaining your trust there?
Some well read people got paid to answer a question as part of a marketing campaign, they weren't required to endorse a product or a company. WTF is the issue? This kind of thing happens in the 'real world' ALL THE TIME!
@#23
You state: "Bloggers (with the somewhat exception of being in a blog network) on the other hand have to not only produce copy, they also have to figure out a way to monetize their blogging (if that's what they are trying to do as a living). In this sense, journalists and bloggers are not and perhaps never will be the same."
Ever heard of free-lance journalists? They have to produce copy and find a way to market/monetize it. Bloggers are actually a lot like free-lancers.
You go on to state: "Nowhere in the 'conversation' did any of those people endorse Microsoft or their products, they talked about when their business was 'people ready'."
They repeated MS's trademarked marketing phrase like good corporate shills. They didn't get paid to answer a question as you state. They got paid to write content that incorporated a trademarked phrase that MS is trying to own. Yes, they did endorse Microsoft and yes, they did it b/c they got paid to do it.
They made a statement that they would not otherwise make because the price was right.
That's WTF the issue is all about.
I think the whole spectacle shows why at least for the time being bloggers cannot be seen as impartial news sources. This is of course fine for many people, as you can still read the blogs in question and glean worthwhile information from them.
That said, the People Ready fiasco is bigger than the Acer-Microsoft laptops one. It's a timely reminder that commercial bloggers are writers and ad sales staff combined. There are no Chinese Walls between editorial and advertorial for commercial bloggers, clearly, "conversational advertising" obfuscation notwithstanding.
As for credibility damage control, Om Malik's reaction is the right one. Arrington saying "fuck off, it's just advertising and Valleywag sucks anyway" is missing the point by miles through sheer arrogance.
No one is forced to say anything there, advertiser set the origin but the vector belongs to you, you know where to pull it. The purpose is to push people to think.
In the new age of advertising, adv gets more interactive, provocative and contextual. Would they prefer static brand awareness ads to this? Sad to see that Om Malik gave up so quickly.
@23 Phil - these guys though make their living from opinion driven blogging, which to me is much like editorials of a paper, which are held to some standard. When bloggers reach a certain level of importance I feel they have an obligation to maintain some impartiality b/c they affect peoples' livelihoods, and companies. It's almost as if you're saying that if I had enough money, I can, and should have no qualms about getting bloggers to inherently, even tacitly, endorse (if not my product then at least) my company? Because that's what I'm reading.
Tell me the last time you saw a respected journalist shilling for a product. Not famous people - journalists (TV, newspapers etc).
Bloggers choose which items to produce to copy in order to make themselves money. Fair enough. If they want to get paid for their endeavors and money sways their implicit approval, then they need to disclose. Fully and inherently and I don't think that they should get paid for those types of ads. It hurts their credibilty and makes people think they are partial, bought & paid for.
Nick Denton can be a true arse but at least he's out there shaking a stick at people.
OK, OK.
Lets see what we have here.
MS co-opted Federated Media to spread a meme, namely, "People Powered". Just us sitting around here talking about it proves that the campaign has successful spread the word. Congratulations Microsoft.
Bloggers have furthered MS's particular buzz word by using the tried and true methods that sports stars and celebrities have been using for years.
None of this is the problem. People get paid for advertising all the time, substantially worse shilling is going on all over the place.
The problem is and will always be whether as a journalist (or pseudo-journalist which is what bloggers are, like it or not) you should inform your readers about whether a particular opinion is biased. Anytime money changes hands, bias is introduced.
The test is this, "Would these words have been written if you were not paid to write them?" If the answer is no, just tell your readers and the story ends there. Review Me, Pay Per Post and a host of other services have had to learn that lesson the hard way -- sometimes at the hands of many of the people currently implicated in this mess.
Disclose...disclose...disclose, then do as you will.
P.S. Richard, I love the blog and all the sweat you have put into it. This entire thing will blow over by Monday, that's just how the blogosphere works.
Firstly, thanks all for your comments - whether you agree with me or not, I value your feedback. Now some specific responses...
#4, "or" wrote: "Clearly using their slogan in the text directly endorses the slogan, and thus the product along with the slogan. And if you are a trusted writer, your influence have been sold to highlight the product."
--> RM: sure it endorses the slogan, or more specifically the concepts and ideas behind the slogan. But I dispute that there is any product endorsement - I ask you to point to anything in my text that endorses a product. Furthermore, I am not sure why 'trust' is an issue here, because it is clearly an advertisement. If I had put that text I wrote and made a blog post of it (i.e. put it in the main content), then there'd be a trust issue. But it's an advert, quite clear.
#5 Kip said: "The clear impression that these ads (and all ads) give is that by appearing, you endorse."
--> RM: Of course if I run ads from any company (MS, Apple, Intel, whatever...), clearly I am not against them showing their brand on my site. That's what the publishing business model is all about - creating a business that companies want to pay to advertise on. So where is the controversy there?
#7 Wilhelm wrote: "Who are kidding who here? Of course it is an endorsement of Microsoft. I have moved the affected bloggers under the "MS-Bloggers" heading in my Reader."
--> RM: that's just ridiculous. I also run an advert for Userplane in my sidebar. Does that make me a "Userplane blogger"?
#8 Steve wrote: "Adsense ads are *very* clearly advertisements. Having an opinion leader quoted as supporting something (even tacitly) is obfuscated advertising at best."
--> RM: The MS ad is very clearly an advert too. You write this as if readers have no brains and cannot interpret what they see in advertisements. If what I wrote was in the main content of this blog, you would have a point. But once again (and I feel like I'm repeating myself now), this is a clearly marked advert.
Steve also said: "No one is asking for you to retract ads, or to be a poster child for ad-free blogging. I think if there is any source of contention it's with the idea that there was no clear disclosure as far as anyone could see. If there had been, Nick could have been derailed with a quick link to the post where you mention it.
As an opinion leader (whether you accept that title or not) many of your readers expect that of you."
--> RM: Steve I respect your opinion on this, but I totally disagree that there is a need for "disclosure". It is 100% clearly an advert which I am running on my sidebar.
At this point I'm going to end this extended comment, because I think I have addressed all the main points made by the commenters. The journalism / blogging debate is perhaps one I haven't addressed as such, but all I can say on that is that there is a difference between what Walt Mossberg does for a living and what I do. Blogging is a new form of media and so we're experimenting with new forms of advertising here. I can't imagine Mossberg participating in this campaign, but then I also don't think bloggers are journalists. It's almost apples and oranges to bring Mossberg into this debate.
I would like to end by asking this: would there be such a fuss if the campaign was for Apple, or Google, or any other tech company but Microsoft?
But in the final analysis, I respect everybody's right to have a differing opinion than me on this. However I stand by my decision to participate in the campaign and run the ads. Everyone has their own mind though and can decide for themselves whether they agree with me.
"I would like to end by asking this: would there be such a fuss if the campaign was for Apple, or Google, or any other tech company but Microsoft?"
If you were paid to make a statement that you would not otherwise make? Yes.
PS - Don't take money from companies you cover. J-School 101.
Thanks for the measured response Richard.
Honestly, it could be a Toyota Ad for all I care. Other than the comically absurd things that the company occasionally does, I am ambivalent to Microsoft.
Only two points of friction left for me.
1. Many people would read the quotes in the same way they read a movie review, as the sort of thing that occurred spontaneously and was cherry picked by an advertiser to further their aim. Any detailed analysis would prove that assumption wrong, but that's the point isn't it?
This sort of advertisement is lucrative because it knowingly obfuscates the context under which the quotes were derived. It *works* because it uses the celebrity of the quoted to add credibility to the whole "People Ready" notion. It's good advertising and a respect it as such, but it will definitely raise the ire of people who don't like to be "tricked" (note the quotes)
2. I still don't feel it's the Ad that's the problem. Remove the "feel good" quotation and the debate ends on the spot. Explaining that there was compensation for the quote also ends the debate. 100% disclosure is not necessary, but when something that *may* be viewed as editorial content is at question -- it would go a long way in preventing things like this from happening.
What a tiring meme this has been. Thank you for your response Richard, I appreciate the candor.
If I'm not mistaken, Richard wants us to think that when he says Microsoft is doing something good, it's because he believes it, not because they paid him to say it. He's not Michael Jordan, whose business is basketball (or was), he's a pundit, who sells his knowledge and authority, which (we hope) is not for sale. That he brushes this aside really looks bad. He should take the opinion of his readers more seriously, because without them, he has nothing. Really.
Doc Searls sums it up very well, imho.
http://doc.weblogs.com/2007/06/23#shiftingSands
"The question isn't whether advertisers are paying for text in a box. It's whether they're they're also buying kinder treatment in editorial postings. We need to hear that. Not to be told where to go."
Dave
It smacks of desperation on the part of FM. Got to believe the FM boss pushed this on the authors. Microsoft only comes off looking like the Fortune 100 that they are, FM just looks like needy. I feel sorry for the authors who refused to take a moral stand against the "Federation".
"because FM's 'star writers' were not paid to endorse Microsoft products, just to write something with the phrase "people ready" in it."
That's really weak.
You know "people ready" is Microsoft's catch phrase. You know that they wouldn't have paid you if it wasn't advertising to them. Seriously. You know Microsoft didn't pay you to use that phrase because they'd get nothing out of it.
You advertised for them, got paid for it, and now try a weak justification to weasel out of it? Why not just admit it, claim your only regret is that you didn't disclose it up front, say you won't do it again without disclosure, and then be done with it.
I couldn't care less that you got ad money. More power to you. But I need to know where the blog ends and the ad begins. Without some sort of statement like the above, how are we ever supposed to know if what you write isn't just ad fodder for some other firm?
Bemused?
You should be embarrassed. Really. What does FM stand for, anyway? Funny Money?
Dave nailed it.
hey, how was Ocean's 13?
I am sitting here wondering what I might say to encourage R/WW readers who might be upset or worried about "real" opinion and objectivity. I think time might be the only remedy for trust issues but here is my two cents worth.
Richard kindly allowed me to write a couple of posts for R/WW a few weeks back which I did gladly. Out of course I had come to respect him and this blog as the very best on the web, and being a fledgling blog/beta pilot I thought perhaps I might be able to work here at length. After some gentle hammering by Richard over my tendency for wordiness, he allowed me to write a couple more. So, a kind man with a great blog likes some ability you have and lets you into his artwork.
You might say; "Oh great the hired help is taking up for R/WW", but you would be wrong. Every one of the articles I have written for R/WW came from research or associations I had. I submitted them to Richard and he posted them "as sent" except for my (sometimes prevalent) typos. "As is" every single time, and if they were good stories I know 100 percent that Richard was glad for one reason - because you guys might enjoy them and find something worthwhile.
There is no way to provide "incontrovertible" proof to any reader because no one knows what goes on outside this box, but I can tell you that I write what I think and feel. A good example is the post next door to this one on Wikia. Let me attempt to demonstrate what I mean.
I just dad gum like Jimmy Wales. I have talked with him several times and I have found him to be an honorable and altruistic human being. Every time I write something about his ogranizations or companies I try to let my readers know what kind of person is behind the digital veil. So, Wikia came out with some new stuff, some of it very good and one particular part - not so great. My judgement was somewhat clouded by my affinity for the organization I am sorry.
The point is, Richard only changed one word in that whole post (and I asked him to do that). He never asked me to write about Wikia, Me.dium, Second Brain or any of the others, I offered these stories and he was delighted "for you guys and his blog." I never asked Richard to pay me for any of my stories, as I just wanted to contribute to something excellent. So, I am not obligated to him for anything other than being a damned fine human being.
Is R/WW objective? 90 percent, just like Jimmy Wales or any of the other 90th percentile entities I have come across. The other 10 percent is simply the part of human beings that comes out when they feel or interpret (sometimes incorrectly), and these are called mistakes.
Can you believe me? All I can say is, after testing everything from Poopasnuffas (don't ask) to Joost, Hakia, Powerset and VeohTV (about 250 alphas and betas), so far I have one Me.dium "T" shirt(and it is made of burlap - tell Kimbal I said so) and 5 Me.dium stickers on my PC, fridge and my son's bedroom door.
Richard has asked me to write more (for some scale of pay which he has openly posted)so that you can have a beta hound at your disposal. I am truly thrilled, but as of yet do not have a clue what exactly that pay number is. The overwhelming weight of conversation we have had has been over the quality and value of the content R/WW provides for its readers.
So, all you have to go on is circumstantial evidence. make no mistake about it though please, just because someone has a tag like "journalist" beside their name does not automatically stamp "integrity" into their soul. What can you expect from R/WW? Well, if Richard does not fire me before I am hired officially you can read about what Jimmy Wales is up to or hear what Barney Pell has going with Powerlabs in the next weeks, and do you know what those interviews or articles will say? Unless these people are arrested for some war crime between now and then you will hear how excellent and innovative they are and what "exactly" is in the offing for them.
Everyone has a price, and I wanted you to know that mine is a burlap Me.dium T and 5 stickers to tell you something excellent is excellent. Read these pages and figure out why so many people are here folks, it is because the stories ring true. Richard, don't fire me man or I will have to sell the next scoop to Arrington for a TechCrunch T . :O)
Always, Phil
Ocean's 13 was actually pretty awesome, better than I expected. :-)
Ahem, back to the comments. Dave, you know I respect u a great deal, but I take issue with you saying I am brushing aside my readers. That's exactly why I posted this, to discuss it. In my original post, I underestimated the opinions people have on this (frankly I still don't see what all the fuss is about). But I am certainly willing to engage people in discussion about it, see what comes of that...
Dave, re: "If I'm not mistaken, Richard wants us to think that when he says Microsoft is doing something good, it's because he believes it, not because they paid him to say it."
NO, I *did not* say that Microsoft is doing something good in the text I wrote. I wrote about how I got into blogging. It was a personal text related to the concept of "people ready". I fail to see why people don't understand that. In fact what I wrote is almost the exact same thing I say when people ask me: why did you start blogging? Although in that case, I usually say Scripting News was one of the first blogs I read etc ;-)
Phil, thanks for your comment :-)
Anyway, I will continue to monitor the feedback - especially from regular r/ww readers.
--
It's incredibly early in the morning, so I've reposted my conclusion from CrunchNotes. I think, for the most part, it's as apropos here as it was there. Thanks Richard for keeping this discussion open, that shows some real class and character.
--
I have been as passionate about this issue as anyone, but I think the -entire- point is that advertising is as much for the end user as it is for publishers. People don‚Äôt like the idea of being ‚Äútricked‚Ä?, especially when the credibility of respected authors is the bait used to ‚Äútrick‚Ä? them (note the quotes).
What is worthy of discussion in this instance is what is the best way for bloggers to interact with this ‚Äúnew‚Ä? technique (I say ‚Äúnew‚Ä? with reservations as it‚Äôs a old dog being given new fur). How it can be done without anyone come off as shill. I dare say it is possible.
Pretending that this is *merely* some grand experiment is decent PR and it sates the bleeding edge new media types, but at the end of the day all blogging is about the readership and today has proved the readership is not completely behind this idea (an understatement). Especially when taken in the context of other editorial decisions that have been made on this blog with regards to things like PPP.
Just because you know that come Monday this will all blow over in favor of some tirade on the iPhone doesn’t mean that dangerous ground has not be tread on today.
OK, I promised I‚Äôd sit out this thread and see what the blogosphere made of it and since it is closing in on 5AM I think I have. My thoughts? Well, I believe that blog readers attribute more credibility to their cults of personality than to mainstream media. We almost expect mainstream media to be ‚Äúcorporate shills out to make a buck.‚Ä? Since we feel closer to bloggers due to the format that they have decided to present their opinions, we want them to be better than their mainstream equivalents.
Implicit credibility is why blogging is such a powerful medium, and it‚Äôs why FM pays a premium for words that come directly out of the blogger‚Äôs mouths. If they weren‚Äôt valuable, then there would be no ‚Äúadded value‚Ä? from campaigns like this and no one would care enough to attempt them.
No one cares about the ads. If you removed the quotes and kept the campaign this would have died a still birth. If you had disclosed, ‚Äúthese *quotes* have been sponsored by Microsoft‚Ä? not the ad units, the *quotes* themselves, then this would have ended. If you had though, would the ad have been as effective?
Questions without clear answers I would say, that’s why I think the only kernel of real truth that can be drawn from this is the need to have this conversation. This has been a shot over the bow compared to what would happen if one of these experiments *really* ran afoul of public sentiment. Blogs are their readers as much as their authors, without the trust relationship between them neither can operate.
My conclusion? Continue the conversation, but continue it with some degree of transparency. Don’t let Valleywag have to call you to the carpet next time, given the opportunity Nick is not going to make it easy on you.
The only real winner here has been Microsoft, and I really have to congratulate them on an excellent viral marketing campaign. We‚Äôll all be saying ‚ÄúPeople Powered‚Ä? for some time to come. ha.
Phil, he's not going to fire you. Just don't write that sentimental thing. I didn't know you have it in you. By the way, share some stickers please. :)
One day, some BigCos will ask you to participate in an ad campaign. Whether they pay you or not, it's up to you. It's not my damn business. Only the busy-bodies will do it. Those who have nothing good to say.
Just a word of advice, they're going to dissect you, sling mud at you to fill their time. How boring. *Yawn*
Get on the well-written articles please, R/WW!
My respect to you and michael Arrington:
* There is no issue in this artificially induced storm.
* We are surrounded by advertising. Blaming this particular pattern of advertisng while ignoring others is hypocrisy.
* John Battelle was supposed to stand for his authors instead of engaging in retreat maneuring.
ipanema, I hear you! I am amazed this has gotten as much attention as it has. (but as the Ed, of course I am reading and taking in all the feedback). Anyway, Monday morning it's business as usual here on r/ww.
Here is my point of view, as a simple reader.
I guess your problem, as bloggers, is to educate your readers about what you really are. Some readers claim that it does not matter to them, and that the whole story is overblown, but I would think that a majority of readers do care in the end. You cannot deny that most people think of bloggers as Web journalists and therefore have certain expectations of them. And if you look at the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics, it says: "Avoid conflicts of interest, real or *PERCEIVED*" (emphasis mine). It is not up to you to decide that a reader's perception is wrong.
So, in order to avoid misperception, I think the onus is on you to enlighten the world about the true nature of blogging. It can be whatever you want it to be, since you are the ones freely creating that medium through your hard work, and maybe, in the end, there are as many classes of bloggers as there are bloggers. Yet, I feel that bloggers must clearly articulate what they stand for, individually or as a group, because of the above-mentioned general confusion between journalism and blogging. Will bloggers ultimately realize that they *are* journalists, or will they reveal to be truly a new kind of beast (that possibly existed before in a nontechnological world)? That will be interesting to discover.
As for Valleywag starting all this, you can really take any event and turn it into something positive. As it happens, you are the one who probably had the best response as someone who considers himself a blogger and not a journalist (right?): relax, listen, discuss. I think the whole thing ended up being a cool way to connect bloggers and readers around a debate on the nature of blogging ethics, even if the original intent may have been to piss off certain people (mission accomplished ;-).
"I am amazed this has gotten as much attention as it has."
What would you think if you were talking to someone at a party. At first she was interesting, but then she started to weave Amway into the conversation.
Personally, I wouldn't consider that person worth listening to anymore.
Wow. I'm really confused. I'm trying to understand what the big deal is, but I just don't see it. The blogs I read, to include RW/W, are very objective in content (full of disclosures when necessary) and seeing a quote from Richard in an ad doesn't make me question the quality of the blog that he edits.
I'd say that we'd have to be more cautious of A-list bloggers subtly pimping a friend's start up or new project to help 'em out a bit rather than seeing those same A-listers appear in an advertisement for Microsoft or Google. I'm not seeing any gray colors in the Microsoft advertisement. It's clearly an ad that used quotes from bloggers. So.
I'm bored, and you've hurt my brain. Wake me up when something actually scandalous happens.
All the best
Tom
Om:
"If the readers feel a line was crossed, I’ll will defer to their better judgement."
You should print that line up and hang it in your office.
Don't tell your readers what's ethical and what isn't. Ask them.
"Don't tell your readers what's ethical and what isn't. Ask them."
What do you think this post, and the follow up, is all about!?
Of course I am listening to our readers, but I also have my own opinions on what is right and what is wrong. I don't let others dictate that to me, but definitely I consider what our readers say.