Want to Buy my Opinion? Just Try It
PR professionals have a history of attacking sponsored posts as unethical or bad for blogging in general. But where PR pros often go wrong is assuming blogging is, or should be, solely a PR tool. Here’s why PR folks need to step back and reconsider their stance on sponsored blog posts.
There’s nothing wrong with marketing or advertising. Yes, I know, they’re our “evil twins” and whatnot, but in the grand scheme of things, there is absolutely nothing wrong with ethical marketing and advertising practices.
With full disclosure, that’s what many sponsored posts are. Sounds hypocritical given my past stances perhaps, but it’s not. My primary issue with Molson and others over the last year haven’t been that they’ve given free crap to bloggers, but rather that they do it under the guise of good blogger relations, and focus targeting on influence alone rather than legitimate reader interest (those bloggers pretending sponsorship is a matter of good PR are far more unethical and misleading to their readers in my eyes than someone who discloses a sponsored post for precisely what it is).
The Influence Factor
“But paying a blogger to post might influence their opinions,” you might say. In fact, one comment on Brogan’s post specifically equated sponsored posts to “buying opinions.”
First of all that mentality assumes all sponsored posts are opinion-based to begin with. They’re not.
It also assumes all sponsored posts are actually written by the blogger. They’re not.
It also assumes that non-“sponsored” posts are unbiased to begin with. They’re not.
Bloggers are in Business
I am so sick and tired of PR and social media folks acting like tools exist for their purposes and their purposes alone. It’s bad enough that PR folks are habitually late to the game, but once they discover a new tool, it’s like no one exists but them.
Yes, I understand the PR value of blogging. I understand the value of conversations and relationship-building. Blah, blah, blah. We’ve heard it all before.
What I also understand is that there are other motivations behind blogging.
Blogs have always been self-serving. Even using them in a PR capacity is precisely that.
Blogging is a significant part of my own business model. I’ve monetized them in numerous ways (from contextual ads to my own product sales to, yes, sponsored posts). And I can tell you for a fact that sponsorship in no way guarantees positive opinions. In fact, on the site where I offered them (two years or so ago), the bluntly honest content was often cited as the reason for wanting a sponsored review to begin with – people wanted honest opinions on how to improve their sites and products targeting members of my audience.
I’ll give you another example, also from a few years back. I ran a music webzine. We were always inundated with review requests. I hired reviewers to handle those for me.
We did offer sponsored reviews. Payment had zilch to do with the content of the reviews (the reviewers were paid the same whether it came from me or the advertiser)–it was solely for guaranteed space on the site and a quick turnaround (where they could otherwise wait for weeks just to hear back from a reviewer because of the wait list before them).
These sponsored reviews were frequently used by artists and indie labels looking for last minute reviews right before an album launch when they didn’t plan ahead well enough. There were absolutely no differences between “normal” reviews and sponsored ones in the terms of what the writers delivered–ever.
It’s just business. And not everything in business has to do with PR.
As a blogger you answer to your readers. If you’re able to work in sponsorships that don’t deter from their general experience, I’ve found they’re rarely bothered by it (unless they’re taking part in one of these industry-centered debates). In fact, they may very well find them preferable to other monetization streams common in blogging, such as heavy use of contextual or banner ads, depending on the niche you’re blogging in.
If you keep your audience happy, and you’re earning enough to keep you blogging (for those doing it as a business), then you’re doing something right.
What Constitutes “Sponsorship?”
For those so adamant about (again, disclosed) sponsored blog posts being evil, or some such nonsense, I have to wonder what they consider sponsorship (especially given this is the same crowd that backs half-assed “blogger relations” efforts revolving around event invitations and free crap).
Okay. Being paid cash outright for posting is certainly sponsorship. Then I suppose posts with affiliate links would also qualify (I mean, you are potentially getting paid for that post over, and over, and over again, and those links are often placed within reviews where they only earn if you buy).
How about that free stuff? How about those special events? If someone gives you something with the expectation (or even hope) that you’ll post something nice about them (and let’s be honest–no one specifically targets bloggers in the hopes they’ll keep their mouths shut), I don’t think there’s a valid argument that would support freebies not constituting sponsorship. Just look at the whole pseudo blogger relations rush targeting “influencers” instead of audiences. It’s all about wanting something in return (precisely why size matters folks).
Let’s think about two hypothetical blogs. The first is an informational tech blog run by an authority in the niche, and it generally consists of news and advice. The second is solely a commercial blog which revolves around product information (mostly reviews) to help readers make buying decisions. Let’s look at the role sponsored posts might play, and how there’s no one size fits all answer to the question of their ethics. Assume equal influence (read: popularity).
Most of Blogger A’s posts have nothing to do with product reviews. However, once in a while when something new comes out of interest to his readers, he tests it out. Sometimes he buys the products himself, sometimes he tests them out in-store or through publicly-available trials, and sometimes he gets his hands on them through a friend.
Now let’s say Company A is releasing an anticipated gadget of some variety. A company rep is familiar with the blog, knows the readers fit within their target market, and they like the authority style of reviews the blogger writes up. They decide to send him a pre-launch “toy” to see if he’ll review it. He agrees. He writes a balanced review like those his readers are accustomed to, and he discloses how he received the item. No money changed hands, but you would be hard-pressed not to call that a sponsored post. Instead of giving him money, the company simply saved him from potentially spending that money himself later in exchange for that early authority review.
Is there anything wrong with this kind of sponsorship? I don’t think so. It’s disclosed. It’s honest. The readers know the blogger’s style better than anyone else, and they’re big boys and girls–they’re fully capable of deciding if they trust that review in comparison to others and making a decision of whether or not to buy.
I’m referring to this blog as a commercial blog, even though there may not be direct advertisements on the site–being paid in merchandise is still being paid.
This blog posts very little other than product reviews. In fact, they actively solicit freebies from companies interested in reaching their audience through a review. They rarely, if ever, actually purchase review materials just because they think something would be of value to their audience. They’re more likely to accept a more poorly-targeted item for review if it’s given to them for free, regardless of the interest their audience might have in it.
We’ll say this blog was originally designed to specialize in software, hardware, etc.–computer-specific gadgets and tools. Blogger B is contacted by the same company that reached out to Blogger A for a review of their new gadget (let’s call it the next iPhone alternative). They don’t hesitate to accept.
The review does disclose that item was given to them, and they also make an attempt to write a balanced review. However, unlike Blogger A, this blogger doesn’t have any real expertise in this type of gadget (meaning their review would likely carry less weight with the company’s specific target market).
Is there anything wrong with either of these situations? While I personally would never read Blog B, because I would find the constant sponsorship and greater interest in free stuff over readers to be obnoxious, I still don’t see anything inherently wrong with either blog as long as things are disclosed. I mean if the readers are sticking around, they know what they’re getting into, and they have the ability to leave at any time if they feel their trust was betrayed.
Yes, if their style changed for sponsored reviews I would say there’s an ethical dilemma. Yes, if they failed to disclose any kind of sponsorship it would be a problem. In the end, it always comes down to the individual blogger’s ethics. My actual opinions could never be bought–not with cash, not will affiliate earnings, not with free stuff. Can yours?
If you don’t like sponsored blog posts, that’s fine. Don’t host them, and don’t read them. More power to you. That’s between you and your audience and what’s acceptable in your blog’s niche. But don’t make blanket judgments that all of anything is automatically “bad” just because it doesn’t fit within your own goals within your specific profession. Criticize if you have valid points, yes. But try to put them in context. Sponsored posts come in many forms, from completely honest reviews to sponsor-provided advertorials. Don’t judge them all collectively.
As for Brogan, while I don’t personally support content marketing in a network type of environment, I know many others do. So to them, good luck with it. I hope they find a way to keep on benefiting everyone while keeping it honest, and maybe they’ll eliminate some of that sponsorship stigma in time.