The Case for Targeting & Pitching Bloggers

No matter where you fall in the bloggers vs journalists debate, Darren thinks public relations people should avoid snubbing bloggers:

“One big benefit of bloggers is that they have an ability to build real trust with readers. I’m not doubting that this can happen with journalists too but blogs can be very personal and the relationship between blogger and reader can be quite deep.”

I agree with him.

Bloggers can build trust with readers on a deeper level than can be done in some other outlets. It comes down to that interactive conversation we love so much in PR. I’ve witnessed this on one of my other blogs specifically. I saw first-hand how a more personal approach built trust, increased interaction, increased backlinks and referrals, and increased revenue.

Darren’s ProBlogger also exists as a trusted resource for new bloggers.

“I know that after writing daily content for three years that some of my longer term readers feel like they know me. They’ve benefited from my advice for years, they’ve seen me develop and experiment in my field of expertise, they’ve also seen some of the personal things that I talk about from my life… they trust me. As a result when I make a recommendation or suggestion they’re more than likely to act on that. This is a powerful thing and something that companies are obviously interested to tap into.”

And tap into trusted blogs they do. They do so through advertising and pushing affiliate programs on bloggers they know can reach their target market. They’re pitching bloggers in the hopes of getting exposure with their loyal and targeted audience.

Choosing Blogs to Target

If you intend on pitching bloggers your press releases, focus on bloggers that are reaching your target audience effectively. But go beyond that. Target those bloggers with developed trust, as Darren mentioned, with that audience.

Darren and I disagree a bit on targeting bloggers – mostly in how to build the relationships (what’s needed, what’s not, etc.).

At the same time, he makes some excellent recommendations:

“There are a number of things that I’d suggest:

1. Use tools like Technorati or Google’s Blog search to find what blogs are covering the topic you’re interested in. You can set up ‘alerts’ or ‘watch lists’ for certain keywords to be notified what’s going on in an industry. After a while you’ll see the same blogs coming up again and again which is at least an indication that they are ‘on topic’.
2. Track with the blog for a few days or weeks before approaching them. See what and how they cover stories. Watch how many comments they get and what tone the comments are (you can learn a lot about a blogger by what goes on in their comments section). Pay particular attention to the ‘voice’ that they use to write posts (if they’re an angry and controversial blogger they may or may not be the best vehicle to target.
3. Watch what others say about the blog. Use a tool like technorati to watch what other bloggers are linking up and for what reason they’re talking about the blog. You’ll quickly get an idea as to whether the blogger is trusted, influential and a credible source of information.
4. Use tools like Alexa or Compete to get an idea of traffic. They won’t give you actual numbers but when you compare blogs using these tools you get an idea of how they rank in general terms.
5. Test the waters with a few comments of your own on their blog. Don’t pitch them or do a PR spin – but leave a valuable and useful comment and see how it’s received.”

I don’t agree you need test the waters with comments for every blog you may want to target.

Rather, I think the key here is you need to take the time to know what stories a blogger may or may not be interested in. More importantly, you need to let the blogger know why they’ve been targeted. For example, let them know what related pieces you’ve read instead of assuming they’ll know why you’re pitching them.

Darren sums it up nicely:

“My advice to PR people is to travel with a blogger over time, build relationships, resource them, help them improve their blog, only ‘pitch’ relevant stories, tailor those pitches as much as possible to the blogger’s audience and never manipulate bloggers (or be perceived to).”

Pitching Bloggers Your Story

After familiarizing yourself with bloggers who can reach your audience, find a way to pitch them without alienating them. Darren wrote a 21-point series of tips on how to pitch bloggers (covering not only story pitches, but those for link recommendations and exchanges, interview requests, guest posts, and more).

His thoughts on pitching press releases directly interested me (he flat out suggests that you not do it):

“I must have hit ‘delete’ on thousands of press releases over the last few years. While I do occasionally use them – it is generally only when they are right on target for my niche and quite often when I go searching for them. I’d much rather be pitched a story idea that is tailored to my blog. This need not be long or detailed (in fact it’s best if it’s not) but if someone shoots me an email that says ‘here’s a story you might be interested in and here’s why it’s relevant to your blog’s readers’ I’m much more likely to read it. If you do have a press release it might be more effective to not send it – but to give a link to where it is hosted online so that if the blogger wants to refer to it (and link to it) they can.”

On this point, I disagree a little bit.

I think you should absolutely send news releases when pitching bloggers.

My experience specializing in online PR, working as a blogger on quite a few blogs myself, and working in larger networks where I became exposed to hundreds of online writers / bloggers tells me that many bloggers (including respected niche experts with large trusted followings) do in fact want to receive your press releases.

However, I can understand that for a blogger of Darren’s popularity, it might get overwhelming at times. So I don’t blame him for feeling the way he does. I know other “big” bloggers who feel similarly. At the same time though, other large blogs (Mashable comes to mind) actively solicit news release submissions.

I think the thing to focus on is your targeting. While you may not be required to follow specific bloggers for a long time to get a feel for them, you should absolutely check to see if they have specific pitching policies, requests, or even flat-out refusals before sending a release. If they make it clear they don’t want your releases, you’re not helping yourself by sending them.

I think Darren did hit on an important point when he mentioned sending a short pitch email suggesting a story idea and why that idea would be relevant to the blogger’s audience. Where we differ is I look at that brief, more personalized email as an addition to the press release and not a substitute.

I work with a lot of web-based clients targeting bloggers and have for years.

Here’s the course of action I’ve found most effective when pitching bloggers:

1. Target the bloggers.

Create a list of the ones most relevant to your news story (you can use the tools and tips Darren offered).

2. Look for any mention of a pitching policy.

The sidebar or contact page is where you’ll often find it. If the blogger doesn’t accept pitches, scratch them from your list. If they do, see if they mention any preferences for how to receive them (their own online form, via email, etc.). In most cases I end up pitching via email.

3. From that targeted list, search for specific blog posts related to your news story in some way.

Read them thoroughly. Observe the interaction with readers in the comments. Get a good feel for how the individual bloggers cover topics like that you’re planning to pitch. Evaluate their attitude and tone in those posts. If their posts about the subject matter are negative, you’re not doing yourself any favors.

For example, anyone pitching my freelance writing blog should know never to pitch me about a content mill or race-to-the-bottom freelance bidding marketplace. (And if they do, they shouldn’t be surprised if I tear them apart publicly for promoting the exploitation of writers.)

4. Write a short email (similar to what Darren mentioned).

It should be tailored to each blogger individually. You can comment on one of the posts you read while evaluating the blog or something about their approach. Let them know you’re not simply sending a random story idea, but instead you did take the time to research their blog, audience, and interests.

This kind of pitching even works on me personally. I get a lot of pitches for my blogs. If it’s nothing but a release, I trash it. If it’s something tailored to me, I consider it (which just led to me publishing a guest post and agreeing to partner in a contest very recently on another blog of mine).

You don’t have to spend a lot of time stroking the ego of the blogger you’re emailing. Ego-bait is inherently slimy behavior anyway. Just show them you actually know something about them.

5. Paste your press release at the end of the actual email.

It has always proven more effective for me and my clients than linking to the release online as Darren mentioned. At the same time, there’s nothing wrong with including a link additionally (preferably to a version hosted on your site or your client’s site where the blogger can quickly and easily learn more).

This works better for a simple reason… as easy as it is to click a link, it’s still often a struggle to get people to do it. Remember, it’s just as easy for the recipient to click once to close your email. Put the information in front of their face. If they want it, they’ll read it. If they don’t, it’s extremely easy to ignore, and just focus on the personal pitch above – I suggest leaving a bit of space between the two to avoid it looking like one huge continuous email message, and just allude to the press release in the short message.

So tell me… what pitching policies do you follow when targeting bloggers (or are you even targeting bloggers)? Have you experimented? What’s been most effective?  Are there any other specific tools you use to help you identify bloggers that may be worth targeting, following, or building relationships with?

The post Targeting and Pitching Bloggers (With ProBlogger’s Darren Rowse) appeared first on NakedPR.

On the other hand, I despise the prevalence of social media lies.

There’s a certain amount of anonymity involved. That’s always been the case, from the days of old school chat room and message board handles. I feel it’s that sense of anonymity that makes social media spaces such a prime playground for the dishonest among us.

Today I want to share a few of my “favorite” examples of the lies I’ve seen through social media. Then I’d like to hear your thoughts. Does social media make people more likely to lie, or does it just attract those who are already full of shit? And what kinds of lies do you see most often via social media outlets?

Social Media Lies: 5 Examples

I’m not talking about major corporations or politicians here. I want to focus more on everyday folks — my own colleagues in some cases. With that in mind, here are some examples of lies I’ve seen in social media:

Nefarious Post and Comment Deletions

To be clear, I’m not talking about things like deleting spam or abusive blog comments, or even deleting old posts when there’s a valid administrative reason to (outdated content you don’t want to promote to readers anymore or timely announcements that are now irrelevant for example). I’m talking more about post edits and deletions designed to hide past truths.

For example, one freelance colleague I know used to delete old posts sharing an opinion that had since become unpopular. Then, in new posts, they’d claim they never said those things in the first place. This was often a result of them being paid to promote something they used to advocate against.

Others delete things like negative blog comments and then act like everyone agrees with them. Both are a crock. And both are easily caught.

Remember, readers can subscribe to comments or posts including via email (including through third party RSS subscription services, so you can’t prevent this as long as you have feeds). You never know who still has an archive of your old material in their inbox.

Mysterious Changing Stats

Some people are attention-seekers. Others constantly seek validation.

In one case there was a colleague in the latter group. They posted in a comment on a popular blog that they spent X hours per day on something for their own readers. When they didn’t get the oohing and aahing responses rolling in, within days that story changed and they claimed to have invested even more.

On another site where they promoted the content they were seeking validation of, the number magically increased. They were suddenly doing more, and “deserving” of more praise and adoration. I guess they forgot when you post on sites in the same niche chances are good the sites or blogs have shared readers.

I saw similar with another freelance colleague. They were a guest on a popular blog, and in a post there they shared their income numbers (a type of boasting common in the freelance community). They weren’t impressive. And within the next couple of weeks, their story changed. While trying to impress readers on their own blog they touted income stats well into five figures higher than what they’d just disclosed elsewhere.

That’s the kind of thing that happens to liars though; they sometimes forget which lies they’ve told where.

False Identities

As a writer who understands the importance and value of pen names (and as someone who’s been a victim of cyber stalking), I don’t consider handles themselves to be lies, especially when your handle can be tied to your real name in some way or at least you use it consistently as your online identity. There’s a place for privacy, and there’s value in them in the sense of safety.

But one of those freelance colleagues I mentioned above took the issue of pseudonyms a step further.

On another colleague’s blog they were being criticized. So they commented. And that’s fine. They were invited to do just that. But then they went too far. They commented again, this time anonymously. (They were caught because they forgot to change non-public information tied to their comments — such as your email address and IP address.)

The idea is simple. If people aren’t backing up their point, they comment anonymously or under another handle or name to provide false support for their post or previous comments. In other words, they used sock puppet commenter “accounts.”

This is one of the reasons you can’t judge a blogger’s popularity based on the number of comments or interactions they get. Most are easy to fake (and internet marketers in particular have a habit of finding ways to game every system).

That’s dishonesty plain and simple. And finding this out about a colleague is a surefire way to convince me to drop them — from my subscriptions, from my social media follows, and everything else. After all, if they would lie in that way on someone else’s blog (or even your own), who’s to say they don’t do the same thing on their own to make it look like they have more readers, commenters, or supporters?

False Credentials

Lying about credentials isn’t new to social media. People have “embellished” resumes for ages. But social media seems to incentive it.

Just consider the wave of self-proclaimed social media gurus for example. People twist something small (like follow-spamming their way to 10,000 Twitter followers) into an expert status in social media.

Yet another colleague — a PR writer — I know used a large online community (where I was a moderator at the time) to blatantly lie to prospective clients claiming they had a degree when they didn’t. They were called out on it and tried to say they never claimed that in the first place. Funny thing about the web is archives are usually still publicly available somewhere.

After being exposed, this person practically dropped off the face of the earth. And really, is it worth damaging your career for a quick buck? Never.

Another example was downright laughable. Someone publicly advertised in that same community offering press release writing services. They claimed major corporations flew them all over the country to write their releases. You know you can call bullshit right there. But it got better…

Forgetting others in the community could see their public ad (beyond their prospects) this person messaged me privately since they knew I was a PR professional. They admitted they were a kid working out of their parent’s place, and they practically begged me for advice on getting started.

Why people lie like this is beyond me. They will be found out, even if not usually through their own stupidity of admitting it.

Claims of Uber-Success

Sometimes these lies are rolled up into others, like false credentials. It’s a popular one in the freelance game. One time, for example, I came across a writer claiming they earned six figures. No big deal. It’s hardly uncommon. But this person was using that as a way to attract more readers and attention for their blog.

So I looked at their business site because it never hurts to see what other colleagues are doing and I try to keep a wide network with other successful freelancers. Imagine my surprise when I saw their rate list and their claim to fame was $10 articles. That comes to more than 27 articles every single day — no weekends, no holidays, no sick time, nothing. Right.

The thing is, many people don’t check on claims. One of the biggest repeat liars I’ve seen in the blogging community still has a loyal following because people just don’t pay attention (like how some of their “teaching” was plagiarized from old copywriting textbooks). In the end, it frequently does catch up to you.

So what about you? What kinds of social media lies bother you the most? What seem to be most common these days? Do you think one platform supports liars more than others? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

The post Social Media Lies: How Social Media Enables Liars appeared first on NakedPR.

However, a recent AdAge article* on a BlogHer event demonstrated just how bad the situation has gotten. So it’s time to chime in with some reality checks.

To summarize, caring more about swag than your readers is not OK. Dragging companies for not giving you freebies is also not OK. It’s time for mommy bloggers to be a little more aware of this bad behavior in their community. And it’s time for PR pros to stop enabling this nonsense.

Here are some important takeaways from the BlogHer coverage:

1. Mommy bloggers aren’t special.

This cult-like mentality in the mommy blogger community is something to behold. To be fair, it’s not exclusively mommy bloggers. They’re just a group that demonstrates these issues fairly regularly and were a key group at the event in question. And by all means it’s not all mommy bloggers – I know plenty of honest ones who don’t engage in the kind of behavior here.

It’s a subgroup of the whole WAHM group which I’ve taken issue with for years through my freelance writing work. It’s the epitome of mob mentality. And they need to stop isolating themselves, acting like they’re special in the blogging world.

Yes, they may have a natural audience. So do most niche bloggers.

That doesn’t make mommy bloggers special.

It doesn’t mean they deserve special treatment. It doesn’t mean they deserve loads of free shit just because they want it, and (heaven forbid) blogging actually involves some work.

Yet that’s where the entitlement stems from. Some of these bloggers get into this because it’s fun. Then they realize publishing involves… wait for it… real work. So they decide they should be compensated. But they don’t feel like they should have to earn that compensation through well-planned, responsible business practices. They just want companies to “buy” them and their attention.

Frankly most bloggers (including mommy bloggers) do not deserve half of the swag they get as it is. They get it because some PR and marketing folks responsible for securing coverage are too damn lazy to find out exactly what reach those blogs have. Guess what folks – if they did their job and took a hard look at your stats, chances are you’d get a whole lot of nothing. So rather than demand things you haven’t earned, maybe count your blessings.

2. Nobody “hates mommy bloggers for their swag”

What we hate is the fact that not only do they get the swag, but then they proceed to bitch about it.

If you think PR folks (or marketing folks in many of these cases) are evil for doing their job just because you’re too greedy to say “no” when people offer you free things, then learn to say “no” instead of biting the hand that feeds you (or more accurately buries you in your precious swag).

BlogHer wasn’t the issue alone. The PR Blackout wasn’t the issue alone. It was the hypocritical combination of moving from “PR people suck for giving us free shit” to “Gimme, gimme, gimme!” in record time.

Again, not all mommy bloggers fall into that group.

But I found myself wondering at the time how many of those swag-in-arm mommy bloggers at BlogHer previously decided to spit in the face of the people (and companies) offering them those goodies.

That’s the difference between mommy bloggers and so many others. It’s bloggers behaving badly, and doing it as a group. I can’t recall the last time I saw people up in arms about other blogger groups who get equally valuable review material. Why? Because they don’t act like self-important snobs who demand more, more, more — at least not on such a grande scale.

They don’t tell PR and marketing people to shove off because they can’t juggle their own responsibilities, and then run back when they want free crap again. They also don’t pretend to have an incredible reach for products they simply want as opposed to those best targeted to their readers.

Do moms care about cars? I’m sure they do. But that doesn’t mean a mommy blogger deserves one (even for a while). There are better targeted publications and sites, and ones with bigger audiences who reach the same kinds of buyers.

3. It doesn’t matter what print magazines do.

The argument that this behavior from mommy bloggers (demanding free things and complaining loudly when companies don’t cave) is okay because women’s magazines get swag is as absurd as saying they deserve it because blogging is such hard work.

Bullshit.

First, if blogging is such hard work (it is) that you can’t do it without feeling compensated, then do as every other online business owner has to do and learn how to properly monetize your damn blogs. If you’re too lazy to learn the business side of the game, you don’t get to use the compensation / hard work argument.

That’s the equivalent of lazy writers complaining to me constantly (because I guide new freelancers elsewhere) that they can’t earn more than $5 per article. No, they’re just too lazy to learn how to move beyond that. All the information is out there for them to improve their careers, and all the information is out there for mommy bloggers to learn how to (ethically and effectively) monetize their own blogs. Swag isn’t meant to be compensation for the oh-so-exhausting work of blogging.

Back to magazines…

When you’re one of the few mommy bloggers who have a comparable audience (and well-targeted), then you can make the argument that you deserve equal treatment. Maybe. IF the company’s target audience is the type who reads blogs. Hint: your blog doesn’t fit into the marketing mix of every company that happens to target women.

At the same time, why should mommy bloggers (who specialize in writing for moms, not women in general) equate themselves to women’s publications? They’re not the same thing.

They’re focused on a narrower niche within the female audience, and not all companies are specifically targeting moms – more general publications make more sense for them. It would be like me saying I should get all the same crap BusinessWeek journalists get just because I run a PR blog. PR is a narrower niche. BusinessWeek reaches a much bigger, broader audience. Of course they’re going to be treated differently.

Promotional budgets aren’t endless.

Companies can’t afford to send samples out to every Jane Doe who happens to yap to other mothers on the web. Get over it.

I don’t hate mommy bloggers. I really don’t. Some of my favorite people are moms. Some of my favorite people are bloggers. And some of them are both. But there’s no excuse for the kind of behavior some have demonstrated recently. It’s as if they had no idea people would be watching. And if you don’t realize that, it’s time to get out of the blogging game.

While the PR blackout was a poorly thought-out plan, it did get one thing right.

How about everyone shutting up about all the crap they get and start getting back to your readers? It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t review products if you want to. But do that. Review them. Don’t post just because you got something. Don’t brag about how important you think you are because people are giving you shit. You’re not.

Instead, go through all the swag and ask yourself “of all this crap I really don’t need, would any of it be truly useful to my audience?” If the answer is yes, then write an honest review for your readers. If not, then scrap it. It’s not a difficult concept.

In the end remember this — you can survive without swag, but you’re nothing without your readers.

* As of 2019, the referenced AdAge article has been removed from their website and is not available via online archives. You can read similar coverage that demonstrates some of the same behavior discussed in this post here.

The post Mommy Bloggers Mayhem – A Few Quick Thoughts appeared first on NakedPR.

Their question would apply to any website or social media profile where you have censorship ability.

Here is their question, paraphrased:

Assuming someone posts a derogatory comment on your company’s page, do you take it down to address it, or do you leave it up with a note that you will contact them if you know how to get in touch?

First, I’m happy to see the question wasn’t a case of simply censoring negative comments. The reader is still willing to address them even if the comments are removed.

But look. There’s no clear cut answer for this one. Here are a few things to consider though when deciding how to deal with negative feedback:

1. Does the person want an actual solution to the problem, or are they complaining just to complain?

My philosophy is this: complain to your heart’s content as long as there’s a real problem, but be prepared to take credit for your comments.

If your commenter isn’t giving you any option to contact them (no phone number, email address, or even a website link), then they don’t want a personal solution that badly.

Does that mean you should delete anything that’s anonymous? I don’t think so (and definitely not when we’re talking about reviews — deleting any honest review makes you inherently dishonest yourself, and that’s not someone worth doing business with).

That said, there are anonymous comments making reasonable complaints that you should address because they likely affect a broader group of customers. And there are anonymous comments that are unnecessarily heated because someone posted while pissed. There’s a difference.

You don’t need to tolerate abuse from customers, and neither to other visitors to your website or profile.

2. Is the language inappropriate for your site?

What’s considered tolerable language for one audience may be completely inappropriate for another. If you don’t want to allow swearing on your incoming comments, that’s fine. But make that clear up front in a comment policy, so there’s no question as to why something may have been removed.

If you don’t have a comment policy in place, you run a bigger risk of your censorship stifling conversations with other customers. They might worry you’ll delete anything you don’t agree with.

If someone posts a negative comment filled with swearing, and if you deem that inappropriate for your site, my personal preference is to keep the comment, remove the problematic bits, and add a note about what you removed with a link to your comment policy.

3. Is it libelous?

There’s no place for libel. Period. And your company doesn’t have to host it or support it just because you don’t want to be known for overly censoring feedback.

4. Is it really a derogatory comment?

I don’t think it’s acceptable for any company to censor comments just because they don’t agree with what was said. I’d be careful about limiting the scope of what the company considers inappropriate. You don’t want to turn away potentially valuable constructive criticism. Look at it this way: it’s free market research.

There are cases where deleting feedback may be the most appropriate course of action, whether you respond to the commenter privately or not. But remember, there are consequences. If you’re too liberal in using your delete button, you could turn potentially mild situations into heated ones. Your site is not the only place people can go to complain about you. Piss them off even more there instead of trying to help, and you risk even worse feedback being published elsewhere (where you have no ability to censor or even directly respond).

One of the greatest things you can do for your company’s reputation, especially online, is to be responsive to legitimate customer feedback. That doesn’t mean you should respond to everything. Just don’t turn a blind eye by censoring everything that’s critical of your company. That would make you an asshole. And people don’t like doing business with assholes.

Plus, that’s a surefire way to get your company some scathing reviews on consumer reporting sites. And they won’t censor unflattering feedback for you. I have a client of my own in that industry, and I can tell you that even if you tried to sue those sites to get negative reviews removed, you will lose. So don’t push customers to that point to begin with.

When you respect and appreciate your customers, they’re much more likely to respect and appreciate you. Focus on being helpful, and don’t get your panties in a twist every time someone criticizes your company. You don’t have to please everybody (let’s face it; some people are just piss-ants and you’ll never please them). But your goal as a business owner should be to please as many of your customers as possible. And a big part of that is listening to them. So let them speak.

Note: This post was originally published in 2009 and has since been updated.

The post Derogatory Customer Feedback Online: Should Your Company Delete It? appeared first on NakedPR.

There’s nothing wrong with marketing or advertising. Yes, I know, they’re our “evil twins” and whatnot. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with ethical marketing and advertising practices.

With full disclosure, that’s what many sponsored blog posts are. Sounds hypocritical given my past stances on companies buying bloggers’ opinions with free swag and invites perhaps, but it’s not.

My primary issue with Molson and others over the last year hasn’t been that they’ve given free crap to bloggers. Rather, it’s that they do it under the guise of good blogger relations. They focus targeting on general, broad-spectrum influence alone rather than legitimate reader interest. And those bloggers defending that behavior as just good blogger relations are lacking in ethics far more than ones who openly disclose sponsored relationships.

The Influence Factor of Sponsored Blog Posts

“But paying a blogger to post might influence their opinions,” you might say. One comment on Brogan’s post even outright equated sponsored posts to “buying opinions.”

What bullshit.

First of all that mentality assumes all sponsored blog 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 sick and tired of PR and social media folks acting like tools exist for their purposes and their purposes alone. It’s bad enough 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. I teach my clients these things on a regular basis.

What I also understand is 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 blog posts).I can tell you with certainty sponsorship in no way guarantees positive opinions.

On the site where I offered them (a former small business blog), 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. And by allowing me to critique them publicly, they saved quite a bit compared to hiring me to privately consult and offer that feedback.

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. Reviewers were paid the same, by me, whether a post was paid for by an artist or label or no one at all. In that case, the fee was solely for guaranteed space on the site and a quick turnaround. The demand was so high, they could otherwise wait weeks just to hear back about whether or not they’d be assigned to a reviewer.

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 / paid 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. For example, a sponsored blog post relevant to the site can be better than heavy use of contextual or banner ads.

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 “Sponsored Blog Posts?”

For those so adamant about (again, disclosed) sponsored blog posts being evil, or some such nonsense, I have to wonder what they consider sponsorship. (That’s especially given this is the same crowd that backs half-assed “blogger relations” efforts revolving around event invitations and free swag for coverage).

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). There’s no real difference there in the motivation to post positive feedback for the sake of payment.

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.

Sponsored Blog Posts: Some Scenerios

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 popularity / readership.

Sponsored Blog Posts on an Authority Blog

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 when making a decision of whether or not to buy.

Sponsored Blog Posts on a Commercial Blog

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 examples?

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 approach to reviewing changed for sponsored reviews vs non-sponsored ones, 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 (where middlemen companies facilitate paid posts), 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.

The post The Stigma of Sponsored Blog Posts (& Why PR Pros Need to Step Back) appeared first on NakedPR.

I avoided getting into it here for a while, but the discussions around the community continue — the same few people saying the same few things.

This topic came up again when Eden Spodek commented on Mack Collier’s post “Are Companies Targeting the Wrong ‘Influencers’ with Social Media?“

To say I cringed would be an understatement. I left a few thoughts there. I planned to follow up with more in response to a comment from Brandon Carlos, but the comment ended up practically being a post in itself. So rather than hijack Mack’s post over this particular case, I’m posting those thoughts here in the hopes they’ll sink in with at least one sane person out there in social media land.

Before this, I suggest reading Mack’s post. It’s a great discussion on how much influence those “influencers” actually possess, especially when a company doesn’t bother researching exactly who they exert “influence” over to begin with.

The Original Comment

I think the real problem is companies becoming content with getting bloggers to say “Oh, they’re so nice to invite us,” or “They hosted a super-cool event,” while completely ignoring relevance.

I follow several “influential” social media bloggers for example. When I visit their blogs, I expect to read about social media issues — not beer, not soda, not anything unrelated unless there’s a heck of a good reason.

Telling your readers how Molson decided to give you free beer to pour down your throat isn’t a good reason. Unless perhaps you’re a food & beverage blogger, or you blog in a pop culture kind of niche full of cheap beer drinkers who want to pat you on the back for the great mooch. Even attempting to spin it as “a great example of blogger relations because they ‘bought’ me with free beer” doesn’t cut it. If anything, that’s sad.

Personally, I stopped following a few bloggers who went on about that event, because frankly they showed me they didn’t “get” blogging’s role in social media. That makes them unreliable sources. As a member of the type of audience those bloggers were targeting, I couldn’t respect their opinions on that blog anymore seeing they could be bought. There’s no other way to describe it after reading some of those posts. Even a hint of that can turn off blog readers – the very people those companies are hoping you can influence.

Now as much as I despise the BS surrounding the Brew 2.0 event, I’ll at least give Molson a tiny bit of credit for trying. But they should try harder.

How can companies do better?

1. Focus on better targeting (more quality over quantity).

2. Actually give the bloggers something no one else has – something worth blogging about that their readers would care about – a story to break, etc. (And “they hosted a blogger event” hardly counts when it’s irrelevant to the bulk of their target market / customers.)

3. Get it through your heads that blogger relations isn’t about kissing the ass of bloggers, parties, and events. Far more often a blogger wants advanced info (a big deal for most of them to break even something tiny). Or bloggers might want your direct interaction on their blog. Those in the food & beverage industry or those industries companies like Molson otherwise sponsor would probably love a high-level company rep stopping by and leave a comment. Or offer to do an interview. Or offer to host a special contest or promotion through their blog. Do something of value to them. Build a relationship that amounts to more than manipulation through freebies and schmoozing.

What matters in blogging? The information, not showmanship.

It doesn’t matter how generally “influential” a blogger is. If their audience doesn’t care about your company or product (or wouldn’t want to hear about it in that particular place), that “influential” blogger has very little real influence over their readers when it comes to that particular post.

Did Molson get some blog coverage? Sure. But I didn’t see anything truly substantive (and I saw a lot of it). I saw the same old “ooh, it was so cool they asked me to go… blah, blah, blah.” Not much product info. Not much actual value for each blogger’s readers. Nothing truly new.

If Molson asked people in PR and social media specifically because they wanted them talking about how the event itself operated, that still wouldn’t be good blogger relations. But it would at least be slightly less absurd. When asked publicly however, they made it clear they had no intention to get that kind of coverage, or pitch that kind of angle to bloggers.

“We’re in no way interested in publicizing our social media capabilities, rather we want to ensure that we’re present, and can contribute somehow if possible, when beer or related topics are being discussed online.” – Green Banana

Instead they opted to put on a fake face and say they really expected nothing at all.

I’m sorry, but by telling those bloggers there that you didn’t expect it, you’re bringing it up with the hope of planting that idea in their heads. And if it were really about “being present” as a future resource for beer-related posts and nothing more, they wouldn’t have targeted social media “influencers.” They would have targeted people already talking about beer.

Thoughts?

The post When a Blogger is “Bought” How Much Influence do They Really Have? appeared first on NakedPR.

PRs are still going to pitch their stories. We’re like dogs… if our actions are validated, we’re not going to change them. If we pitch to blogs like yours, and most of the feedback is positive (or the results are positive compared to the time and energy put in at least), we’re not going to change much overall.

Bloggers are still going to bitch and rant publicly if they don’t like what PRs are doing or saying. They’re still adapting to the growing pains of the blogosphere – being treated like journalists in a publishing industry they’ve chosen to become involved with (and that trend is probably going to continue to grow).

I can understand both sides. I play on both teams every day. But the back and forth attacks do nothing but make the people involved look ridiculous (and sometimes pretty hypocritical).

So rather than trying to place blame on one side, let’s instead accept that both sides have their share of f*ck-ups, and let’s see what an ideal world would look like if bloggers and PRs could learn to play nice:

PR Firms / Professionals

• WOULD NOT ever send irrelevant news releases or pitches to bloggers. At least try to be relevant. If you’re not sure if your news is relevant, ask them. If the blogger hops around from topic to topic, forget about them (you should be targeting people with a true niche audience related to your news – a topic-hopper won’t give you that as much as a real niche site / blog will).
• WOULD thoroughly read a blog to get a better feel for what the blogger’s interests are. Or more realistically, you would at least acknowledge that the search function is your friend – look for related products, news, etc. being discussed there. Do they even cover news at all? You should be able to tell that much from a simple search or looking at the blog’s categories or tags.
• WOULD interact with the blogger via blog comments to “test the waters” before considering sending them a pitch.
• WOULD NOT mass-send any pitches for any reason to an email list. It goes without saying that any email list you have should be built on your own, and not paid for. If you’re buying niche email lists, you’re a moron.
• WOULD always tailor pitches to the blogger individually (don’t just say “hey, I thought you’d be interested in….” Tell them why you thought they’d be interested – you saw something similar on their blog for example – they won’t always remember every post they’ve done in the past, and you may not have the same ideas about what’s relevant).
• WOULD NOT dismiss all bloggers just because of a few idiots who feel like bitching about receiving news.
• WOULD take bloggers seriously when they contact them for information, verification of facts, interview requests, review materials, etc. – or at least have some clear policies in place about what you’re willing to give to whom (no excuse not to offer verification, but it’s perfectly understandable if you won’t mail out products for review to a brand new blog with no audience).
• WOULD include an unsubscribe option in email pitches (although this is really more of a “if you mass-send emails” thing – an unsubscribe link doesn’t really work in a personal email, which is what bloggers say they want – choose your battles I guess).

Bloggers

• WOULD make sure their blog was well targeted (you can’t complain about people not knowing what you’re interested in if you’re hopping around from topic to topic – if you cover something even once, it’s a reasonable assumption you might be open to talking about something similar down the road).
• WOULD make sure the blog is fully searchable and categories are easy to find – make it easy for people to find out whether you’re interested in a topic or not.
• WOULD have a pitching policy clearly in place on their blog (this is especially true for blogs with large audiences – when you turn yourself into a niche media outlet, you not only take on increased responsibility to your readers, but you have to expect pitches to come with that). If you don’t want to receive pitches, or only pitches on certain topics, say so clearly and publicly, and make it easy to find. If you do that, you have every right to bitch (loudly) when someone doesn’t bother to read it (although be careful about where people are finding you – if you don’t want pitches, don’t post your address publicly – Gina Trapani recently bashed quite a few firms claiming they directly ignored her requests, and it turned out not to be true as she was in a media database with that address – always know where your contact info is, and if you don’t want it out there, use a friggin’ contact form instead).
• WOULD NOT blacklist all PRs or even full firms over the actions of a few idiots (despite how much you hear about them, you’d be hard-pressed to convince me that most PRs are like that – hell, most of us aren’t pitching you to begin with).
• WOULD NOT bitch about people sending unsolicited contacts and then hypocritically publish a mass email list of the same (is that really even legal?).
• WOULD make use of the filters the email gods have given them instead of feeling a need to create public blacklists.
• WOULD understand that they’re far from the only relevant blogger to a firm’s or client’s audience, and therefore it’s not always possible to spend huge amounts of time on every blog that might be interested in a pitch – especially given that most pitches are time-sensitive.
• WOULD understand that by mass-blacklisting PRs, you won’t get advance news that is relevant, you won’thave any chance to break those stories (plenty of other bloggers will be more than happy to beat you to the punch, build their own rep, and potentially swipe your audience in time), and you won’t likely get cooperation when you want a big interview, review products, event access, etc.
• WOULD report true PR spam to someone higher in a firm, so they could better understand how to train their newer staff to avoid those problems in the future. Is it our job as bloggers to do this? No. But if we’re not doing anything to try to help the problem, we don’t have the right to bitch about it as loudly.

Are all of these things ever going to happen? Hell no. The point is that no matter what side you’re on, if you’re complaining about the other side, you’re quite likely doing at least something to contribute to the problem. Always? No. Some spam is just spam.

PRs don’t want to be looked at as spammers (and most of us aren’t). So we need to better educate other PRs, weed out the bad apples ourselves, and more effectively target bloggers – even if that means targeting fewer bloggers (leaving out those without already-existing significant readerships) because of time constraints in getting to know them.

Bloggers often want to be respected as legitimate sources for news and information in their niche. As bloggers we have to know when to choose our battles, and we have to know which PR folks to befriend (might we be interested in using that connection in the future?). We have to understand that the ability to immediately and publicly bitch when we’re pissed off doesn’t give us the right to do so without first thinking an issue through and figuring out if there’s a better approach that would still fit our needs. I’m all for bloggers having the right to bitch as much as they want… I just think we need to think before we do it, and make sure our post is proactive in trying to start discussions rather than solely reactive because we’re pissed off.

So what do you think? Will we ever play nice? In an absolutely ideal world, what do you think either PRs or bloggers (or both!) need to know or do?

The post If PR Pros and Bloggers Played Nice appeared first on NakedPR.

I wanted dive into these issues. So I discussed that, and more, with popular pro blogger, Darren Rowse.

Aside from his reputation as the six figure blogger behind ProBlogger andDigital Photography School, Darren co-authored the book ProBlogger: Secrets to Blogging Your Way to a Six-Figure Income with Chris Garrett. Much like his advice on ProBlogger.net, the book promises to be nothing of a get-rich-quick guide for bloggers, but instead “a practical guide to creating and marketing a blog.”

Visit the book link above to order your copy, or sign up for the newsletter to preview a free chapter. In all honesty (since we all know I don’t say nice things just to kiss ass around here), I’ve followed both of the authors’ blogs in the past, and the ProBlogger book is one of few books on my must-read list at the moment. (Update: While this was originally written in 2008, this is still a great book for beginner bloggers to have in their arsenals.)

Now, well-deserved plug aside, let’s get down to business:

Should (or Can) Bloggers be Treated as Journalists?

This is a subject I’m a bit torn on. Obviously, being that journalists can choose to get into blogging, bloggers can be journalists without a doubt. It’s the “should” part of the question that I’m less sure about (being a blogger who has covered news issues for some blogs in the past, while at the same time taking the PR perspective).

I look at it this way: For me, as a PR professional, to treat a blogger along the lines of a more traditional journalist, they have to earn that “right” individually. I don’t automatically consider them worth pitches, access to materials, etc. They have to first demonstrate through their blogging that they’re not only able to reach their target audience, but be able to do that in a responsible manner when they’re reporting news and industry issues. I think a lot of bloggers fall short, especially with the latter.

Darren is one of the most popular bloggers out there, yet he doesn’t consider himself a journalist. Instead he sees a distinction, saying “in my mind at least a journalist has some level of training in the reporting of news and current events.” However, he does see a growing overlap between blogging and journalism, saying that they sometimes share aims in their work and that “in effect [bloggers and journalists are] often competing for the same readers.”

That’s a point I have to agree with, and why I don’t shy away completely from building relationships with bloggers (in a PR capacity — note, I am now a full-time writer and professional blogger myself, only occasionally working as a PR consultant for some of my older clients).

They often have a different kind of connection with their readers, and can reach a similar audience in a different way than more traditional journalists can.

I really think you have to make individual judgment calls when deciding how to interact with bloggers, how far you’ll go to get coverage on blogs versus other outlets, etc. How do you feel about it?

Do Bloggers Really Want to be Treated as Journalists?

Here’s where Darren and I disagree a little bit. He doesn’t want the title of “journalist,” and thinks that “many [bloggers] would probably see the title as more of a hindrance, or as old-fashioned.” What I’ve witnessed over the last few years is quite different.

Darren noted that “a year or two ago, the only thing [he] felt [he] was at a disadvantage of was getting press passes at events or conferences.” He went on to explain that he no longer has that problem. I’d imagine not in his case. As I mentioned, he’s one of the more well-known bloggers, whose blog can lead to quite a bit of exposure. Would you refuse press passes or materials that could have you mentioned at ProBlogger? If your business would benefit from reaching his particular audience, I highly doubt that.

I think “smaller” bloggers still see things quite a bit differently. Perhaps they’re not looking for the title, but I do think many want the “perks.” Here’s why:

1. I was previously the Technology Editor for a large content network (you can read a little bit about this here). As such, I had to recruit writers (who also handled blogging). Being treated as a member of the media was a huge selling point in attracting qualified writers, and frankly, it worked. (On top of that, they were never short of excited when they did receive press passes, advanced news, etc.)
2. I published a post about this issue previously, after I came across criticism of PRweb’s editorial policies, saying they should be more casual and relaxed just because it’s what bloggers want – I’d say that shows a certain sense of entitlement on the blogger side. Again, maybe not a longing for the title of journalist, but definitely a longing to be treated similarly (if not better based on their standards of what a news release should be for their needs).
3. I’m a moderator on a popular webmaster forum, frequented by many bloggers. (Update: I quit serving as a moderator there in 2010.) So I posed this question there yesterday. Of the discussion so far, I’m definitely getting the vibe that bloggers want the perks of journalists – from one blogger saying they could have “provided better coverage of [a certain] global event than was being done by most news organizations,” to another blogger being a bit more blunt, saying “Of course [bloggers] should be entitled to all those things….” (“All those things” being news access, event passes, review copies, etc.) Others fell more in line with what I’ve already said – that bloggers can essentially be treated as journalists if they adhere to the same standards.

So I do think a lot of bloggers would happily take the perks of being a journalist. So then the question becomes “would most actually be willing to take on the responsibilities that go along with that?” That I really doubt. But what do you think, either from the perspective of a PR professional, journalist, or blogger yourself?

Are Bloggers a Threat to Traditional Journalists?

Personally, I’d be more worried about journalists having the potential to wipe out smaller bloggers. It’s tough enough to break into blogging if you haven’t already built at least a little bit of a name for yourself.

Sometimes your blog is what makes you known, but I think if we suddenly had a huge surge of professional journalists jumping into blogging, it would be that much more difficult for new bloggers to build an audience — at least those trying to compete over the same subject matter.

Then again, there’s something to be said for being independent and not tied to a corporate media source.

Darren doesn’t see either blogging or journalism as a threat to the other. According to him, “what we’re seeing is a more fuzzy division between the two with more and more journalists also blogging both personally and professionally, and with bloggers crossing over into journalism also.”

He mentions that “we’re also seeing more and more mainstream media outlets attempting to embrace different forms of ‘new media’ including blogging.” He acknowledges that mainstream media overall may still be in a learning phase as far as figuring out how to effectively incorporate blogs into their networks, but that “we’ll see more and more blurring of the line between the two” as more journalists cross into blogging territory.

Darren doesn’t want to see either group feel threatened by the other, and instead points out that they may be able to not only coexist, but actually help each other – “Those trained in journalism could offer a lot to those of us who come from the blogging side of things. My hope is that the more these two world [sic] ‘collide’ the more we’ll all learn and develop in our mediums.”

I think that’s a great way to look at things in theory. I wonder how true it will prove to be in practice though as we do see these worlds “collide” to a greater extent.

Are bloggers going to start embracing more journalistic practices (more detailed research and fact-checking for example)? Will journalists getting into blogging feel forced to be more lax in these areas when competing with bloggers who can (and do) post news almost immediately in a constant race to break a story (not something unfamiliar to journalists – just perhaps in a faster-paced environment)? (Update: As of 2014, I’m happy to say I’ve seen more of the former, with bloggers embracing longer features, more in-depth research, and improved interview skills.)

How do you see bloggers influencing journalists and journalists influencing bloggers in the future? Do you think the two groups will learn to welcome each other with open arms, or do you think there’s plenty of bickering yet to come? Where do you see that line right now, and how much do you see it blurring, as Darren predicts, within the next few years?

Share your thoughts on this topic in the comments below. And check back on Wednesday for the follow-up post where Darren Rowse and I share some tips on targeting and pitching bloggers with your story ideas.

The post Bloggers vs Journalists: With Pro Blogger, Darren Rowse appeared first on NakedPR.

I want no part of it. I get especially annoyed with the “courting” I see from some of these groups, trying to align themselves with other bloggers that might benefit them in some way – whether it’s because that blogger runs some kind of ranking system, might interview them, is a good blog to get a nice mention on if you become buddies, etc. Quite frankly, it’s conniving, and we’re not all blinded by it. At least a handful of blogs I used to consider decent went off my radar in the last year due to their “recruitment” into these kinds of groups.

How susceptible are you to these blog cliques? If they suddenly start praising you in their little network, will you feel obligated to rush over and thank them or do them “favors?” If another blogger came to you before posting something controversial, and asked if you’d promise to back them up publicly, would you agree to?

Not me. If you think I’m worth covering, cover me. If not, don’t. If you want to rant about me, do it to your heart’s content. You won’t likely get a reaction… at least not on your blog. At this point, I’d tend to respond on my own, where I control my message (I’ve had enough comments edited or deleted elsewhere to know better). Don’t expect thanks. Don’t think it makes us “friends.” Don’t think saying something nice about me means I’m going to plug you, or that it’s going to keep me from ripping into you if you royally screw up. I don’t owe you favors. Why some bloggers feel like they do absolutely baffles me.

Don’t whore yourself out to the PR blog party crowd. Speak for yourself if you want respect. If your words don’t hold their own, you’re better off finding out the hard way than feeling like your opinion matters with the pseudo-support you’ll get from your new pals. And now you know…. people really do notice when you’ve sold out.

The post Why I Won’t Join Your PR Blog Party appeared first on NakedPR.

Let’s back up.

Who Cares?

I suppose the real reason Michael’s post on the top marketing blogs is under a bit of fire right now is the simple fact that every blogger and their brother thinks they’re qualified to name the best this or the best that… and of course top ten lists make them that much more bloggerific.

Not a single blog ranking list has ever been able to stand on its own two feet when coming under criticism. Either they’re subjective (like this list), they’re based on faulty measurements (like anything based on Technorati, Del.icio.us, or any other tool being radically “gamed” by the Web crowd), or they’re trying to measure something basically immeasurable (such as “influence”).

So yes, it’s a bit obnoxious to see it yet again, especially anywhere within the realm of PR, marketing, or advertising (although thankfully it’s not another one-size-fits all ranking of sorts).

Being a reader of Michael’s blog (as I’m also active in business writing aside from my PR work and Web publishing), I wanted to give him a chance to explain his ranking method before the criticism spread.

Basically, this ranking was done in contest form… nominations and then winners were “chosen” by Michael. There are obviously enormous faults with simply calling this a “best” list – older blogs have an edge based on simple name recognition over quality, it can become a popularity contest with little blogger cliques (so prevalent in the PR industry – although whew! they/we weren’t included in this one) simply nominating each other, etc.

The smart thing to do to avoid the criticism would have been to make it clear in the results post that it was subjective; based on reader interaction and opinions about quality on personal evaluation. No problems there as long as you call it what it is.

The original post didn’t make that clear however (and sure, I’m probably oversimplifying). Oops for Michael. Most of us have made boo boos in our blogging, so I’m not going to turn all hater on his ass and go crazy. Hopefully he’ll word it a bit differently in future contests / top rank blog posts.

So anyway…

Because of the whole blog ranking issue, and the fact that some of us simply must call a spade a spade, we questioned the post / rankings letting it basically be known that we (or at least I) didn’t really see any authority status behind them, therefore making the whole shebang a bit misleading to readers.

Bill and I both commented on the methods behind the rankings. Michael responded to both of us. Later on, those comments magically went “POOF!” and we were forever sent to comment limbo. Or were we?

What Was Cut?

I was able to dig up the missing pieces of the “puzzle.”

Here was my original comment:

Michael,

Love the blog and the effort on creating the list. It would be great though if the post mentioned a bit about how these blogs were chosen, as there’s already a bit of rumbling around about how it’s just another subjective list that people are taking as an authority source on blog rankings, albeit a bit misguided.

It’s certainly nice to see some of your favorites (I’m assuming that’s what we have here… if there was another process I’d love it if you clarified it for me a bit).

Here was Michael’s original response to my comment (also deleted after the fact):

Jennifer;

Since you asked:

This list was selected first based on nominations to this blog and our 20,000 reader newsletter. Something like 60 nominations came in.

Blogs needed to be nominated more than one time to qualify.

Then all blogs were critically analyzed for the value of the content and the regularity of their posts.

Hopefully that answers your question.

If a blog was not nominated, it did not make the list.

Mike

And Bill, it appears all was not lost. I’ve managed to find your post and pull it out of the big old blog graveyard – sometimes I totally rock my own socks like that. 😉 Here was Bill’s original comment:

I’ll admit I’m not a regular reader here. I was drawn in by the buzz your list generated. Mission accomplished.

I spent a good bit of energy in my PR career trying to land my clients on lists like this, but I have to say I’m finding the selection criteria a little dubious, and your response to Jennifer a bit lacking. As I understand it, a top marketing blog needs just TWO nominations (from a list of 20,000 readers)? Then they are “critically analyzed.” By whom?

The passive voice is telling here. It’s sounding more and more like someone picked their favs and posted the list. That’s OK, it’ll pull in plenty of links and traffic, and, sadly, that’s the name of the game in Web 2.0. But let’s not make this list into more than it really is.

I’m not a marketing blogger, so there is no envy here, none at all. But you did miss some really good ones!

And Michael’s response to Bill’s comment (as I believe that was axed too?):

Bill;

I think quality of the blogs on this list stand on their own.

This is a contest put on by www.WhitePaperSource.com.

I am the executive editor.

To be “considered” multiple nominations must have come in. If they did not, they were not considered.

Then the nominated blogs went through an analysis on our end for quality and frequency.

If you want to understand better how the process works, see the top 10 blogs for writer’s nominations that are coming in right now by going here:

https://www.writingwhitepapers.com/blog/2007/11/02/top-10-blogs-for-writers-20072008-seeking-your-nomination/

Mike

Damn, email comment subscriptions are nifty little buggers.

Buy Why Michael,Why?

You can see the conversation, what was cut, etc. But wait. Why did Michael risk the wrath of the feistier side of the blogosphere by daring to exercise censorship. Ohh, that’s such a dirty word, isn’t it? Let’s say it again: CENSORSHIP!

Michael did have a reason for cutting these comments:

I did not like the responses I had made to both you and Jenn’s comments. I found myself being defensive.

What was a carefully crafted list of very excellent blogs was being taken off track by a discussion of the selection process.

So I decided to delete the comments (mine and yours) and post a comment yesterday that summarized things. If you go back and look at the 3rd comment posted you will see what I did.

Whether you choose to believe the reason or think it’s appropriate is up to you. For me, being familiar with Mike in the writing community and knowing that the PR industry is a bit hyper-sensitive to this particular subject over measurement issues lately in blogging, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt… this time (and perhaps moreso if he feels inclined to re-include these comments in his original thread).

So is it Really Wrong?

As a writer, I’d love to say that censorship is always wrong. As a blogger / Web publisher, I have to say it’s not though.

As much as some PRs hate the dirty little “M” word, it’s about the marketing. As a blogger, you have to know your target market, give them what they want, build links, build traffic, etc. On top of it you do still have the whole PR side of the equation over managing your image in the blogosphere.

Certain markets will tolerate certain things. As an example of a situation where I don’t have an issue with comment censorship:

On this blog, I recently had quite the potty-mouthed commenter on my post about the royal suckiness of Facebook in a business sense. Due to the general tone of this blog as it is, my readers are (or had better be if they’ve stuck around) more tolerant of such language. Besides, it’s not every day that I’m called a “whiny bitch” on my blog, and I found it amusing. It was an interesting comment in a larger discussion (although more the discussion of how people should actually read a post before judging than the discussion about Facebook itself).

I’ve gotten some equally nasty comments on my freelance writing blog in the past, especially in its past incarnation as SixFigureWriters.com. There were a few cases where I did have to reject comments, because frankly that audience doesn’t have the tolerance that readers of this blog do.

Now, when those situations do happen, I’m not a fan of the idea of ignoring the point the visitor was trying to make, so I may re-word / summarize their point, and then address it in a comment, usually while making it clear that they’ll have to be a bit more appropriate in the future.

I do have one situation where I flat out censor comments… if someone wants to leave a highly critical comment, but they don’t have the virtual balls to include their name, I generally don’t allow them space on my site. I also do make that as clear as possible. There are some exceptions, like if they truly had something intelligent to say, but generally if your name is “anon” expect to be censored.

Now Michael’s censorship really doesn’t fit into the kind of scenario where the target readers couldn’t handle it. It did look like simply removing any criticism… especially when compared to the (gag me) flattery posts of those honored to be on the list. There’s nothing wrong with thanking someone for plugging your blog, but seriously, sometimes there’s just a bit too much ass-kissing or back-and-forth to make it productive discussion. If you’re going to pat your own back publicly, let’s limit it to once per occasion, and just a dainty little thing.

You know what? Yeah, it sucks to see your comment deleted from a blog. I disagree with Michael doing it, and he has the option of re-including them or leaving things as they are.

But do you know what the most beautiful thing about blog censorship like this is? Anyone can call your ass out if you do something stupid on their own blog publicly, very little is ever really “gone” on the Web (so if you censor something big once it’s been up it could very well bite you on the ass anyway), and the whole process is a hell of a lot of fun to watch.

So as the title asks, where do you draw the line?

The post Blog Censorship: Where do You Draw the Line? appeared first on NakedPR.