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.