Editorial Product Placement
What if I didn’t tell you that I was being paid for what I wrote? (I am not being paid for what I write.) Would you feel differently about my posting? What if I disclosed that I was being paid for my opinions? Would you feel angry? Annoyed? Betrayed? At the very least I am sure you would discount what I had to say.
Dan Gilmor writes about a LA Times article (you may need to register) reporting on companies like PayPerPost, ReviewMe, Loud Launch and SponsoredReviews.com who pay people to blog (I assume favorably) about products.
It is not totally secretive. On its website, PayPerPost includes: You must be prepared to disclose your relationship with PayPerPost advertisers and advise your readers of any sponsored content via a disclosure policy or on a per post basis.
So what about this editorial product placement? Not a new topic, but it still generates heat. What really bothers us?
We watch movies and don’t feel their integrity is violated by the appearance of actors using Macs or drinking Cokes. We have no problem with celebrities or professionals endorsing products – even though we know they aren’t using the products they endorse. [ADDED: While there is a wall of separation between editorial and advertising,] we read reviews about products in newspapers and magazines knowing that companies who make said products advertise in these publications.
On the record, I don’t support undisclosed shilling. Also on the record, as a PR professional, I do support flacking. But the
blogging for pay really shouldn’t surprise us. Traditional boundaries are collapsing. Advertising, editorial and entertainment are mixed in a giant cauldron called online content.
Products are a lifestyle. Ads are entertainment. We post commercials on YouTube for others to enjoy. Companies are making movies and starting online channels. Bud.TV, created by Budweiser, for example, offers up original programs (with a focus on sports, humor, etc) created by their marketers to reach their targeted demographic. We create and participate in company sponsored online communities to share experiences about products and companies. We let companies sponsor our weddings. We are invited to share our product experiences with friends, families and colleagues as part of buzz marketing campaigns. And in the ultimate crossover, we are making our own commercials for advertisers to sell to us.
All this by the way is widely discussed and even embraced. Most of us gave up that battle over encroaching commercialization sometime ago and have learned to filter out what we need to. And the issue is not about the objectivity of blogging. Blogging is not objective. Blogging is about opinion and emotion. Journalists have labeled bloggers “parasitic.” Bloggers bristle at the journalistic tag. No love lost there.
So where does that leave us? Do we need rules or code of ethics like Word-of-Mouth-Association has proposed?
I believe we are willing to suspend our disbelief and accept this new marketing reality, but we want the option of a disclaimer -- even if we gloss over it or never even read it. The Federal Trade Commission, by the way, has very strict policies for advertisers about disclosure.
In the end, I believe the power of blogging and new media marketing comes down to being genuine. It’s about being honest to yourself and your audience. You know when you are. Being genuine. That is your most powerful currency – spend it unwisely and you lose your most valuable asset – credibility. Being genuine – what a concept. I wonder if companies can market that one.
Let me get back to you.
Technorati Tags: PayPerPost; Dan Gilmor; Blogging; Bud.TV;
I think that bloggers would be wise to make very clear distinctions between what's an ad and what isn't. I agree that blogs are about giving an opinion about an issue, not being objective about that issue, but even opinion is an objective thing.
That is, my opinion either is or isn't X. If I pretend that it's something that it isn't, then I'm misleading people about the objective truth of what my opinion is. In the context of an ad, our culture expects the opinion presented to be paid for. We also don't call it a lie that actors in movies pretend to fly or shoot spider webs.
In the context of a blog, people expect nothing except that at least the opinion is real.
You're right that no one gets mad when celebrities endorse products within the context of an ad. But what if a celebrity spoke out for a presidential candidate, let's say, then turned out to be secretly receiving money to do so. People would be pretty angry. It's all about context. (Comment this)
I guess I was making two points. Lack of disclosure is wrong and sometimes unlawful. People sometimes get into more trouble with the law for lying about a crime than the crime itself.
You make a great point about context. We expect blogs to be truthful and for advertising to stretch the truth. I am just wondering if the overlapping of editorial, entertainment and advertising in the world of new media makes it harder to make a clear distinction and whether people still feel obligated to do so. (Comment this)