- Share This Post
- Pin It
- 3
-
Sparkle (0)
A report released this week by Forrester defining guidelines for so-called "sponsored conversations" set off a maelstrom of commentary among digerati and social media watchdogs. The title of the report, "Why You Should Pay Bloggers to Talk about Your Brand," didn't increase the comfort level of anyone who has been pondering the merits of such conversations as a means to generate authentic word of mouth. There's an alarming lack of nuance in the industry when it speaks of compensating bloggers, and a tendency to toss even the most thoughtful initiatives into a "pay per post" bucket which often really is "pay per endorsement".
My organization, BlogHer, was one of many sources for the Forrester study that recommended considering compensating bloggers; we need to acknowledge our own role in this debate, one that is increasingly brought up among social media evangelists inside companies and smart marketers weighing the question: Should bloggers ever be compensated, in some form, for coverage? Our answer is yes: Paid reviews by influential people can play the same role in social media as they do in every other medium. The keys to success are context and disclosure.
We don't believe that the discussion is being framed properly for organizations to come to their own best conclusions. It's time to look at the finer distinctions between compensated programs that have emerged as social media enters awkward adolescence. To us, the question is not whether anyone should ever compensate bloggers, it's under what circumstances should you compensate them? And if you do compensate them, what are your obligations, and theirs?
We've noticed that some of the debate around this issue stems from oversimplifying terms. For example, "Sponsored Conversations" has been used to refer to any blogger/influencer coverage that results from any form of compensation: cash, free product, even conference swag. BlogHer also uses the term "sponsored conversations", but wouldn't apply that term as broadly. Forrester includes not only authentic, interactive discussions but also product reviews and even paid linking under the umbrella of "sponsored conversations." This all-inclusive approach triggers wholesale suspicion and rejection, because we all intuitively know some of the examples aren't really "conversations" at all, authentic or otherwise.
BlogHer's opinion: Say what you're doing and where you're doing it via transparent guidelines, disclosures and standards. Sponsored conversations can't be confused with organic conversations that happen to mention a brand, but such campaigns can still be entirely valid, provided it's transparent and relevant. As "traditional media" veterans, my partners and I hold editorial as sacred. According to our community guidelines, we could never place even relevant conversations in our editorial areas if they were initiated by brands. Instead, we developed a section of the site -- BlogHer Special Offers -- devoted to opportunities to discuss and, yes, endorse product. We disclosed how and why we launched Special Offers to our community. Segregating our sponsored content has never hurt our site or our sponsors; the most highly-trafficked areas of our community Website are often our clean, well-lit, sponsored discussion pages.
Reviews, compensated or otherwise, can be done well, but we distinguish reviews as a different animal from sponsored conversations -- we conduct and present sponsored conversations differently. For example, when we held a sponsored conversation for a brand that wanted to be associated with smart, economical grocery spending, we didn't ask our community to join us for a discussion of how the sponsoring brand contributed to smart spending. That would make for a pretty lame conversation of limited value to users, and certainly wouldn't lead to authentic word of mouth. Instead, we hosted a conversation in BlogHer Special Offers about smart spending, no brand discussion required. Comments ensued. As did sponsor happiness. Everyone wins.
Let's apply this logic to one of Forrester's examples of a "sponsored conversation" -- a recent Kmart campaign in which a blogger was offered a $500 gift card to write about his shopping experience with the retailer. In our opinion, the campaign's problem was not that it was a "sponsored conversation" rather than an organically generated event that just happened to tie to a brand experience. Instead, the problem with the campaign was that the sponsored conversation was integrated with the organic (or what we would call "editorial") conversations happening on the chosen blogs. Therefore, it was confusing and out of context with the kind of content usually found on those blogs. If the wrong kind of comments ensue -- those from confused and alienated users -- everyone loses.
So, if sponsored conversations are different from
