BlogHer - mommybloggers - Comments

The post these comments inspired

Lisa Stone — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:06:04 -0500

After reading this conversation and the one started by HeatherB, I decided to review BlogHer's philosophy here:

The elephant in the room: How BlogHer is cracking the code on editorial content and paid advertising

Thanks everyone!

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

good points Mama Hope

danrua — Fri, 08 May 2009 17:17:31 -0500

Both your examples of affiliate links and disclosure policies raise great points.

I think it would be hard to argue deferred/affiliate compensation models do not hold the same potential conflicts as direct sponsorship. In fact, one could argue affiliate relationships carry more authenticity risk than straight gifts/cash because the blogger must succeed at converting a reader if they hope to be compensated for their time/effort.

As for disclosure policies, the one you linked was a great example. I think Rita's wish for a framework like Privacy Policies already exists and it's called Disclosure Policies (modeled after Privacy Policy framework). It's something I've blogged about for awhile over at disclosurepolicy.org. Given the diversity of blogs and bloggers in the world, a framework like Disclosure Policies provides readers a standard phrase to search for ("Disclosure Policy") to understand the policies and conflicts of the blog they are reading. This post and comment stream alone declares multiple disclosure policies people use, but having a "policy" is of little use if it's not documented in a standard place (your blog) linked by a standard phrase readers can find ("Disclosure Policy"). The key is matching author and reader expectations, and DPs make that possible.

Great post Rita and insightful comment Mama Hope...

The stench of shill.

Gray Matter — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:56:29 -0500

Rita, this is great.

I just got a freelance writing opportunity from an ad agency to write sponsored posts for one of their client's products on "Mommy Website."

What I love about this is that it doesn't compromise the integrety of my personal blog. I'm not linked to the sponsored post--maintaining my integrity as a blogger--and yet it let's me use my experience in advertising and blogging to make a few bucks.

There's no question that advertisers need to be using blogs and social networks for marketing purposes, but it should be clear when they are doing it. Like you said, letting your readers know that you were given a product to try and review is fine, so long as you're honest about it.

I think most of us can smell the stench of "shill" a mile away.

Oh, and I sent this article to my agency contacts.

I talked to the WSJ today about this post.

Rita Arens — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:23:47 -0500

Clearly, this issue is of interest to mainstream media. As a result of my conversation with this fellow, I've added the following disclosure to Surrender, Dorothy: Reviews:

Surrender, Dorothy: Reviews Disclosure

This
is a review blog, not a personal blog. Marketers send me products for
free, and I agree to review them. Sometimes they offer me a small fee
for my time. This fee covers my time, but it doesn't buy a positive
review. My time is valuable, and there are many other income-producing
ways I could spend it. I choose to do reviews because I believe they
have value in our culture.

I recommend everyone make an extra effort at transparency. It can't hurt.

Rita Arens writes at Surrender Dorothy and BlogHer and is the editor of Sleep is for the Weak.

And once again, Rita nails it

Mom101 — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:40:41 -0500

I have been circling around a lot of these topics for a while now (as you know) and you just concisely summed up so many of these complex issues. As this medium emerges, so will the rules and the standards and the levels of acceptability.

In the end, the audience will let you know when you've crossed the line. And then, hopefully, you can pull back.

Even big celebs get a pass for doing weird cigarette commercials in Japan.

Carrie makes a brilliant point about "caving" to pressures from marketers. It can be a slippery slope if you don't manage your relationships well and define your own boundaries. But I stand by my view that what a blogger gets in return for a review may not be monetary compensation - sometimes fodder for a great post is enough.

I also like your cautionary point that really, every blogger who accepts graft should tattoo to their foreheads backwards so they can see it in the mirror:

Lose your credibility, and you'll lose your swag.

Mom-101

Cool Mom Picks.com

Timely post

Karen-MEG — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:19:44 -0500

as I'm a newbie on the reviewing front. I've been approached before but only recently decided "why not?". I couldn't imagine not trying something I'm giving a review about. I guess I'm not a very good "faker". I can see the blogosphere through marketers' eyes as having such huge potential, especially given the mother/parent/consumer demographic.

I intend to be as open and transparent as I can be, and would hope that I can maintain integrity by only reviewing things that are pertinent to me. And I know I get chuckles at the homefront when considering cleaning products. Despite what the house looks like, I do clean occasionally.

I'm still laughing at Mr. Lady's comment above too...

K-MEG

Without saying too much

HeatherB — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:25:48 -0500

"The standard I see these days "If you can't say something nice about the product, don't say anything at all." That isn't a review it's an endorsement"

Which I totally agree with. I have seen and have it happen to me personally where I gave a review and the review wasn't exceptionally glowing - but totally honest- and it was totally shot down. Which I can understand but that just shows that many bloggers are honest in their reviews and want to be transparent.

Heather B. Personal Blog: No Pasa Nada BlogHer CE: Business, Career & Personal Finance

What About Affiliate Marketing?

hopealso — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:38:12 -0500

Excellent post, timely, well thought-out and thorough!

I am just now considering monetization more seriously for my green and natural parenting blog, now nearly a year old. Since beginning to blog this issue has been a very serious concern for me. Having studied internet marketing, I've very aware of the kinds of posts and links that shout out, "Sponsored!" "Affiliate!" even when the blogess herself does not make mention of her income stream.

My concern has always been a) the general public is not as aware as bloggers and marketers are of the mechanisms by which a web publisher can receive compensation b) the whole concept of not only journalistic integrity but also interpersonal integrity is marred when transparency is not cultivated.

You make mention directly of "pay for post" above, but I also have concerns about affiliate marketing. As one previous writer (whose name escapes me now) pointed out, affiliate bloggers who include contextual links in their posts have even more incentive to gush about their products than pay for post-ers. Because they are paid only on commission, the money is not yet in the bag for them. Yet, they do not fall under the traditional blanket of "sponsored article" as no money has exchanged hands at the time of their writing.

In that regard, I actually decided to make use of the "(aff)" tag on my blog for full disclosure of affiliate links, even when I'm just including a quick amazon link for a book I mention briefly. Though it's a bit wonky and waning in popularity, the "aff" standard was something I felt I needed to implement to keep it clean.

Meanwhile, I see on other blogs hints of moving in the opposite direction: implementation of link cloaking software that actually modifies link text to make an affiliate link look exactly like a non-tagged link.

Search for "affiliate link cloaking" and you'll find the results saturated with software companies more than happy to help bloggers intentionally disguise their income stream.

The FTC has recently proposed extending its jurisdiction over endorsement fraud regulation to bloggers. Although lobbyists are scrambling to loosen the FDA's reach, I believe the FTC's proposed rules can help shape our conversations about transparency and WOM ethics.

I love the idea of a seal for journalistic integrity. Until then, when conversations move from one mama to another, we need to remember that ethics must come to the forefront, or we're just handling dirty money!

Love,

Mama Hope

a la hippie dippie bébé, A Natural Parenting Blog

Great Post

Amy S. — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:09:39 -0500

Great post, Rita. I personally prefer a "moms that blog" descriptor with "mommybloggers" being a subset of the first group. Mommybloggers are those that focus their writing on the day to day trials and tribulations of being a mom while Moms that blog might write about other things from the perspective of being a mom.

ANYHOO, marketing and moms seem like a perfect match, but I think you're right that it's all about transparency. I don't see anything wrong with marketers offering products or moms writing about products, as long as they're upfront, honest and transparent about it all.

Amy@UWM

Up With Moms

This is very interesting

Tere — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:27:51 -0500

This is very interesting stuff here.

I'm not opposed to the idea of product reviews and the like. The times I decide to participate in something, I see it as a public service. I'm always offering my opinion on all kinds of things as it is; why not work with companies/PR folks if they are promoting something I'm actually interested in?

That said, I believe in and practice transparency. A product review not only gets labeled as such, but I also always state something to the effect of being asked to try something out and being offered the product.

Honestly, it never occurred to me that someone would NOT do that. Maybe because while I never worked as one, I have my degree in journalism? Or because I work in the public sector where transparency is key? Not sure, but to gush about something without revealing you were asked to write about it seems iffy to me. It goes without saying for me that if I choose to write about something, I will be honest about it.

I also have a personal policy about product reviews and the like: it has to be something I am geniunely curious about or would try anyway, or something (if it's writing about a cause or contest) that has some relevance to my blog or my life. If I were to write about everything I'm asked to write about, my blog would stop being about me and my life and just be one big shill, which is not an option. Further, I don't have enough time in my day to try products or promote things that I have no interest in. Nothing is really worth that to me. Like Carrie, I delete a lot emails from people who clearly have no clue what my blog is about, or what I've said in the past about this very topic.

I don't knok anyone who does whatever they feel they need to do, but I do feel pretty strongly about the need for transparency.

Tere

A Mom, a Blog and the Life In-Between

Blogging for Business Turns me Off

Carrie Blankenship — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:58:26 -0500

That said, there are a lot of great writers/bloggers who blog for business so well that we don't even notice they are doing it and those, those are the talented ones. But yes - I am not a fan of reading stuff just because a mom, or anyone else for that matter, was thrown some free product in her direction and now she's writing about it simply because she was asked.

I think fine, if that's your cup of tea. But to me, it's degrading. I can't tell you how many times I've deleted the most absurd of offers via email from pr people not willing to take the time even to see if what they are hocking actually applies to me, my blog or my readers. And each time it feels like a slap in the face!

The flip side of that is that there have been incredible genuine, real and honest to goodness offers come my way that I was more than happy to take. The overnight trip to a Great Wolf Lodge opening in the PNW was just such a thing. A free stay for my entire family, a meeting with the C.E.O. and V.P. of Marketing in which they simply wanted to know about us, the "mommybloggers," and how to approach us. They also shared their stories of success in the corporate world, but mostly just picked our brains. And of course I blogged about it, but I was NEVER asked to do so. Like you said, it came organically and honestly and I'm pretty sure that came across in my writing.

It's a slippery slope indeed. I'm interested to see what happens when bloggers cave to these unreasonable offers and I wish they didn't feel like they had to. It's their blog, and they should "own" it, not some product.

Hope this makes sense, thank you for a thought provoking post!

Carrie at Stop Screaming I'm Driving!

I think the writing industy has been struggling

sandhillsis — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:17:22 -0500

for a good definition of blogger for a long time, one label isn't going to fit all bloggers. That's the problem with definitions, they are always messy. One blogger might have more than one blog and wear a different writing hat in each.

I feel like a little fish in deep water. I dare say I'm not alone. Thanks for giving us something important to think about.

Sandhill Sis

www.reclaimsimplicity.com

Discover how rich and hilarious life can be when it's simple. Tales and tips on making money mind, riding the recycle, simple food, homegrown music and gardening and more.

Transparency is key

AmberS — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:23:13 -0500

I agree, we need transparency. If we're hoping to be part of a community then we need to be able to trust each other. And how can you trust someone who is concealing the truth? I would never begrudge anyone a perk or benefit that they derive from blogging, but it's important to be honest about it.

And now where do I get me some of those perks? ;)

~ Amber

www.strocel.com

Journalistic Standards

shoalswriter — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:27:50 -0500

As a former lifestyle reporter, I had to comply with journalistic standards when doing reviews. That's what I'm used to and that's what I practice at my blog -- refusing all offers to send me products because I don't want to compromise my personal goal of objectivity. But blogs have different implied relationships between writer and reader than newspapers, don't they? I mean, newspaper readers at least start with the premise that they're getting unbiased and objective writing (except for opinion pages, of course). As much as I love reading other women's blogs, I never think that I'm getting the whole and unvarnished truth. A blog is a person's voice. A newspaper is a document of record. Apple, meet orange.

Cathy

cathylwood.wordpress.com

And now I have a great new idea

shanbrentris — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:16:54 -0500

The kids who come to my sons' next birthday party, the ones who will go home with a goodie bag? They will be called "Sponsored Guests" and I will require a written review of thier stay at Chez Mr Lady as well as a testimonal to the fact that my kids have the best parties. Preferrably in tshirt form.

Mr Lady www.whiskeyinmysippycup.com