molly.com
Thursday 20 January 2005
marqui: don’t read this post
DON’T READ THIS post. If you disagree with blogging for dollars that is. Since the whole Marqui blog-for-money campaign has started, more than a few people have pushed back.
So the big question is: Why does being paid to blog seem so offensive to some? Quite a few critics of the Marqui program sport Google Adwords or big ol’ Flash ads or affiliate programs on their blogs. I want to understand the difference. Maybe if we were taking money on the QT and then writing cheerleading posts about the product on our own blogs without informing you there’d be room for questioning the ethical nature of the program.
But the Marqui program is definitely unique in that it clearly states we, as paid bloggers, can write about anything we want so long as we mention the product, link to the site, and place a graphic somewhere on our blog. Marqui cannot influence us as writers, and I’ve actually been one of the least enthusiastic bloggers on the team – mostly because I’m just not that wow’d by the product. And I’m still getting my check. So maybe the ethical question is with me, not Marqui.
If you’re watching TV in real-time, you might hit mute during the commercials, or go take a pee break, or grab a fresh one from the fridge. If you’re surfing web sites – I mean c’mon kids – how many of us even take notice of ads anymore? We’ve gotten so used to them being there we only object to them when they are particuarly obtrusive, such as in interstitial ads, pop-up ads, or ads that result from adware.
Some of you might remember the wonderful Web Techniques Magazine, available in print for nearly five years of the web’s early life. Some of you might even remember that I wrote a regular column there and eventually became the Executive Editor of sister publication WebReview. In that role, I had to face a fact that years of a very liberal, very high-priced M.A. in Media Studies couldn’t deny: Money drives the market, and money for publications very often derives from advertising. It didn’t matter how many times I yelled about journalistic integrity – the fact was that our sales team made deals with advertisers that definitely bordered on the questionable, at least in my then less-cynical experience.
So what happened to our beloved Web Techniques? Where’s WebReview? How about the related WEB shows that were at one time the most exciting events in the web design world? They are all gone now, casualties based on a primary truth: They couldn’t sell enough advertising and trade opportunities to sustain themselves.
Follow the logic: A blog is a publication. Therefore, many blogs will require some means of support, and advertising is a perfectly reasonable approach – especially when it’s on the up and up. When you open a computing magazine and see an ad for Microsoft in one spread, and ad for Sun in another, an ad for AOL in another and so on, what part of “these guys are paying for this space” isn’t understood? Marqui is even bolder – they let us tell you: “This is an ad.” They even let me tell you not to read this post. Or criticize their take on things. Or blabber on about whatever I want, so long as I follow the basic agreement.
As with a commercial, you can change the channel. And like a commercial, you never have to read anything on this site that is keyworded with Marqui, under the category of blog slut, with a link to the site and an image that is no larger and certainly far less offensive than the myriad ad images we ignore every single day.
Ethical problem? I don’t see it. Bothersome? That I can see – I don’t like ads either. But if that’s what it takes to keep something else that’s valuable alive, I’m willing to make that compromise. If I can make a few dollars by experimenting with an initiative and opportunity that a company such as Marqui can provide and still maintain my own sense of integrity of what is written on this blog, why would anyone want to get in the way of that?
These are honest questions, born of my own experience and logic behind why I said “yes” to Marqui in the first place. Part experiment, part economics, all with full disclosure and you with the complete right to skip a post at any time. Surely that’s not so hard, and surely most readers don’t read all posts on a blog anyway.
And for the record, when my first Marqui payment arrives, a generous portion of that will be going to Asian relief efforts as I pledged via BlogAid.
I just can’t see the bad in that.
Filed under: blog slut, blogging, software
Posted by: Molly | 07:15 | Comments (19)
There is a huge difference between running advertisements that are clearly marked as being advertisements and being paid to write blog postings..
It all comes down to integrity. Actively writing about products for money compromises integrity. Being ad-financed doesn’t.
While you are open about writing for Marqui, what happens when you decide to write about the new, magic WhateverCMS that is a direct competitor to Marqui. Do you disclose that you are being paid to write about a competitor?
I think this is a very good idea. What’s more, I think this is just the beginning. Bloggers are not some weird cult of anti-capitalist tree-huggers, are they? So I don’t see it as “selling out.” I see it as a reasonable arrangement between a blogger and a company that provides services that may or may not be interesting to the blogger’s readership.
I’ve read the contract, and there is nothing in there that says you must pretend that Marqui content is anything other than what it is. If someone is interested in what Marqui is selling, they will read it. Otherwise, they will simply pass on to the next post. Where’s the harm in that?
i dislike most blogs on principle, but i think i’d get along with a few of the authors and believe that they have at least a bit of integrity. if you’re blogging for cash, that little shred of integrity just got tossed out the window.
what’s going to happen is that companies like Nike will get kids to write blogs and send them free Nike products to write about. or (even more bizarre) adults will pretend to be teenagers and write blogs that have fake accounts of fake social events and fake people. from time to time these blogs will include a photo of the hot new Nike anti-fungal shoes, likely posted on some trendy site like Flickr or Moblog. Nike will pay their employees to sign up for accounts on Deli.cio.us and the like, adding believable material to their list of bookmarks, but also including products from the wide range of manufacturers that are sending them perks in the mail and inviting them to social functions. marketeers know how to exploit these things. the web’s not a virgin anymore, and all this utopian talk of social networks and flash mobs, etc will end up getting raped by the multinationals just like every other teen trend since the 1950s.
blogs are hot, says CNN, so Mr. Manhattan Ad Exec is going to find out how to use it to finance his sixth vacation home. blogs are the most viral form of marketing possible, and it will cost the companies so little to execute that it’s frightening. it’s so easy. books like Neal Stephenson’s “Pattern Recognition” and Naomi Klein’s “No Logo” have already suggested (in the former) and proved (in the latter) that companies already employ young people to find out what’s hot among the 16-30 set, report back to the company, and suggest ways to exploit those trends to churn profits.
side note: if you think Nike wouldn’t employ children, look on that little tag inside your new sneakers and see what country they were made in. then find out if that country has a minimum working age. yeah right.
So are you objecting to kids getting free sneakers? That’s the web getting “raped by multinationals” then, is it? If I get paid a few bucks for putting ads on my weblog, or even writing editorial for a few products that I feel connected to, I will do so without fearing that I am corrupting the web beyond all recognition.
I’ll give you an example. I pay $15 per month of webhosting. I like the company I am hosted with, so I signed up to be an “affiliate” and from time to time, I sing their praises on my weblog. I get money for each new client I refer, and so far I’ve made enough money to pay for 2 years of hosting. Is that wrong? Have I sold out? Where do you draw the line?
Arve: how does actively writing about products for money compromise integrity? (just saying so doesn’t count) Especially when it’s written out very plainly that the writing is paid for.
Do you feel that someone may be influenced to give an inaccurate representation of a product as a result? How do you determine that an unpaid representation of a product gives you any greater accuracy?
In the end, we’re all influenced by external factors when we post to our blogs (or any other publication for that matter) be that by opinion or cash or perspective or experience.
If you simply say that any cash reward for writing is wrong then any writing would be dubious as there is almost always a cash incentive for writing be that directly or indirectly (google ads, own stock, or just hope to write to get noticed so that somebody can hire you).
We, as human beings, must use our own judgement and experience to filter the information we receive and individually determine its merit and value.
Pattern Recognition is actually by William Gibson. See his post from 12/6/04 about his book and viral marketing as it’s actually happening.
Balance is what it’s all about to me. I’ve been reading Molly’s Marqui columns as well as Robin Good’s. Fine as long as the proportion of paid commentary is low compared to their regular posts. I’ve enjoyed both of their comments, since they are critical where deserved, not simply ad copy.
If the proportion of their posts becomes mostly paid assignments I’ll probably read someone else’s stuff. Unless I’m really interested in the topics.
So, for me, it’s fine for a blogger to do once in a while, but not all the time. Just like Robin’s blogs’ ads are close to overwhelming. At some point, I’ll stop reading. I already ignore all his ads. Obviously not a problem here, Molly.
I think it would compromise integrity if you were required to write something good about the product you are advertising. End of Story, close book. Or is it? We are talking about writing, not writing something positive. The blogger has complete liberty to write something positive or negative about a product – either of which will not change the compensation amount. Therefore there is not influence on what you write just because you are getting paid to write.
I think you’ve done a good job of separating the ads from the regular content. They’re clearly marked, so I don’t see any ethical problems there.
And any post on your site that mentions Marqui, as far as I’m concerned, is an ad. If it’s an ad that is less than enthusiastic about their product, that’s Marqui’s problem…
Who knew chicken was the international bird of ethics?
The Bald Eagle is the national bird of the US, the Common Loon is the national bird of Canada, and the small, flightless, and oh so tasty chicken is now the international bird of ethical dilemmas; at least according to Jason Calacanis;
The ethic…
I’m not a particularly big fan of the paid to blog concept as Marqui has created it. I think it will work very well for them because it is a new idea and that alone will generate buzz. I doubt it will be as successful for the next company that tries it and that very quickly the trend will dry up. That said, I have no problem with Molly being paid to discuss the product.
I run google ads on my site and they make me a fair amount of money (About $30 a day). I like the fact that the ads are generated by content so that I am not beholden to a particular advertiser, but that is not an ethical stance so much as a business stance. I don’t want to rely on someone who may change their mind about their strategy ten minutes from now. Google is fairly steady and hasn’t steered me wrong yet. I like their concept because the ads are relevant to the content on the page. That works 90% of the time, although the ads on my Fast Fiction page are wildly unpredictable and unprofitable. This week I have ads for sundials.
My point is that there is no harm in running a site for a profit, jsut as there is no harm in running a newspaper or a television station for a profit. The question is one of quality. If your site produces quality information that people are interested in, then there is no reason not to make money in the process. I object to annoying popup ads and flashing movement ads that detract from a user’s experience, but a little extra text or a subtle graphic is to be expected if you want people to invest their time and energy in a web publication.
Integrity, Branding, and Blog Payola
Eris Free, Paul Scrivens, and Molly Holzschlag have all touched an emerging issue in marketing — blog payola.
I generally don’t like advertisements on websites, and I use ad blockers all the time. However, I accept that some bloggers may wish to make a profit, or at least break even, by attracting revenue through advertisments or getting paid for blogging in order to continue writing.
IMHO, getting paid for blogging should not affect the integrity of the author in any way, unless the organisation attempts to shape your published opinions to match theirs; but I just can’t imagine that happening. Therefore, I support your choice to do so and, after all, it remains completely free to read your fabulous blog, so I really can’t complain.
I have absolutely no interest in the product. Therefore, this is the first post Molly wrote that I atually read more than 1 sentence.
Therefore you’d think I’m saying I’m not bothered at all by these kinds of posts. Unfortunately something does bother me. I’m not up in arms in anger or anything. Just… uneasy.
It helps that you put prominent disclaimers Molly. Yet I still have an uneasiness over where all this will lead in a year. I know I shouldn’t make this comparison, but it’s like invading Iraq. Now that we’ve opened up that can of worms, how will we ever put the genie back in the bottle? (Wow, mixing two metaphors with politics – how did I ever get to that?)
I consider “blogging for dollars” to be less an issue of integrity and ethics than it is of something possibly more critical: independence.
Of course we all know that the company is using your good reputation and the trust your readers put in you.
You’ve given us lots of helpful information for free. We owe you (and I don’t mean money).
But what if you started to rely on that income and someone starts badmouthing the company in a comment? And what if it were true that they’re bastards? How would you weigh the repo man taking away your Marqui-money Rolls Royce against just shutting down the annoying commentator?
I guess I’m confused. Help me understand. Is the Mark Canter involved with this project the same Mark Canter at BBS 05 who the first day was pushing Steve Broback to ‘give away his content’ by streaming live the BBS 05 sessions?
Zane: same one.