Bloggers Shouldn't Fear Freebies

I have a lot of respect for Jim Horton, a longtime PR blogger who I have been reading since before I myself began to blog.  Nevertheless, I disagree with his post this morning that encourages bloggers to take a pledge against accepting freebies.

Certainly if a blogger wishes to do this, he should be free to do so.  But I would hate to see bloggers pressured into taking this position.  It has been a common marketing practice to provide free product samples to target audiences -- be it consumers, influentials, or journalists.  Perhaps the most jaw-dropping example is the official Oscar gift basket handed out at the Academy Awards.  Marketers vie for the ability to give away free samples to these celebrities and ultimately the value of the gifts in each basket is said to exceed $100,000.

Jim argues that "blogging is being compromised by freebies. It is getting so one can no longer trust what anyone writes."  He argues that bloggers should swear off such promotional items just as reporters largely did so in the post-Watergate era. 

While I don't know where Jim comes down on the Oscar gifts or other product giveaways, I would surmise that he would argue that bloggers should respect the standards of journalism, rather than celebrity. 

I have argued in the past that bloggers are not necessarily journalists.  If a blogger holds himself out to be a journalist, then perhaps such standards and pledge-taking would be appropriate and wise.  But the vast majority of bloggers do not pretend to be impartial reporters of fact -- quite the opposite. 

Frankly I see little harm in freebies.  I can't believe that in the vast majority of situations the receipt of a free product sample would cause someone to write positively about a product that they dislike.  There would simply be no point in granting false praise.  As many companies have experienced, free samples do not guarantee positive reviews.  And while I prefer to see full disclosure of such gifts if they are written about on a blog, I'm not convinced that doing so contributes much to the review one way or the other.

We all have our biases.  Apple aficionados will tend to always say nice things about that company's products even without freebies.  Dell-haters are likely to dismiss new product offerings from that company regardless of free samples.  Perhaps you had an outstanding or disappointing experience with a company in the past.  That's likely to influence any review as well.

Ultimately we as individuals or as bloggers should feel free to speak our minds.  And marketers should be free to share product samples with anyone they like. 

A blogger who chooses to take the No Freebie Pledge should feel free to do so, but those who do not should not be ashamed of that choice either. 

Technorati tags: Jim Horton, free samples, marketing, bloggers, ethics

Comments

[Brian]

An interesting resource on how "freebies/prizes" might affect peoples opinions on products is the company

http://www.bzzagent.com/

Some would say that the prizes BzzAgents receive to spread Word-of-Mouth (WOM) is irrelevant. Others think that a significant percentage of BzzAgents only spread WOM in order to receive prizes.

While what each BzzAgent says about the product they are expected to "bzz" does not increase or decrease their chance to get prizes, I think subconsciously, prizes/freebies will skew what people say, write, post or blog about certain products. I think it might be possible that many people tend to think we must say something "in a certain light" in order to receive the prize/freebie.....even if thats not the case.

[DBK]

"But the vast majority of bloggers do not pretend to be impartial reporters of fact -- quite the opposite."

Bloggers will tell you that they are not impartial on the conclusions, but I doubt they would say that they report the facts with bias. That may seem a minor point, but I think it effectively refutes your position. Do you have anything but your personal bias to support your assertion?

I don't think you have fairly described the argument against taking gifts, either. Simply put, taking a gift means you may be subject to charges of having your opinion bought. In my own case and, I would venture, my readers wouldn't show up if they believed I were paid to be an advocate. Taking gifts would taint that perception. It is no more complicated than that. And believe me, I make no pretense of not siding with this position or that. But my integrity is untainted when I take those positions.

In sum, bloggers don't claim to be impartial in their conclusions, but they would, contrary to what you wrote, claim to be "impartial reporters of fact". Likewise, taking gifts creates a perception that one's opinion has been bought, and that is death to integrity.

[Chip Griffin]

Perhaps I wasn't clear in what I meant by "impartial reporters of fact." What I was trying to convey was not that bloggers would skew or taint facts, but that unlike a journalist bloggers don't attempt to present both sides of an argument with dispassion. Nor do they try to omit bias. Both of these are typical characteristics of reputable reporters.

Bloggers offer opinion, convey their own emotion, exhibit bias. Journalists don't (or at least shouldn't).

[DBK]

Can you get away with "reputable"? I will let your statement stand unchallenged only if you'll agree with me that the standard you describe puts the majority of reporters, many of whom are otherwise regarded as reputable, into disrepute.

If we can both regard Judy Miller, the allegedly moderate David Broder, et al. as disreputable, we've reconciled our differences. I love when that happens. Who's got the hacky-sack?

[Chip Griffin]

I agree that not all reporters adhere to the standards I outline, but certainly they are part of the classical description of a journalist's responsibilities.

[DBK]

We've wandered into a more classical argument with respect to journalism, one that I am not sure has been resolved to anyone's satisfaction, but which I do think helps clarify things. When Hunter S. Thompson came up with his "gonzo journalism", he described it as a reaction to the faux objectivity of regular reporters. He posited, correctly, I think, that the act of deciding which facts to report, out of the multitude of facts attached to any story, colors the story, so that no journalist is ever, truly objective. His response was to make the subjectivity of his reporting very obvious. This was a more honest form of reporting in that it no longer tried to be objective or pretended to objectivity.

If objectivity is impossible, do we still strive to achieve it? But what if the whole idea of objectivity is meaningless, rendered so by the fact that leaving out any fact, and particularly a fact that some other reporter might include, obliterates the objectivity? Once you establish that objectivity is impossible, anything that might taint the subjectively composed story with bias, no matter how small, renders it further suspect.

Has anybody seen my pen?

[DBK]

On the other hand (I really do have too much to say for anybody's good), maybe this means that one can wallow in subjectivity and bias because objectivity is impossible anyway.

Want fries with your conundrum?

By the way, Chip, I am one of the people who raised a stink about Netvocates some months back. Is that venture still going?

[Chip Griffin]

DBK- you make good points, so speak away. I confess I don't really understand the hacky-sack, pen, and fries, but other than that you have been providing good food for thought.

As to NetVocates, it is no more. I much prefer the monitoring and analysis side of things and didn't have the bandwidth to drive that project. Ultimately, I see social media outreach as better suited to being part of a comprehensive PR strategy rather than operating as an independent silo anyway.

I didn't realize you were one of the critics of that company, but I just Googled to see what you had said and my recollection was refreshed. I imagine you would likely describe yourself as less than disappointed that it is no more?

[DBK]

The hacky-sack, etc., stuff was just me being light and airy and, hopefully, funny.

I don't celebrate Netvocates' passing. I think I stated my issues with it pretty clearly, but if it had succeeded and was able to overcome my objections regarding how it operated, that would have been fine. It didn't seem like a bad idea to me at its core. I just had my problems with the "openness" of it. I recall your remarks on how you weren't hiding anything and I don't attribute anything nefarious or under-handed to the operation. My objections could have been overcome pretty simply, actually.

I asked about Netvocates because I've had traffic at my site from searches on the subject of Netvocates, so I traced the referring sites to see if something was up with Netvocates. That's how I stumbled back onto this blog, which I read with interest.

[Chip Griffin]

The irony is I think the concerns were actually resolved before folks started criticizing Netvocates. In the early days we didn't mandate disclosure among activists we recruited, but we eventually did so.

Even more ironic, perhaps, is the fact that some bloggers even today continue to allege activity by Netvocates even though it hasn't existed for several months and didn't engage in any blog commenting since last May -- fully disclosed or otherwise. Alas, it was impossible to prove a negative so the attacks kept coming.

Ultimately, it just ended up being frustrating to me personally because I have been involved with the Internet since before the web existed and blogged before it was called blogging. With that background I am sensitive to perception and the requirements of the medium.

In any event, I'm glad you find some value in reading this blog. I look forward to future discussions with you.

[DBK]

Web logs teach an appreciation of paranoia.

I go back over twenty years to USENET discussion groups. The web logs are a big improvement, even with the paranoia.