Chip Griffin: Pardon the Disruption

No Winners in "People Ready" Kerfuffle, But A Few Observations

It never ceases to amaze me the way the tech blogosphere can get all up in arms over seemingly insignificant things.  The current firestorm over whether top tech bloggers like Mike Arrington, Om Malik, Fred Wilson, and Paul Kedrosky sold their souls by lending their words to a Microsoft "People Ready" campaign is just silly.

One look over at TechMeme tells you that far too many bits and bytes have been spent discussing this topic already, but since seemingly every other post in Google Reader this weekend have been on this topic, I feel compelled to get some things off my chest.

Old Media Endorses Products All The Time

Robert Scoble aptly points out that Leo Laporte does radio ads endorsing products.  Anyone who listens to AM radio regularly (or did anytime in the past several decades) no doubt has heard Paul Harvey waxing on about beds and other products.  Tune into any terrestrial radio station and you will hear a host plugging one product or another -- even news readers do this.  Folks, this is nothing new.

Would the Reaction be Different If It Wasn't Microsoft?

I can't help but wonder if this were an ad campaign engineered by Apple if the reaction wouldn't have been different.  Look at the different reactions to Microsoft's Vista campaign and Nikon's D80 blogger relations program.  Yes, there were minor differences in how the programs were communicated, but the net result is the same: bloggers get to play with expensive, high-end products at no cost for a really long time.

What's Up With John Battelle?

Let me be clear, I'm a John Battelle groupie.  I still miss the Industry Standard.  I loved The Search.  John's blog is on my "1stRead" list in Google Reader.  But what was he thinking when he threw his clients under the bus?  When you act as an agent for someone, as FM does with the blogs it reps for advertising sales, you shouldn't be publicly attacking those clients. 

At Least There's Healthy Debate This Time

One thing that strikes me as different about this blogstorm over blogger ethics is that there seems to be more of a healthy debate about the issue, with many bloggers actively wrestling with the issue.  During similar events in the past, I have been concerned by what I have seen as a rush to judgment and a "blog mob" mentality that sets in.  Here we have had some of the targets stand up to the initial mob attack, rather than folding at the first sign of controversy (notably Fred Wilson and Mike Arrington).  Unfortunately, some of the targets did throw in the towel, prematurely in my opinion.

Showing Irritation Only Emboldens Your Enemies

I don't blame Mike Arrington for getting pretty worked up in his response to this controversy.  Tabloid publications like ValleyWag can clearly get under one's skin pretty easily.  And if someone questions my integrity, you can be sure it's going to make me mad (and it has).  Unfortunately, showing that anger encourages more attacks, as Mike discovered when ValleyWag struck again.  It's important to try to remember schoolyard bullies and two-year old kids in cases like this.  If you show a reaction to their behavior, they keep at it.  If you ignore it, they get bored and move on.

For More Reading...

There's some really good thinking on this subject beyond what I referenced above.  I especially would commend to your attention two differing points of view.  Scott Karp tends to agree with me that this is much ado about nothing, but speaks to a need for bloggers to establish and stick to personal standards.  Jeff Jarvis and I couldn't be farther apart on this issue, but he puts quite a bit of thought and reasoning into his views and makes several points that I do agree with, despite his ultimate conclusion.

Technorati tags: People Ready, Microsoft, Mike Arrington, TechCrunch, Om Malik, Fred Wilson, Paul Kedrosky, Nick Denton, Valleywag, Scott Karp, Jeff Jarvis, blog mob, ethics, journalism, John Battelle, FM Published, Federated Media, advertising, Nikon D80, blogger relations, Leo Laporte, Robert Scoble, Paul Harvey, media ethics

If You're Going to Blog Anonymously, At Least Be Smart About It

I'm not a big fan of anonymous blogging.  I don't think there's anything wrong with it and won't rule out ever doing it myself (it's foolish to say "never" anyway), I just prefer it when you're open about who you are when you're expressing opinions.  It helps the audience understand your message in context.  That said, I understand there are situations where it may be unavoidable if you are focused on wanting to share your views online.

But if you're going to blog anonymously, at least use enough common sense not to write in such a way that it is blatantly obvious who you are.  From today's Boston Globe:

As Ivy League-educated pediatrician Robert P. Lindeman sat on the stand in Suffolk Superior Court this month, defending himself in a malpractice suit involving the death of a 12-year-old patient, the opposing counsel startled him with a question.

Was Lindeman Flea?

Flea, jurors in the case didn't know, was the screen name for a blogger who had written often and at length about a trial remarkably similar to the one that was going on in the courtroom that day.

In his blog, Flea had ridiculed the plaintiff's case and the plaintiff's lawyer. He had revealed the defense strategy. He had accused members of the jury of dozing.

With the jury looking on in puzzlement, Lindeman admitted that he was, in fact, Flea.

The article itself then gets slightly hysterical about the risks of blogging ("The case is a startling illustration of how blogging, already implicated in destroying friendships and ruining job prospects, could interfere in other important arenas."), but story about "Flea" is worth reading as long as you ignore the hysteria.

Technorati tags: blogging, bloggers, anonymity, Boston Globe, malpractice, anonymous blog

Profiting from Breaking News and Tragedy?

A grad student doing some research emailed me today to ask what I thought about media web sites including pre-roll advertising on breaking news video.  The impetus was apparently an ad that a news site showed as a pre-roll before news about the Virginia Tech shootings.  Some were clearly offended.

The argument against advertising in such situations, of course, would be that it is profiting from a tragedy.  Furthermore, one could argue that the imperative in a breaking news situation should be to deliver news quickly, not advertising. 

There is no clear cut ethical problem with pre-roll advertising in a breaking news situation, even when it may be a horrible tragedy.  Nor do I have a broader objection to pre-roll ads on web video, as others may.  Content creators have a right to extract value from the content they create, whether that may be through advertising or some other means.

It will not surprise readers of this space, however, to know that I believe that individual media properties must make individual decisions on a case-by-case basis.  For instance, a student-run media outlet at Virginia Tech may well want to elect to remove advertising for appearance sake in the wake of a tragedy like the one that occurred.  Similarly, readers will recall that the major networks went into wall-to-wall news coverage without advertising for several days after September 11. 

Nevertheless, a media outlet provides no less of a service to its readers/viewers during a time of tragedy or crisis than at any other time.  Indeed, it could be argued that media outlets provide their greatest service and value in such situations.  While it might be unseemly to initiate advertising only in a breaking news situation, maintaining advertising policies throughout one should not be frowned upon.  Without revenue, these sites would cease to exist and the news, information, and video would not be available.

Technorati tags: advertising, ethics, pre-roll, web video, online news

Wired, Microsoft, Waggener Edstrom, and the Ethics of Interview Prep

I was prepared to write up a post today disputing the criticism of Microsoft and Waggener Edstrom for their preparation for an interview with Wired. But Joseph Thornley beat me to it and did a better job than I would have.  Go read his post instead.

Technorati tags: Wired, Microsoft, Waggener Edstrom, PR, ethics

Rules Won't Stop Crazy People from Acting Crazy

The regrettable and offensive Kathy Sierra situation has spawned a story from the BBC about calls for a "blogger code of conduct."  Frankly, the story is thin on facts, and carries little more than Tim O'Reilly saying

I do think we need some code of conduct around what is acceptable behaviour, I would hope that it doesn't come through any kind of [legal/government] regulation it would come through self-regulation."

But neither he nor anyone else in the piece offers up any specifics or explains how this might cause future situations like Kathy's to be avoided.

And the fact is it won't stop crazy people from acting crazy.  Rules constrain those who generally behave well; those involved in this latest incident clearly aren't inclined to behave well.  Indeed, they have likely broken laws, so what makes anyone think they would be deterred by some "code of conduct"?

(hat tip to Neville Hobson for pointing out this story on Twitter)

Technorati tags: blogger code of conduct, Tim O'Reilly, BBC, Kathy Sierra, bloggers, blogsphere

Wired Whacks Digg -- Should Digg Sue? A Question of Media Ethics

Wired Magazine's Annalee Newitz wrote about how she hired a firm to game Digg and get a frivolous blog featured prominently by the popular site that recommends content based on reader votes.  The headline is clearly meant to be inflammatory ("I Bought Votes on Digg") and the piece itself makes Digg and those who game the site look bad.

Mike Arrington of TechCrunch, a recovering lawyer, thinks Digg ought to sue Wired.  Why? 

Wired Magazine seems hell bent on convincing the world that Digg is falling apart. I have a problem with that because Wired Magazine’s parent company, Condé Nast, owns Digg competitor Reddit. And because Wired isn’t just reporting Digg news - they are actively engaged in using Wired to undermine Digg.

There has been much discussion of late about the ability to game Digg.  In fact, Digg has publicly taken steps to restrict the ability of people to manipulate the voting system to promote specific content.  The Wired story obviously indicates work remains to be done.

Ultimately, the article really addresses the bad behavior of some Digg users and outside vendors, as well as the inability of Digg so far to stop it.  Does it reflect poorly on Digg? Yes.  Does it seem like a blatant and unwarranted hit piece? No.

Arrington supports his claim that Wired is out to get Digg with more than just today's story.  He also cites a sentence in the magazine's 2007 predictions column.  In that story, the magazine predicts that Digg will become the next Friendster: "Digg holds out for a big payday but ends up like Friendster (i.e., no friends)."

Frankly, I don't have a problem with either article, whether CondéNet has a relationship with Reddit or not.  Digg is a popular topic these days in the tech community and Wired covers such stories.  With the elaborate corporate structures today, restricting media outlets from covering any competitor of any company within the broad corporate structure would be difficult. 

The publication, of course, should disclose the relationship (assuming it is known to the reporter or editor).  And Wired did disclose its relationship with Reddit, though Mike takes exception to the placement and nature of the disclosure: "Newitz does mention the conflict of interest, albeit in a parenthetical in the middle of the story (”Wired News is owned by CondéNet, which also owns Digg competitor reddit”)."

That's fairly typical of media disclosures and I have no problem with it.  The fact needs to be there, but it need not be the first sentence of the story. 

I'm not a lawyer, but from a lay perspective I don't see a legal case here.  I don't even see an ethical problem.  To my mind, both Wired items were legitimate.  I simply don't see the evidence that CondéNet is "actively engaged in using Wired to undermine Digg."

Until and unless evidence emerges that the Wired story was produced at the behest of CondéNet, there's nothing to get worked up about.

Technorati tags: Wired, reddit, Digg, Michael Arrington, TechCrunch, Mike Arrington, CondeNet, media ethics, Wired News

More on the Ethics of Freebies in the Blogosphere

Muhammed Saleem has a good discussion of "sponsorships and freebies" and the ethics of it all in the blogosphere.  An excerpt:

Again, I find myself thinking that as long as it doesn't influence your opinion at all (meaning if you hate the gift, you blog your hate), and as long as you make fair disclosure about getting the gift (some people forget), there shouldn't be a problem at all.

It's worth a read -- and not just because he agrees with my belief that "Bloggers Shouldn't Fear Freebies."

Technorati tags: Muhammed Saleem, ethics, blogosphere, freebie, sponsorship

Responsibility for Unintended Consequences

"What is the responsibility of a marketer to understand the potential effects of the campaign?"  That's the question Susan Getgood poses.  She, of course, is referring to the now infamous Boston Bomb Scare last week. 

Susan raises an interesting point:

if the goal was to reach out to the natural audience for the show, those that already recognized the character, then the logical place to put the devices would have been colleges, universities and so forth.

Not I-93. Yet, the agency specified just those sort of places -- overpasses, bridges and the like. Why? Was it simply because those were visible spots, or did they perhaps have a clue of what MIGHT happen if a device was placed on a key and highly visible piece of transportation infrastructure? Or were they just stupid? We will never know for certain.

Katie Paine also has concerns about the guerilla marketing firm involved, but believes that Interference could still profit from the mess:

PR classes around the world have a great new case study to debate.  In my mind, the only figure in this saga that may still have egg on its face is Interference, the marketing firm that cooked up the lame brained scheme in the first place. On the other hand if the Aqua Teen movie breaks box office records, their phones will probably be ringing off the hook.

For John Cass, the answer may lie in tougher and better enforced ethics codes:

I think that any marketer should work within an ethical framework, their own conscience, the laws of the state they live within, and if you are a member of various marketing related associations, the ethics code of the association ... perhaps there should be consequences for companies that overstep legal bounds within the marketing community; we’d do that by suspending the companies involved in any national marketing associations they are involved with.

CustomScoop's Sarah Wurrey asks on our company blog whether this might not lead to copycats following the adage "there's no such thing as bad publicity."

One must wonder then whether there is a marketing exec somewhere turning secret cartwheels over this gaffe, even as they issue public apologies—and if other companies will make bungled attempts to imitate this sort of accidental publicity with stunts of their own.

Ultimately, every marketing firm and the companies that employ them must make their own determinations as to the level of risk they are willing to undertake, especially when it comes to guerrilla marketing campaigns.  By its very nature, this type of marketing will carry some risk.  And companies can't always foresee every possible unintended consequence.

Personally, I'm skeptical of ethics codes for professional associations and how much good they really do.  John Cass cited the Edelman 90 day suspension from the Word of Mouth Marketing Association last year as an example of the kind of thing that may curb questionable behavior.  But I wonder how much that would really factor in to any account exec's thinking at Edelman.  My guess is they fear their bosses more than WOMMA.  And Edelman isn't going to lose any business if it were out of WOMMA altogether.  That's not to say we shouldn't have ethics codes and firms shouldn't be urged to adhere to them, with consequences when they don't, but at they generally end up being fairly ineffective at behavior modification.

As usually happens, market forces will likely decide whether Interference went far or Boston overreacted.  Clients will vote with their marketing budgets by deciding whether to use that firm in the future.

Technorati tags: Boston bomb scare, Interference, guerilla marketing, John Cass, Katie Paine, Susan Getgood, Sarah Wurrey, WOMMA, ethics, marketing

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

How PayPerPost Did It

Duncan Riley offers a great look at how PayPerPost has marketed itself and become a name brand among bloggers in a very short period of time.  It's a great read and definitely food for thought.  I suspect that others may adopt a similar marketing strategy based on the clear success it has had for PayPerPost.  Perhaps the cornerstone of it all?  "Remember that there is NO such thing as bad publicity."

Technorati tags: PayPerPost, Duncan Riley, marketing

The BlogMob Should Give Scoble a Break

You gotta give Scoble credit.  Last weekend he was the mole in whack-a-mole when he accused prominent bloggers of not linking to others -- most especially to him and his PodTech videos. 

Not content with the bashing he took then from Jason Calacanis and others, he posted pure Bash Bait to his blog under the headline "PayPerSpeech Disclosure."  In hit, he revealed that he will soon speak at a conference where his expenses are to be reimbursed by the blogosphere's current favorite Public Enemy #1, PayPerPost.  But it would not merely be expenses the company planned to pay, but also an honorarium to be paid to Scoble's employer, PodTech, as reimbursement for his time.

Predictably, the Blog Mob erupted into a firestorm.  "Scoble Sells Out." "Scoble Pimping PayPerPost." "Scoble announces that he's become a paid shill for PayPerPost." "Robert Scoble got sucked into the PayPerPost machine." And it's still Saturday when the much of the blogosphere is quiet!

Even Shel Israel, the co-author of Naked Conversations with Scoble, added his two cents, saying "This will not help your reputation."

Ultimately, PodTech's CEO decided to reject the honorarium. 

Now maybe Scoble just was looking for links to his blog, but I doubt it.  Though I don't know him personally and have exchanged just a few emails over the years with him, my impression is that he's a straight shooter.  While the tone of much, though not all, of the attacks are somewhat muted in comparison to other recent attacks of the Blog Mob, it still has the cumulative effect of hysteria, especially when reviewing the comments on Scoble's blog.

Honoraria are nothing new.  Paying expenses for speakers is nothing new.  The fact that Scoble disclosed it is admirable.  Frankly, I'm not even sure it was necessary.  Speaking at any organization's invitation, with or without financial reimbursement, could conceivably bias a person anyway, so the mere act itself was probably sufficient. 

But to me, the most troubling thing I take from this episode is the Blog Mob will even engage in self-righteous hysteria targeted at one of the more well-known and (generally) respected members of the blogosphere.  We all need to remember that we can still agree to disagree.  Despite what many bloggers seem to think, for most issues there is no right or wrong answer, simply two (or more) individual's opinions.

So let's all give Scoble a break. 

Technorati tags: PayPerPost, Scoble, BlogMob

What is Spam?

This sounds like a stupid question, but it seems to me that based on several debates currently ongoing, it is becoming an increasingly valid one.  Two specific discussions come immediately to mind.

First, last week there was quite the kerfuffle over at TechCrunch over the actions of a competitor to a company reviewed by Mike Arrington. 

(Pointless aside: I have noticed recently that Neville Hobson uses the word kerfuffle frequently and it has become a new favorite of mine, especially as it relates to the blogosphere.  And even though this is my second mention of Neville today, he does not pay me a cent for the mentions -- which is probably good since I'm certain he has more, better readership than I.)

In a nutshell, a company named Spinvox was reviewed on TechCrunch and offered a limited number of free accounts to readers of that blog.  In order to claim the freebie, readers had to post their email address in the comments.  Seeking to take advantage of the situation, a competitor named Simulscribe had their CEO email the same folks offering a free account on their system. 

A vigorous debate broke out after Arrington slammed Simulscribe for "boldly spamming" his readers.  Perhaps what really set him off was the subject of the SimulScribe email ("Free Trial from TechCrunch").  Some commenters argued it was merely a good guerilla marketing tactic, while others concurred it was blatant spamming.  As it often does when the question of spam arises, the comments became quite vitriolic.

Now today comes news that Wikipedia is attempting to fight link spam on its property by instructing search engines not to pay attention to outbound links anywhere on its site (in tech terms, using a "nofollow" tag on all such links).  Many are praising this decision, but others are raising questions.  Nicholas Carr questions the move, however, and notes that others have concerns as well. 

Carr writes:

I wonder, though, if it could also have the effect of reinforcing Wikipedia's hegemony over search results. The sources cited in Wikipedia, many of which are original sources, will no longer get credit for their appearance there, which should cause at least a little downward pressure in their own search rankings (hence providing a little more upward pressure, relatively speaking, for Wikipedia's articles).

And even among those who agree with the move, some wonder whether there ought not be a way to separate the spam from the legitimate links.  But inevitably a debate will arise over how to make that determination.  There will be many cases where the verdict will be uniform, but in many others there will be dispute.  At the end of the day, of course, it will be Wikipedia's decision to make (as it is for all site owners), but the implications could well be broad for the community as a whole.

Ultimately, spam ends up being entirely in the eye of the beholder.  Or as former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote in a famous 1964 opinion where he couldn't assign a specific definition for pornography: "I know it when I see it."

Journalists Have Always Been Paid for Performance

Steve Rubel essentially puts the question today: is pay for performance journalism right or wrong?  He specifically discussed ZDNet which now reportedly compensates its writers, in part, based on how popular their blogs are.

Here's an excerpt from Steve's take:

Many of the ZDNet blogs are written by veteran journalists turned bloggers. So, I don't anticipate that the performance based compensation changes their ethics one iota. Bloggers such as Foley, Dan Farber and David Berlind have been around a long time and they are highly ethical. They have a nose for news. And news is often what gets clicks. The newer voices on the site may have a taller trust hurdle to climb given this revelation.

To me, the debate is a moot.  Journalists have always been paid for performance.  Web traffic tracking simply makes it easier and more explicit.  But just because magazine or newspaper writers aren't directly paid per click doesn't mean that their employers don't focus on it heavily when they set compensation numbers.

Perhaps the most obvious case is freelancers, who make up a significant share of the writers for many magazines.  These folks are paid based on anticipated interest from readers.  In this case, they are effectively paid in advance but the same ethics situation would apply.  Is a freelancer more likely to pitch an obscure story that may interest few, or shoot for one about a big company with broader appeal?

But it isn't limited to freelance writers.  Staff writers for publications large and small are compensated in part based on how interesting their product is for readers.  Does anyone doubt that Walt Mossberg is compensated better than other tech writers because he is must reading at the Wall Street Journal?  Similarly, David Broder and Bob Woodward don't make more than colleagues at the Washington Post simply because they have been there forever, but because their columns and articles are must-reading and sell papers. 

So let's not get all exercised about the fact that bloggers are getting paid for traffic and may choose their topics accordingly.  All writers do it.