A Wider Net

If you’re new to blogging, you should know there’s a dark side. Bloggers leverage the trust they have built with their audience to peddle goods for money. Purists are repelled at the notion, stating that the blogosphere is built around trust and “naked” conversations. This blog, for example, is supported by Cramer. I work for Cramer - they pay the bills and keep the hosting lights on. But we receive no money for the posts. We do this to organize our search for interesting new marketing tactics and technologies, and share the results with everyone. We will hopefully learn even more from you in return.

The blogs that receive money for posts, even occassionally, and don’t acknowledge it, are under constant fire from other bloggers. Recently, companies and associations are trying to pave the way for a “truth in advertising”-like code of ethics. One of them, PayPerPost, offers bloggers a way to make money with the blogs, but has recently launched a disclosure policy website and engine to promote transparency. They mention specific recent blog trust violations with WalMart/Edelman and the YouTube/lonelygirl15 scandal.

Another site trying to affect this trend is WOMMA, the Word of Mouth Marketing Association. They have a disclosure document posted that is open for comment. This feels a little more above-board than PayPerPost, whose disclosure policy website reaks of the same “if you label it then it’s ok” nonsense of tobacco cartel’s “Surgeon General Warning” labels.

This is an interesting conversation taking place in various blogs like this one. On the one hand, blogging is ideally meant to be an open and honest form of communication. On the other hand, it’s natural to expect that bloggers can earn money by writing about things. Where it gets ugly is when the readers suspect that the blogger’s opinions have been bought. Many of us love the blogosphere because, unlike broadcast and print news, there isn’t a ton of corporate and government control over content. For example - the Times recently printed an article about how Microsoft is releasing their iPod-like “Zune” and what the thought process was behind it’s development as a social media variation on the ubiquitous MP3 player. But apparently, only a week prior, they wrote a review panning the device. So they wrote about it anyway, giving Microsoft a bunch of free press, even though they hate the thing. Why? To sell papers. That’s not the motivation of your typical blog.

If you’re considering blogging as a communication conduit for you or your company - maybe to replace those awful over-polished turds known as “press releases” and make a real connection with your customers - you might want to follow this conversation.