This post is in response to Frank Pasquale’s “Assessing Algorithmic Authority” which was in turn in response to Clay Shirky’s “A Speculative Post on the Idea of Algorithmic Authority.” I attempted to leave this in comment form on Frank’s post, but kept getting errors (I hate when that happens), so lucky you — you get to hear my ranting.

The question I specifically want to address is:

“Now the question becomes: are these algorithmic authorities any worse than the corporate goliaths they are displacing?”

I would argue that they are for a few reasons:

1. “Authority” status with them can change as often as daily.
2. Most “algorithmic authorities” can still be easily and heavily manipulated, meaning those who focus on working the tools can appear to have more authority than someone with true influence who takes a more natural path.
3. These “algorithmic authorities” (namely Big G, since their PageRank algorithm was used as an example) have been known to override these algorithms at will if you don’t act in accordance with the rules of the pseudo Internet police.

   For example, it’s well-known that they’ll eliminate or decrease your PageRank if you use an advertising model they don’t approve of (specifically because their own algorithm is faulty and couldn’t account for the natural move into paid link advertising). If you use the model without following their own rules, they treat you like a spammer no matter how relevant or transparent the ads on your site might be — there’s no differentiation between legitimate and relevant ads that offer value and true spam.

   I personally saw one of my sites go from from a PR 6 to 0 quite a while back when I refused to bend to Google’s whims (and still won’t). Did the actual “authority” of the site decrease from a reader perspective? Did it suddenly have less value than others in the niche? Absolutely not.

   Google’s also been known to penalize sites in search engine rankings manually. So in fact there CAN be human interference with algorithmic outputs. It’s simply hidden from the average viewer / user.

I’d be incredibly disappointed to see this particular tool (PageRank) factored into anything authority-related not only because of Google’s well-documented behavior and biases but because they themselves removed it recently from their webmaster tools because they said they basically didn’t want site owners obsessing about it so much anymore. They’re not even attempting to “convince us of the importance” anymore.

The extreme inaccuracies of just about every online authority / influence ranking tool or algorithm aren’t new. They’ve been discussed in depth for quite some time following the “best” list craze that relied on them to paint a false picture of influence in the blogosphere.

The fact that most people might be naive enough to believe something that’s inaccurate just because so-and-so (or some site / tool) said so doesn’t mean the source has true “authority.” It just means society’s been dumb-downed.

I really didn’t want to get too involved in the whole mommy blogger bullshit scene, but after this AdAge post, I’ve decided that it was time to say a few things. (Note: I’m posting those thoughts here instead of in a comment on the AdAge post, because I refuse to comment on any blog that forces registration first.)

1. Mommy bloggers aren’t special. - This cult-like mentality drives me insane, really. It’s not just mommy bloggers (and by all means it’s not all mommy bloggers - I know plenty of honest and sane ones). It’s a subgroup of the whole WAHM group which I’ve taken issue with for years through my freelance writing work. It’s the epitome of mob mentality. They need to stop isolating themselves. They’re bloggers - just like every other damn blogger out there.
   
   

   Yes, they may have a natural audience. So do a lot of other niche bloggers. That doesn’t make them special. It doesn’t mean they deserve special treatment. It doesn’t mean they deserve loads of free shit just because they want it, and (god forbid) blogging actually involves some work! Frankly most bloggers (including mommy bloggers) do not deserve half of the swag they get as it is. They only get it because some PR and marketing folks responsible for it with companies are simply too f*ing lazy to find out exactly what kind of reach those blogs have.

   Guess what ladies - if they did their job and took a hard look at your stats, chances are you’d get a whole lotta nothing. Count your blessings.

2. Nobody “hates mommy bloggers for their swag” - What we hate is the fact that not only do they get the swag, but then they proceed to bitch about it! If you think PR folks (or marketing folks more accurately) are evil for doing their job just because you’re too greedy to say no when people offer you free things, then learn to say no instead of biting the hand that feeds you (or more accurately buries you in your precious swag).
   
   
   

   BlogHer wasn’t the issue alone. The PR Blackout wasn’t the issue alone. It was the hypocritical combination of moving from “PR people suck for giving us free shit” to “Gimme, gimme, gimme!” in record time! Again, not all bloggers fall into that group, but I seriously found myself wondering at the time how many of those swag-in-arm mommy bloggers at BlogHer previously decided to spit in the face of the people (and companies) offering them those goodies.

   That’s the difference between mommy bloggers and others - bloggers behaving badly, and doing it as a group. I can’t recall the last time I saw people up in arms about other blogger groups who get equally valuable review material. Why? Because they don’t act like self-important snobs who demand more than they can justify deserving - at least not on such a grande scale. They don’t tell PR / marketing people to shove off because they can’t juggle their own responsibilities, and then run back when they want free crap again. They also don’t pretend to have an incredible reach for products they simply want as opposed to those best targeted to their readers. Do moms care about cars? I’m sure they do. But that doesn’t mean a mommy blogger deserves one (even for a while). There are better targeted publications and sites, and ones with bigger audiences.

3. It doesn’t matter what print magazines do. - The argument that the behavior is okay because women’s magazines get swag is as absurd as saying they deserve it because blogging is such hard work. Bullshit.
   
   
   

   First, if blogging is such hard work that you can’t do it without feeling compensated, then do as every other online business owner has to do and learn how to properly monetize  your f*ing blogs. If you’re too lazy to learn the business side of the game, you don’t get to use the compensation / hard work argument.

   That’s the equivalent of lazy writers complaining to me constantly that they can’t earn more than $5 per article. No, they’re just too lazy to learn how to move beyond that - all of the information is out there for them to improve their careers, and all of the information is out there for mommy bloggers to learn how to (ethically and effectively) monetize their own blogs if they want something for their time. Swag isn’t meant to be compensation for the oh-so-exhausting work of blogging.

   Back to magazines - unless you’re one of the few mommy bloggers who have a comparable (or greater) targeted audience (targeted being the key - meaning after weeding out all of the crap traffic), then you can make the argument that you deserve equal treatment. Maybe. IF the company’s target audience is the type who reads blogs (hint: your blog doesn’t fit into the marketing mix of every company that happens to target women).

   At the same time, why should mommy bloggers (who specialize in writing for moms, not women in general) equate themselves to women’s publications? They’re not the same thing. They’re focused on a narrower niche within the female audience, and not all companies are specifically targeting moms - more general publications make more sense to them. It would be like me saying I should get all of the same crap BusinessWeek journalists get just because I run a PR blog. PR is a narrower niche. BusinessWeek reaches a much bigger, broader audience. Of course they’re going to be treated differently!

   Marketing budgets aren’t endless. Companies can’t afford to send samples out to every Jane Doe who happens to yap to other mothers on the Web. Get over it.

I don’t hate mommy bloggers. I really don’t. Some of my favorite people are moms. Some of my favorite people are bloggers. And some of them are both. But there’s no excuse for the kind of behavior some have had recently. It’s as if they had no idea people would be watching - and if you don’t realize that, it’s time to get out of the blogging game.

While the PR blackout was a poorly thought-out plan, it did get one thing right - how about everyone shutting the hell up about all the crap they get and start getting back to your readers? It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t review products if you want to. But do that. Review them! Don’t post just because you got something. Don’t brag about how important you think you are because people are giving you shit (you’re not). Instead, go through all the swag and ask yourself “of all of this crap that I really don’t need, would any of it be truly useful to my audience?” If the answer’s yes, then write an honest review for your readers. If not, then scrap it. It’s not a difficult concept. In the end remember this — you can survive without swag, but you’re nothing without your readers.

I don’t visit PRWeb often these days, since I don’t work in release distribution and media relations anymore. Today I stopped by to look for an archived version of a client’s release that was distributed there, and to say I was turned off by the recent design changes would be a serious understatement. Since a PRWeb employee asked what I didn’t like about it, I decided to answer that here (and hopefully some of you will chime in with your thoughts, whether you agree or not).

The Overall Design

Look. I wasn’t an early PRWeb fan. You can find out why from my past posts. I was eventually won over by Joe Beaulaurier (no longer with them) and his responsiveness in addressing problems on the site (like the previous lack of transparency about pricing until you were actually in the order process — thankfully at least they kept that transparency with the new design).

If there’s one thing PRWeb got right, it was putting function before aesthetics. PRWeb was never an “ugly” site. And it got the job done. You could find what you wanted easily as soon as you got to the site. There wasn’t wasted space. Now most things above the fold on the homepage are just unnecessary. Did they really have to use a graphic taking up about a quarter of the page just to promote their tour of the site? No. And you can’t even make the argument that it’s needed because of the registration form there. Why? Because just above that is a separate button taking you to the registration page. Can anyone say “redundant?”

What was sacrificed because of this newly wasted space? Well, paying customers for starters. I remember having clients want a top five or top ten spot there. Those wanting top placements generally did it because they expected their listing to appear above the fold for a better chance of conversion. Given that the graphic and signup form now pushes down those paid positions significantly (on a basic widescreen laptop monitor I see only three above the fold now), they’re not giving those paying customers as much bang for their buck. Is that how most people are going to find a release? Probably not. But I have seen the stats on releases from clients who paid for #1 spots, top tens, and much lower packages putting them mid page one or page two. There is definitely a traffic difference.

Essentially it looks like PRWeb is putting far too much focus on trying to suck in new customers and not enough on their existing customers. Might seem like a simple design change to some. Seems like a customer service snafu to me.

Navigation

Again, I’ll give them kudos for keeping the pricing packages available in the main navigation. But the convenience factor just isn’t there anymore. Rather than a link to search the archives being right up front, for example, there’s a search form embedded on the site. Normally, I’d say that’s great–it cuts out a click for the user. But if you’re going to do that, then don’t tuck the search form quietly into the mix. Make it easier to find. It does nothing to jump out at you as it is, it’s not in a location where most people would look for a search form (generally in a segregated sidebar or the header), and the washed out look makes it practically fade into the background.

Other navigation issues include the fact that news sorting options are now buried well below the fold on the left, and you have to scroll all the way to the footer just to get to the About page (which as a standard should be pretty easily accessible). Basically, for most things you’d want to find, you’ll now spend more time tracking down or scrolling to the link. The previous navigational structure wasn’t perfect (while I can’t see it cached anymore, I do remember thinking at times that a few things could probably be removed). Maybe not perfect, but absolutely better than the current incarnation.

Width

Again, I can’t view a cache, so maybe I’m wrong about this. But didn’t PRWeb used to be a fluid-width site? I’m not completely anti fixed-width (this blog is a fixed-width site), but PRWeb has far too much information on a page to be cramming anything into fixed width designs. Just another case of aesthetics being put before function (and I can’t even say the new site is more aesthetically pleasing, at all).

Color Scheme

The red elements of PRWeb’s site worked very well with their branding — like the logo, which still sports it. The washed out blue look does nothing for the site. They had a great color combination with the red and blue before. They periodically tweaked things without major overhauls, and it kept improving over time. This looks like a generic Web template you’d find for sale on a webmaster forum - nothing tying into the established image on a visual level. The old design was, well, PRWeb. This design could be tossed on just about any site out there. Not a winner.

There’s more (like a lack of popular release tags from a site that was involved in social media releases before anyone even coined the term or concept of a social media release!). But again, since I can’t pull up a copy of the most recent design pre-change, I can only go from memory for now. I haven’t even tried playing around on the backend yet, so I don’t know if it’s been changed as well — I’d imagine so for the sake of consistency, but I don’t have time to fiddle with it right now. From a quick peek, it does look like it.

I really had high hopes that PRWeb was going to keep improving, but coming across this new design was a huge disappointment. I’d beg and plead for them to go back to the old design — one that made sense and worked rather well for what they are. But I doubt it’s worth the effort. Unfortunately Joe’s no longer there for me to simply drop him an email asking what the hell they were thinking. So to whoever makes those calls there these days, let me ask you, “What the hell were you thinking?”

I received a reader question a little while ago related to the freedom customers have in leaving public feedback about a company, and how a company should treat derogatory comments when they have the ability to delete them. While the question specifically asks about Facebook accounts, it equally applies to company websites, blogs, and other social media tools where you have the ability to censor comments.

Assuming someone puts a derogatory or perceived derogatory comment on your Facebook page (and you are a company), do you take it down to address it, or do you leave it up there with a note that you will be contacting them if you know how to get in touch?

First, I’m happy to see that the question wasn’t a case of simply censoring negative comments, but still being willing to address them even if removed.

More to the point, I have to say there’s no clear cut answer for this one. There are a few things to consider:

1. Does the poster want an actual, and personal, solution to the problem or are they bitching just to bitch?

My philosophy is this: bitch to your heart’s content as long as there’s a real problem, but be prepared to take credit for your comments. If they aren’t giving you any option to contact them (no phone number, email address, or even a Web link where you could find that), then they don’t want a personal solution that badly. Does that mean you should delete anything that’s anonymous? I don’t think so. But there’s a real difference between an anonymous comment laying out a reasonable suggestion or exposing a real customer issue with your product or company that could be addressed for every customer’s sake and an anonymous comment that’s unnecessarily heated because someone was posting-while-pissed.

2. Is the language inappropriate for your site (or profile)?

What’s considered tolerable language for one audience may be completely inappropriate for another. If you don’t want to allow swearing on your incoming comments, that’s fine. But make that clear up front in a comment policy, so there’s no question as to why something may have been removed. If you don’t have such a policy in place, you run a bigger risk of it stifling conversations with other customers if they worry you’re simply going to delete anything you don’t agree with.

3. Is it libelous?

While I’m all for free speech, there’s no place for libel. Your company certainly shouldn’t feel required to host it or support it by allowing it to stay in your comments just because you don’t want to be known for overly censoring feedback.

4. Is it really a derogatory comment?

I don’t think it’s acceptable for any company to censor comments just because they don’t agree with what was said. I’d be careful about limiting the scope of what the company considers inappropriate, so as not to turn away potentially valuable constructive criticisms (look at it this way - it’s free market research).

There are cases where deleting feedback may be the most appropriate course of action, but remember that there are consequences. If you’re overly liberal in using your delete button, you’re going to turn some potentially mild and constructive situations into much more heated ones. Would you rather encourage a wide range of honest feedback on your profile page or website, or would you rather have an oddly peachy view there, but even more venomous attacks on the major consumer reporting websites which quite possibly reach more of your potential customers than your Facebook profile does? I’d choose the former. One of the greatest things your company can do for its reputation, especially online, is to be responsive to customer feedback. As long as you don’t choose to turn a blind eye to anything and everything that’s critical of your company, you’ll put yourself in a better position to do just that.

For Further Enlightenment

• Moderating Your Blog - 3 Times When it’s OK to Delete Comments!
• PM Best Practices - Dealing with Customers and Clients
• The Growing Feedback Fiasco
• Responding to Negative Comments on Your Blog
• Don’t Censor Online Feedback

Just a very mini-rant today after catching up on some feeds:

If you want to risk completely turning off your readers and sacrificing your site’s credibility with them when posting a “Top whatever-the-hell-it-is-this-week” list, go ahead and include yourself. Better yet, list your own site or blog as the #1 resource (because of course nobody else would).

Just brilliant.

Today let’s chat about a tool from David McInnis, brought to my attention a little while ago by Joe Beaulaurier: PeoplePond.

The site is billed as a “personal SEO” tool, to assist in personal branding. But do we really need one?  So far I’m not convinced. But I don’t know. Maybe I’m just a bad example.

Elastic SEO: The Concept

McInnis talks on PeoplePond’s blog about “elastic SEO.” What is it?

In short it’s just old fashioned reciprocal linking (which, in its often excessive form, has actually been discouraged by Google over the last few years although it does still impact rankings in the SERPs). The idea is this:

1. You set up a profile page with PeoplePond.com.
2. You add a link to your PeoplePond profile to all of your other social media profiles (twitter, facebook, or what have you).
3. You add a link to each of those external social media profiles on your PeoplePond.com profile page.
4. Yippie skippy, your rankings will increase.

Don’t get me wrong. In no way am I saying that won’t work. I’m sure it will. But why would I want it to? Why would I put that much effort into a page on someone else’s site instead of simply employing good SEO tactics targeting my primary business site, blog, or profile page that already exists?

Why I May be a Bad Example

I’m a very active Web publisher. My name is tied to quite a few websites, some of which I own and manage, some of which I simply contribute to (or used to contribute to), and some of which I use for networking or marketing. I haven’t made any active personal SEO efforts (I focus any and all SEO work on specific content or specific pages on my business site where I’m selling various writing services).

Yet 8 of the top 10 spots on Google for a search of my name–Jennifer Mattern–are related to me including links to my top two traffic blogs and a business site, site’s I’ve written for, reviews, etc.  (the top two go to JenniferMattern.com, the site of a playwright and rather awesome blogger who happens to share my name - on that note I’m actually interviewing her for another site of mine shortly). I have no need to get into an SEO war over that placement.

I’m also pretty selective about my various profiles, as I network with more than one audience. For example, I have a Myspace profile used exclusively to network with musicians, related to a music webzine I run. I’m also a member of communities where I network with writing-related colleagues, and still others where I network with other webpreneurs (many of whom have become clients, but also many of whom I simply enjoy keeping up with when keeping a finger on the pulse of new technologies on the Web).

I don’t want writing colleagues subjected to information meant for musicians, and those musicians likely have no interest in hearing about Web development (at least not most of them). There’s a reason I have different social media profiles at different places to begin with.

In the end, as usual, it’s about targeting. I question anyone who feels a need to join social network after social network just because it’s the thing to do at the moment. Want to optimize? Focus on building a more comprehensive presence with a more limited number of tools, and give people a reason to link to you and talk about you in the first place (there’s nothing better for natural SEO rankings than word of mouth and natural linking). PeoplePond.com does nothing I couldn’t do from my own business site (if I wanted to - and I haven’t had to do that in order to secure decent rankings).

Maybe if you don’t know enough to use your own site as your one-stop-shop for personal SEO and social media aggregation (or you don’t know how), it would make more sense for you.

Who Might Benefit from Personal SEO Tools

The fact is that, unless you’re exceptionally well-known, most people probably aren’t actually searching for your name to begin with (so rankings for that keyword phrase may not mean much anyway). You’d have a better chance of bringing them to your site(s) or profile(s) by optimizing for the specific content hosted there.

If people already are searching heavily for your name, chances are also good that you have natural links to your existing business site or blog anyway (if you don’t have a site, you’re not ready for SEO to be a priority anyway).

So okay. Let’s say that you’re well-known, people are searching for you by name because of your other personal branding efforts, you do have your own site and / or blog, but they’re not ranking well because you just happen to share a common name with lots of other folks. Okay. Then, maybe (if you’ve already tried and failed to increase rankings by interlinking your already-existing sites and profiles unsuccessfully), it would be worth setting up yet another one to try to improve the situation.

Aggregation

I’m all for social media aggregation where appropriate. During my hiatus here I actually had a conversation with a colleague about that topic and how it’s going to (in my opinion) be the next big thing in social media - far beyond what we’re seeing so far with existing tools. So in that sense, I think PeoplePond.com is fine and dandy.

If you want one link to pass around that will point folks to all of your social media presences, by all means, it may work for you. Personally though, if I’m going to take the time to build links to a page or promote the URLs to drive traffic to it, I’m going to send that traffic and those links to a page on my own site.

Really, the PeoplePond concept could work with any of your other profile pages, or even something like a personal Squidoo lens. But I’ll give them credit for working to help people aggregate content (it would be nice of course if people did that without forgetting about targeting - not saying they are, but that it’s a risk with any aggregation tool).

So do you need a service like PeoplePond to get the benefits of personal SEO? No, not really. And with the way tools designed solely for SEO linking value tend to get bitch-slapped down by Google before long anyway, I don’t see myself wanting to take the time to optimize that page on someone else’s site.

I’ll stick to good old fashioned white hat SEO - building natural backlinks by posting content people choose to link to, bookmark, and pass around; not obsessive reciprocal linking (there’s a reason you don’t see links to all of my other sites from any single one of my sites - I used to do it, realized how sickly spammy that was, and stopped - my sites still tend to rank well for my targets).

It’s interesting to note that the PeoplePond blog specifically talks about Google profiles, and how they’re not really focused on helping the user with SEO - that’s because Google frowns on any activity with the sole purpose of manipulating their rankings, and have made it clear repeatedly to the webmaster community for a few years now (why paid links, Squidoo, and Web directories all took hits at various times over the past two years). I’m one of the last people to do anything just because Google says it’s the right thing to do, but I always have been and always will be a big believer in natural and deserved linking as much as possible, and if you’re going to link to your other sites / pages, make sure it’s of value (so for me, not connecting the various unassociated groups I network with through a single service).

I’m not saying you shouldn’t sign up. Go ahead. Set up a page and play with the service for a while. It may be more your cup of tea. The fact that it didn’t strike my fancy certainly doesn’t mean it won’t be beneficial to you in some way if you need a boost in the SERPs.

Beyond the emphasis on SEO, PeoplePond.com is designed to give you contact portability by incorporating Weavemet and DandyID services into the site. While it doesn’t really apply to the personal SEO issue I wanted to discuss today, if you’re looking for a tool to help you manage your multiple online identities, PeoplePond might be for you.

Asking lots of questions this week, and hearing some interesting thoughts–today let’s talk about spam on Twitter. What constitutes tweet spam in your eyes, and what’s simply good old marketing? This issue has been on my mind for a while, ever since Dave Fleet’s post on Guy Kawasaki and ghost-tweeting (my issue being “should someone who constantly self-links via tweets really be calling out someone else on ethics using the same tool?”).

I’m especially interested to hear what you think about:

1. Self-linking to your own blog posts
2. Automated tweets

Here are some of my thoughts:

Self-Linking

Links are a beautiful thing, aren’t they? But only if they’re deserved. I can’t take any issue with basic link-backs (interlinking related articles on your blog, linking your company site to your blog, links in a press release or article credit, etc.). That’s just natural, and those kinds of links add real value to the reader.

What I don’t like are spammy links like those I often see on Twitter - where someone feels a need to link in a tweet to every single blog post they publish. Look, if people really give that much of a damn about your blog, they’ll subscribe to your feed. They don’t need what really amounts to a manual feed coming through Twitter as well. It’s obnoxious. It’s like screaming “Look at me! Look at me! I said something new and I’m so uber important I just knew you couldn’t wait another minute for it!” Yuck.

I only follow a few folks who do this. Unfortunately they’re people I otherwise respect who should frankly know better (plenty I have no respect for at all do it as well–I just make it a point not to follow them). It’s gotten to the point where a few of these people post more link spam garbage than truly valuable tweets.

I thought the supposed beauty of Twitter was the ability to hold immediate multi-party conversations in a forcibly concise way. Linking to your own posts isn’t about conversation–not on Twitter at least. The bulk of blog conversations happen directly on the blog. To me that means those links (when self-serving) are little more than traffic-generation tools without any real thought behind them. That makes them spam in my book (on par with press releases put out solely for backlinks, which is disgustingly common).

Released an interesting report of value to more than just your regular blog readers? Cool. Tweet it. Real news about that site or blog? OK. Tweet that too. But linking just to link gets pretty pathetic pretty quickly. What do you think about constant self-linking via Twitter?

Automated Tweets

For the most part, my thoughts on automated tweets are simply SPAM! I don’t follow people using them. That said, I’m open to the thought that there might be limited non-spam uses of tweet automation (such as a Web hosting provider offering automated server status updates to customers or someone subscribing to automated weather updates especially during severe storm warnings and such).

Spam is all about solicitation. When I follow someone, I’m soliciting their thoughts–not constant links to their own content that I can easily follow elsewhere, and not posts from a bot of any kind (unless I knowingly subscribe for automated updates). Anything else, to me, is spam. The beauty is that you can always (well usually) unfollow someone. But just as an unsubscribe link in an email isn’t necessarily enough to say it’s not spam, is an unfollow button on Twitter? I’ll leave it to your thoughts….

For Further Enlightenment

• Here Comes Twitter Spam and How to Fight It
• Don’t Spam Twitter with Forced Tweets
• Will Search & Reply Spam be Twitter’s End?
• Twitter Spam Already Annoying Some Users
• Twitter Spam Not Likely to Kill Twitter

I’m a strong believer that communications professionals (especially in PR and social media areas) have a responsibility to be somewhat liberal in their comment policies on blogs, networks, etc. Why? Because I don’t think you can really advocate for building conversations if you aren’t open to them yourself–even if they may get a bit heated.

NakedPR only now has an official comment policy, and I try to keep it open. Criticize as much as you want as long as you’re constructive, and if you want to post just to be a jackass, hey, that’s okay too–just take credit for your words. I’ve only banned one person from commenting on any of my blogs that I can think of (not this one), and that was for associating not only myself but many of that blog’s readers with the KKK because they didn’t agree with our views regarding pay issues of all things. It crossed a line. My lines are hard to cross. How about yours?

Do you think it’s okay to ban comments just because someone repeatedly questions you, disagrees with you, or points out what they believe to be flaws in your reasoning? At what point does open communication cross a line into the inappropriate? Are those lines different (or should they be) on a corporate blog? Is it okay for companies to reject negative comments and essentially “control” all aspects of the conversation?

What about links? Judy Gombita of PR Conversations recently asked on Ragan.com why comments didn’t allow a link to a person’s site or blog. I think that’s a good question, and Ragan isn’t the only guilty party - just a few weeks ago I was commenting on a larger media site with the same issues, and honestly I think it’s a problem.

To allow truly open conversations, I think it’s our responsibility to allow readers to decide who they trust and don’t trust. I should be able to click on a link if someone wants to leave one, where I can learn more about that person and determine whether their credentials make them someone I can believe in that subject matter or not. It’s one thing if everyone recognizes your name. That isn’t the case for most people, and not allowing them to demonstrate that they’re actually familiar with the industry or topic is almost akin to having them comment anonymously.

I’m less concerned with things like no-follow and do-follow links, as long as a link is available for actual visitors to click on (although that’s an interesting topic on its own).

How open are you with your comment policies and linking, and do you think communicators need to be held to higher standards on that front?

For Further Enlightenment

• Open Comment Policies on Blogs
• Banned from the Buzz Bin - Bummer!
• Does Your Blog Have a Comments Policy?
• Should My Business Blog, and Should I Delete Critical Comments?
• Communities Should Allow People to Delete Their Comments

Just a quick thought and a few questions today:

When the whole Domino’s issue went abuzz in SM land, all I could really think was “Don’t they have more important things to worry about? Like learning how to make a pizza that doesn’t taste like cardboard?” (I don’t know. I’m a native New Yorker, so good pizza’s in my blood - maybe I expect too much.)

Seriously though, in the grand scheme of things what really caused the supposed PR nightmare? The vid itself, or the social mediaphiles going on about it endlessly because of the type of tool being used? Are the people hoping to come to the rescue with their PR “fixes” doing the most harm to begin with? Did they blow something out of proportion just because, well, they could? Do the top dogs in social media and PR have any responsibility here? Should they allow themselves to be sucked into conversations because they’re there, or should they recognize bait and leave it to the little fish to bite? What was their role in creating the mess, and was it really that much of a “mess” to begin with? (Now go spend a few weeks working in a kitchen, and answer that again.)

For Further Enlightenment

• Domino’s Pizza Video Prank Pulled Too Soon
• Reputation Management - Domino’s Pizza
• Domino’s: How One YouTube Video Can Ruin a Brand
• Domino’s Pizza Deals with YouTube Nightmare
• Consumerist Sleuths Track Down Offending Domino’s Store

Last week, Chris Brogan posted in support of sponsored posts or content marketing. And while it may be surprising given my strong stance against companies like Molson, I think Brogan has it right. Here’s why:

There’s nothing wrong with marketing or advertising. Yes, I know, they’re our “evil twins” and whatnot, but in the grand scheme of things, there is absolutely nothing wrong with ethical marketing and advertising practices. With full disclosure, that’s what many sponsored posts are. Sounds hypocritical given my past stances perhaps, but it’s not. My primary issue with Molson and others over the last year haven’t been that they’ve given free crap to bloggers, but rather that they do it under the guise of good blogger relations, and focus targeting on influence alone rather than legitimate reader interest (those bloggers pretending sponsorship is a matter of good PR are far more unethical and misleading to their readers in my eyes than someone who discloses a sponsored post for precisely what it is).

The Influence Factor

“But paying a blogger to post might influence their opinions,” you might say. In fact, one comment on Brogan’s post specifically equated sponsored posts to “buying opinions.” What bullshit. First of all that mentality assumes that all sponsored posts are opinion-based to begin with (they’re not). It also assumes all sponsored posts are actually written by the blogger (they’re not). It also assumes that non-”sponsored” posts are unbiased to begin with if you want to make a negative comparison (they’re not).

Bloggers are in Business

I am just sick, sick, sick of PR and SM folks acting like tools exist for their purposes and their purposes alone. It’s bad enough that PR folks are habitually late to the game to begin with, but once they discover a new tool, it’s like no one exists but them. Yes, I understand the PR value of blogging. I understand the value of conversations and relationship-building. Blah, blah, blah. We’ve heard it all before.

What I also understand is that there are other motivations behind blogging. Blogs have always been self-serving. Even using them in a PR capacity is precisely that to some degree. Blogging is a significant part of my own business model. I’ve monetized them in numerous ways (from contextual ads to my own product sales to, yes, sponsored posts). And I can tell you for a fact that sponsorship in no way automatically equals positive opinions. In fact, on the site where I offered them (two years or so ago), the bluntly honest content was often cited as the reason for wanting a sponsored review to begin with - people wanted honest opinions on how to improve their sites and products targeting members of my audience.

I’ll give you another example, also from a few years back. I run a music webzine. We were always inundated with review requests. I hired reviewers to handle those for me. We did offer sponsored reviews. Payment had zilch to do with the content of the reviews (the reviewers were paid the same whether it came from me or the advertiser)–it was solely for guaranteed space on the site and a quick turnaround (where they could otherwise wait for weeks just to hear back from a reviewer because of the wait list before them). It was frequently used by artists and indie labels looking for last minute reviews for press kits on pre-launch albums. There were absolutely no differences between “normal” reviews and sponsored ones in the terms of what the writers delivered–ever.

It’s just business. And not everything in business has to do with PR. As a blogger you answer to your readers. If you’re able to work in sponsorships that don’t deter from their general experience, I’ve found they’re rarely really bothered by it (unless they’re taking part in one of these industry-centered debates). In fact, they may very well find them preferable to other monetization streams common in blogging, such as heavy use of contextual or banner ads.

If you keep your audience happy, and you’re earning enough to keep you in blogging (for those doing it as a business), then you’re doing something right.

What Constitutes “Sponsorship?”

For those so adamant about (again, disclosed) sponsored blog posts being evil, or some such nonsense, I have to wonder what they consider sponsorship (especially given this is the same crowd that backs half-assed “blogger relations” efforts revolving around event invitations and free crap).

Okay. Being paid cash outright for posting is certainly sponsorship. Then I suppose posts with affiliate links would also qualify (I mean, you are potentially getting paid for that post over, and over, and over again, and those links are often placed within reviews where they only earn if you buy).

How about that free stuff? How about those special events? If someone gives you something with the expectation (or even hope) that you’ll post something nice about them (and let’s be honest–no one specifically targets bloggers in the hopes they’ll keep their mouths shut), I don’t think there’s a valid argument that would support freebies not constituting sponsorship. Just look at the whole pseudo blogger relations rush targeting “influencers” instead of audiences. It’s all about wanting something in return (precisely why size matters folks).

Sponsorship Scenerios

Let’s think about two hypothetical blogs. The first is an informational tech blog run by an authority in the niche, and it generally consists of news and advice. The second is solely a commercial blog which revolves around product information (mostly reviews) to help readers make buying decisions. Let’s look at the role sponsored posts might play, and how there’s no one size fits all answer to the question of their ethics. Assume equal influence (read: popularity).

Authority Blog - Most of Blogger A’s posts have nothing to do with product reviews. However, once in a while when something new comes out of interest to his readers, he tests it out. Sometimes he buys the products himself, sometimes he tests them out in-store or through publicly-available trials, and sometimes he gets his hands on them through a friend.

Now let’s say Company A is releasing an anticipated gadget of some variety. A company rep is familiar with the blog, knows the readers fit within their target market, and they like the authority style of reviews the blogger writes up. They decide to send him a pre-launch “toy” to see if he’ll review it. He agrees. He writes a balanced review like those his readers are accustomed to, and he discloses how he received the item. No money changed hands, but you would be hard-pressed not to call that a sponsored post. Instead of giving him money, the company simply saved him from potentially spending that money himself later in exchange for that early authority review.

Is there anything wrong with this kind of sponsorship? I don’t think so. It’s disclosed. It’s honest. The readers know the blogger’s style better than anyone else, and they’re big boys and girls–they’re fully capable of deciding if they trust that review in comparison to others and making a decision of whether or not to buy.

Commercial Blog - I’m referring to this blog as a commercial blog, even though there may not be direct advertisements on the site–being paid in merchandise is still being paid.

This blog posts very little other than product reviews. In fact, they actively solicit freebies from companies interested in reaching their audience through a review. They rarely, if ever, actually purchase review materials just because they think something would be of value to their audience. They’re more likely to accept a more poorly-targeted item for review if it’s given to them for free, regardless of the interest their audience might have in it.

We’ll say this blog was originally designed to specialize in software, hardware, etc.–computer-specific gadgets and tools. Blogger B is contacted by the same company that reached out to Blogger A for a review of their new gadget (let’s call it the next iPhone alternative). They don’t hesitate to accept.

The review does disclose that item was given to them, and they also make an attempt to write a balanced review. However, unlike Blogger A, this blogger doesn’t have any real expertise in this type of gadget (meaning their review would likely carry less weight with the company’s specific target market).

Is there anything wrong with either of these situations? While I personally would never read Blog B, because I would find the constant sponsorship and greater interest in free stuff over readers to be obnoxious, I still don’t see anything inherently wrong with either blog as long as things are disclosed. I mean if the readers are sticking around, they know what they’re getting into, and they have the ability to leave at any time if they feel their trust was betrayed.

Yes, if their style changed for sponsored reviews I would say there’s an ethical dilemma. Yes, if they failed to disclose any kind of sponsorship it would be a problem. In the end, it always comes down to the individual blogger’s ethics. My actual opinions could never be bought–not with cash, not will affiliate earnings, not with free stuff. Can yours?

If you don’t like sponsored blog posts, that’s fine. Don’t host them, and don’t read them. More power to you. That’s between you and your audience and what’s acceptable in your blog’s niche. But don’t make blanket judgments that all of anything is automatically “bad” just because it doesn’t fit within your own goals within your specific profession. Criticize if you have valid points, yes. But try to put them in context. Sponsored posts come in many forms, from completely honest reviews to sponsor-provided advertorials. Don’t judge them all collectively.

As for Brogan, while I don’t personally support content marketing in a network type of environment, I know many others do. So to them, good luck with it. I hope they find a way to keep on benefiting everyone while keeping it honest, and maybe they’ll eliminate some of that sponsorship stigma in time.

For Further Enlightenment

• I Support the Future of Sponsored Posts
• Sponsored Blog Posts: Debate has Returned, and Both Sides Have a Point
• This Space (Is Not) For Sale
• Sponsored Posts: Advertorial 2.0
• Paid Posts Should Not Affect Search Engines (trying to hold back the Google rage while posting this one)