People want interaction with the appropriate human at the appropriate time. Same’s true online.

When I meet a friend in the pub, he doesn’t randomly pipe up “who’s your favourite A-Team character?”. I’ve filtered that sort of person out.

But plenty of people do have friends like that. So what doesn’t work for me in a brand tone might well work for others.

It’s not that the unbounded floodgates of human consciousness can’t ever be appropriate — Betfair’s Twitter account is great, but too many people seem to think it doesn’t take any effort to produce.

Perhaps useful: a slightly controversial piece that came out in the NYT about the influence of David Foster Wallace’s hypercasual, postmodern writing style.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/another-thing-to-sort-of-pin-on-david-foster-wallace.html?pagewanted=all

I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I think there’s a useful point in there worth reflecting on: a lot of people think the way to mimic the casual tone of the best writing is simply by being casual.

Could have been part of a very good content strategy – illustrates the point that no matter how much you hit the nail on the head with your content strategy, you will never please everyone.

http://www.app-advisor.info/2011/02/review-epicwin.html

And I love it.

:)

Responding in kind :)

“Nonetheless I do want to get my clients’ content in front of people’s eyes. And I suppose I dislike the idea that some bloggers who make a very good living elsewhere in the industry compare pay-to-post with prostitution, or suggest that my clients’ advertising budget magically becomes “dirty” as we begin to negotiate where on the page we want the content to appear.”

You want to use blogs as a media opportunity. Great – there are some bloggers who are open to commercial opportunities and pay per post, and are prepared to have their writing bought as a commercial opportunity. Fine and dandy if others are willing to offer up their writing like that, I personally write my blog as a personal blog and want to be beholden to no one and thus I don’t accept any commercial sponsorship or freebies or payment because I believe that to do so would be prostituting my own editorial freedom & integrity. I believe if others want to publish blogs which are open to commercial investment, then good for them – as long as they disclose. I wouldn’t do it but doesn’t mean others can’t or shouldn’t. And I do believe I’m entitled to the view that a personal blog is to me as a reader more interesting than a commercial blog. Others may disagree and that’s great! Variety and all. You don’t like my opinion and that’s fine – world would be very dull if we all agreed. And in the grand scheme my personal opinion about the blog I personally write and I personally choose to read makes bugger all difference to what anyone else chooses to do :)

If bloggers want to make money from pay per post, then fine, as long as they disclose. Others might be OK with not disclosing. I think it’s shitty not to, but again, my personal opinion.

As a reader, I am personally much more likely to place stock in / derive value from opinions that come from the blogger themselves, their own thoughts and views, than paid posts, I feel there’s more integrity in something that someone has written about of their own volition than something someone has paid them to write. Doesn’t mean I think they’re wrong to do so, just that I personally as a reader derive more value and satisfaction from reading writers’ own opinions rather than advertisers’. Same with magazines. I enjoy my favourite columnists much more than I enjoy advertorials. Just my opinion though. Others do I’m sure disagree.

My own personal view as a reader / consumer of content. I don’t think your clients’ budget becomes dirty if its used to pay for content. I do believe it’s dirty if it’s used to pay for content without disclosing that it’s been paid for.

I’m in favour of transparency. I also have a personal opinion about what I would and wouldn’t do on my own blog but wouldn’t presume to say that my own opinions should make a jot of difference to what anyone else chooses to do. I don’t want my blog to become ‘media space’. If others want their blog post content to become media space (rather than just carrying ads on their blogs) then fine, I’d just prefer paid-for content was clearly identified as such.

I’m sorry if my personal view isn’t helpful to your desire to use blogs as media space…but I’m sure there are tonnes of bloggers who are only to happy to accept a corporate shilling and post commercial content! I’m just not one of them….but in any case I’m tiny fry and doubt my little personal blog would be of any value as media space anyway!!

Nonetheless I do want to get my clients’ content in front of people’s eyes. And I suppose I dislike the idea that some bloggers who make a very good living elsewhere in the industry compare pay-to-post with prostitution, or suggest that my clients’ advertising budget magically becomes “dirty” as we begin to negotiate where on the page we want the content to appear.

Yes — I read the OFT story very carefully, that’s what started me on this rampage ;) The headline says that the OFT has cracked down on Pay-to-post. But it strikes me (and I need to confirm this) that the story is more complicated. For one thing, Handpicked supplies free review sets to their bloggers: and the bloggers haven’t always been disclosing this. For another, the bloggers may occasionally tweet a link to their story with the brand and product name in the copy; again – this isn’t allowed.

I’m hesitant to defend Handpicked – I don’t know the full facts, and the OFT notes (http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/consumer-enforcement/consumer-enforcement-completed/handpicked_media/) aren’t wonderfully specific. But one should probably pay careful attention to the bit that reads “or otherwise remunerated.” All I can say is that the OFT makes it clear that Handpicked co-operated throughout the investigation.

The networks in this space have been very careful about blogger disclosure. They’re careful about guidelines and pseudo-laws too (for example, the ones I deal with insist on nofollow links for paid insertions.) But I fear that the Handpicked story – which is no doubt complex – and posts like yours (and Tom’s, and – oh every journalist who ever throws their toys out of the pram over the iniquities of the PR world) will scare people away from experimenting with what may just become good media space.

Wow not had any comments on this for a while – thanks for chiming in. Will do my best to respond to your Qs….

Anyone who writes a blog is a blogger. I just think we need to be clear what is paid and what is earned.

I have no problem with bloggers carrying ad space – as long as the ads are clearly discernable as ads. Which they always are (at least, I’ve never seen display or text ads carried that you couldn’t tell were ads). I personally wouldn’t but that’s just me – each to their own.

Publishing from newswires – again there are plenty of blogs that do that. If you’ve not been directly paid to publish it, then it’s not paid. If you’ve been paid to publish it, then it’s paid, surely?

Advertorial content – again, I have no problem with it, as long as it’s made clear that’s what it is. Heather Armstrong at Dooce does this particularly effectively, I think. She makes enough income from her blog to support her family, and all power to her! She posts sponsored reviews of products that brands send her and pay her to review, and that’s what I would call advertorial content. Again, don’t have a problem with it because she clearly discloses that she’s paid for it. I would therefore classified that as paid media just as I’d classify an advertorial in print as paid (and print advertorials have to also make it clear that they are advertising promotions as distinct from editorial).

No probs at all with bloggers doing this. As long as they disclose. What I am bothered about is nondisclosure. And claiming earned media to be earned when it’s bought. Which is what GoViral were trying to do when they were trying to buy tweets and blog posts without asking (or demanding) users to disclose that these were sponsored by the brand in question.

I don’t think I could have been clearer in the post when I said “If bloggers want to make money by writing about brands in return for money, fair enough I guess, as long as they disclose that they’re being paid”

The OFT seem to think it’s quite important too:

http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/1046288/oft-cracks-down-deceptive-promotional-blogging/

They’ve ruled that blogs and tweets that have been paid for should be clearly marked as such. That’s what I believe I was arguing all the way through. Pay per post isn’t something I personally would do but accept that many bloggers would and do. All fine and dandy, as long as it’s disclosed that the blog post or tweet is a paid placement.

If you think I’m arguing that bloggers can’t do any of these things then I obviously haven’t made myself clear. I do think it’s disingenuous to claim paid-for blog posts, tweets and the like as ‘earned’ if they’ve been bought. I’m not saying they don’t have a value in the ecosystem. Just that it’s dishonest to pretend they’re not paid when they are.

The OFT seems to agree with this – be interested to see where you stand on this issue?

Are amateurs the only “serious bloggers”? Because that’s what you seem to imply.

Or is it OK to carry ad space? After all, there are lots of blogs that do that…

How about publishing stories from newswires or from press releases that you get sent? Is that OK? Do those people still get to be bloggers in your opinions?

If that’s OK (and you may not think that it is) then is it OK to post advertorial content? No?

No. Let’s leave that to the traditional press advertorial, podcast & radio show endorsement, TV product placement and AFP content.

Because we wouldn’t want blogging to become professionalised. Or make it worth a bloggers while to build up a large audience of followers.