• Where I stand on the whole “pay-per-blog/sponsored tweets” thing.

    Posted on August 11th, 2009 by and currently 31 commenting.

    I’m against it.

    Now before you start throwing all the semantics at me, let me ‘splain.

    I know that a lot of people who are questioning the practice of pay-per-post and sponsored tweets are talking about the disclosure policies and the trouble with enforcing them. But let’s put that aside for a moment, shall we?

    Here’s the biggest problem I have with it:

    People who normally wouldn’t be talking about you are talking about you. Like a soccer mom who is posting or tweeting about a plasma cutting company. Or an undergrad getting paid to push out messages about snow tires. Come on, really?

    You’re paying people to talk about you. Paying them. In the vast majority of cases, there’s no quality of content there. It does not matter to me that they can say what they want about their “sponsor’s” product. If you have to get paid to talk about something, I’m immediately going to question your motivation, which I’ll assume is cash. Not my best interests or the best interests of well, anyone really.

    So now you say to me, “Spike, you write about your clients all the time and don’t they pay you?” They don’t pay me to write anything. They don’t tell me to write anything. And guess what? As Eric Dodds pointed out in our conversation this week, I’m legally accountable to Brains on Fire.

    And now you ask, “What about the leaders of the movements Brains on Fire creates? They get paid to blog and tweet.” Great point. They do. But they are paid employees for the client. They are legally responsible for what they say and they go through intense training to teach them how to be transparent and honest. No exceptions. And since there are only a handful of leaders for each movement, we can enforce those things.

    If we have some sort of “relationship” on any SM platforms and I find out – through you being transparent or other ways – that you are getting paid to talk about something through a program like this, I’ll unfollow, unfriend and un-anything else I can think of because you have sold your credibility. And if you can be bought, then I can’t trust you.

    A lot of people say that there are many gray areas with this issue, but I don’t see it that way. And if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything. I think Ted Murphy and the folks at IZEA are brilliant and are making truckloads of money. But I don’t have to like it. This is advertising at its worst. Is it the best thing for your customers? Is it the best thing for your company? Doubtful.

    And that’s all I have to say about that.

  • Matt

    When people stop listening, scream louder!

  • http://www.PermissionToSuck.com Bruce DeBoer

    To those who are paying for buzz, you’re missing bigger point.

    Successful brands are that way now more than ever because they deliver. If you have to pay for testimonials it probably means you aren’t delivering on your brand promise.

    Honesty in social media is especially crucial because the push back will be hard and swift when the propaganda is outed. Social media is personal, violate that trust at your peril.

  • http://brainsonfire.com Spike

    Matt – exactly.

    Bruce – Fantastic point that I will add to the arsenal of why this is a bold idea, but a dishonest one.

    Thanks for stopping by.

  • Pingback: effectwebmedia (Effect Web Media)

  • http://mghwom.com Ryan

    Spike,

    Couldn’t have said it better myself.

    In fact, you said it so well that I want to tattoo your face to my face so that I can be you.

    Is that weird?

    Ryan.

  • http://buildintelblog.com Nick

    Spike,

    I share the same position, but I couldn’t help but think about what I do for a living as a marketer as I started to read this. Then you went and addressed it so well. Your voice is authentic and inspiring, which is something you can’t say for most of the social media/WOM “experts.”

    A new movement is a comin’…

  • Pingback: ahrycyk (Ashley Hrycyk)

  • http://brainsonfire.com Spike

    Ryan – yes, that’s weird. But I’ll encourage it.

    Nick – A new movement is a comin’ indeed. Thanks for the kind words.

    Ashley – Fight the power, my sista.

  • http://www.techrp.com Jason Pyle (@jmpyle)

    Spike,

    Great blog post and great point. I think it goes against the organic nature of SM (and twitter) in general But thinking about this more closely, it’s no different than paying celebs and others to be on TV or print ads. The difference is the forum. My point being – it was bound to come to this right?

    I don’t like it, I don’t think it’s good for SM, Twitter in this case, but it’s the natural progression of things, like it or not. I plan on ignoring it and like you mention, those that are doing it will lose credibility in my book.

    On another note: Spike I love your and Brains On Fire’s take on about everything. The approach, the things you guys stand for are amazing, and deserve aplause. That said, you DO have a direct benefit for “banging the gong” for your clients. The fact they don’t pay you SPECIFICALLY for writing is a technicality only. They’ve paid or are paying you to provide a service for them. And sure that specific service may be complete, but the more buzz BOF can create for them, and the more they grow, etc. etc. the better that is for BOF. And that’s ok.

    I hate that it’s coming to pay per tweet stuff, but it doesn’t surprise me and I can ignore it.

  • Pingback: JoeSales (Joe Vaughn)

  • http://brainsonfire.com Spike

    Thanks for the very thoughtful comment, Jason. And you’re right: we can’t stop it, but we don’t have to endorse it. Glad you’re “Same Tribe.”

  • Pingback: NIN_013 (NIN_013)

  • Pingback: mbkelley (Brandon Kelley)

  • Pingback: pr_marketing (PostRank – Marketing)

  • http://www.doterati.com/ Mark Krupinski

    Great points, but I would argue it’s a natural evolution in the current paradigm shift we are undergoing in communications. With every technology, there is someone out there looking to make a buck off it and that’s the entrepreneurial way – good and bad. War USA! :P

    Personally, I’m on the fence and have been for quite a while – see: http://organizedmashup.wordpress.com/2007/01/22/pay-per-post-unwanted-mavericks-or-visionary-gen/

    But I know this, I follow people for a reason; I get satisfaction from the sense of community (not the collecting of “baseball cards”), information from those I trust, and professional engagement. And when someone in this big “cocktail party” we call the social web does something I don’t like – paid or unpaid – I dissolve the relationship.

    It’s like turning off a channel on TV.

    Regardless, as always, great post and thanks for sharing.

    Cheers,

    Mark

  • Pingback: hyku (Josh Hallett)

  • http://www.chriswalbert.com Chris

    Well said, Spike.

    Last week, Ted compared sponsored tweets to sponsored search results. My biggest issue with this comparison deals with what people expect in these two places. When we Google something, we are expecting an algorithm to spit out related results, some of which will be from companies, and some will be paid for. Either way, they are at least somewhat related to your specific question.

    Sponsored Tweets are a totally different story. First, the recommendations are unsolicited. Second, if I get a recommendation from someone I consider a friend (or at least an internet friend), I value that recommendation more and expect that they truly love the company/product or at least had a really good experience with them.

    While there may be a few occasions when you are sponsored tweeting about a company/product you really love, it seems that this will rarely be the case.

  • http://xentek.net/ Eric Marden

    That’s been my take on IZEA and other Sponsored ‘Conversations’…. good for them, but its not for me and I don’t think it improves the internet one bit.

  • Pingback: alexdc (Alex de Carvalho)

  • Pingback: aschek (Alexander Schek)

  • Pingback: alexdc (Alex de Carvalho)

  • http://brainsonfire.com Spike

    @Chris – right on. NOT the same. Apples and oranges.

    @Eric – well said. I know it’s gonna happen, but we can still warn our colleagues and clients.

  • Pingback: aschek (Alexander Schek)

  • Pingback: The Metrics of Annoyance « CPL Creative

  • http://wellknowwhenwegetthere.blogspot.com/ Alison Byrne Fields

    The next time someone gives you a hard time for tweeting about your clients, remind them that it’s one of the perks of only working with clients for which you have respect and about which you are sincerely enthusiastic.

    (Or tell them I’ll kick their ass. Either one works for me.)

    @abfdc

  • Pingback: abfdc (Alison Byrne Fields)

  • Pingback: jackiehuba (Jackie Huba)

  • Pingback: jdecesaro (John DeCesaro)

  • Pingback: What Do I Stand For? « Natasha Teague

  • http://www.brandidentityguru.com/wordpress BIG Kahuna

    I think it’s unfortunate that you think so little of the people (bloggers) who earn a living from making fair, honest reviews. Believe it or not many are very ethical. As long as the review is open and honest it’s good. Whether they have experience or even use the service/product is irrelevant. They are simply giving an opinion, good or bad. Trust me you don’t have to be an expert in tires to give an opinion.

    I’ve used many people then given word of mouth opinions only to find out they didn’t deliver the goods to the people I suggested them to. Every have that happen to you?

    Paid blogging is outstanding and I will always favor it as long as the blogger is honest. After all, wouldn’t it be better to receive a good review from a tough, honest blogger? Someone who isn’t afraid to say you stink? I’d rather have that blogger than some nobody just doing it because they want to.

  • Pingback: Brains On Fire Blog » Blog Archive » Standing for something is part of your Identity