Flickr Feed
Speaking Engagements
- 8.19.10 - PRSA Webinar - Geno talks about How to Grow Word-of-Mouth Movements
- 10.19.10 - Geno Speaks - Public Relations Society of America International Conference, Washington D.C.
- 9.15.10 - Geno Speaks - Optimization Summit - Dallas, TX
- 7.20.10 - Geno Speaks - Supergenius Conference, New York, NY
- 5.22-25.10 - Geno Speaks with Angela Daniels - National Restaurant Association Show - Chicago, IL
- 3.23.10 - Geno speaks - Optimization Summit - Dallas, TX
- Past - 2.09.10 - Geno speaks - PRSA Teleseminar - How to Grow WOM Movements
- 4.22-24.10 - Geno speaks - NewComm Forum 2010 - San Mateo, CA
- Past - 1.27.10 - Spike speaks - Association of National Advertisers - Houston, TX
- Past - 12.05.09 - Geno & Eric speak - WordCamp Orlando, FL
Recent Articles
- Looking Up and Moving Down…Stairs!
- Lesson Eleven: The First Post - It’s About People, Stupid
- The book is here! The book is here!
- Chat pack Friday, living dangerously.
- Happy client?
- What’s your mecca?
- Firecam and pictures: Brains on Fire in the Recording Studio
- Lifting others up. Part two or three. Or four. Who knows.
- From Shannon: Technological enlightenment (and a side of fries)
- Picture Blog: Brains on Fire Through Intern Eyes
Search the Archives
-
Where I stand on the whole “pay-per-blog/sponsored tweets” thing.
Posted on August 11th, 2009 by and currently 30 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.
Tags: blogs, IZEA, Movements, pay per post, sponsored tweets, transparency, Twitter
30 Responses to “Where I stand on the whole “pay-per-blog/sponsored tweets” thing.”
-
When people stop listening, scream louder!
-
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.
-
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.
-
@BrainsOnFire thanks for the follow. Love ur blog! I echo your position on sponsored tweets. DONT DO IT [link to post] -
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.
-
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’…
-
Right on Spike (@brainsonfire), right.on: [link to post] -
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.
-
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.
-
New Blog Post: @hellocanvas [link to post] -
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.”
-
@BrainsOnFire Hot damn. You guys never cease to rock my world. -
@BrainsOnFire & @spikejones Fantastic post, well said. -
Where I stand on the whole “pay-per-blog/sponsored tweet… [link to post] #postrank #marketing -
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!
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
-
[link to post] Nice stuff from Spike about Pay-Per-Tweet, I’m with him -
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.
-
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.
-
“You’re paying people to talk about you…there’s no quality of content there. I’m against it” @brainsonfire [link to post] cc: @aschek -
@alexdc @brainsonfire valid comment but its 1 side of the story. How about Phelps sponsoring Kelloggs?[link to post] cc: @tedmurphy -
@aschek Celebrities being paid to endorse through mass media advertising are not like regular people being paid to post through social media -
@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.
-
@alexdc we are at the very beginning of advertising in social media. Like with TV, it is a natural evolution of any media. -
[...] surf to avoid the stupid commercial annoying. As Spike Jones of Brains on Fire puts it in a recent blog post, “You’re paying people to talk about you. Paying them. In the vast majority of cases, [...]
-
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
-
Late to the game, but just left my comment on @spikejones’ blog post about pay per tweet. [link to post] -
Pay-per-blog/sponsored tweets: @spikejones says just say no. Amen brother. [link to post] -
A post from the Brains on Fire blog explaining why they are anti-sponsored conversations: [link to post] -
[...] Uncategorized Spike Jones, a friend from Brains on Fire, recently wrote a post titled “Where I stand on the whole “pay-per-blog/sponsored tweets” thing. It’s a great piece. I recommend you read it. While my post has little (if [...]
-
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.
