I don't think many would argue that Jeremy Schoemaker and I have very different styles of blogging and doing business. In person, Jeremy's always been a great friend and someone I really respect, but on his blog, things are different. I sometimes feel a great disconnect between the way he approaches topics and the way I'd wish to see them presented. Case in point - his post, Full Disclosure, Assume the Position:
In fact every time I see a blog post or basically anything including conversation I assume someone is benefiting from mentioning the product they are talking about. Even if they are not paid directly for reviewing or mentioning the product directly I assume they are hoping the users find the information useful or maybe even the product owner will see the review and pay them in the form of mentioning them back or advertising on there site...
...So basically my disclosure policy is you should assume I am getting paid for or will get paid for anything I ever mention...
...I think these blogger disclosure policies while noble and all that good stuff are extremely silly. Everyone gets paid one way or another.
OK, let me first say that I agree with Jeremy's opinion about blogger disclosure policies or some sort of blog organization that lords over bloggers with codes of conduct. I'm not a fan of it in the SEO world, and I'm not a fan of it in the blogosphere either. It's up to individual bloggers to decide and individual audiences to trust or reject what they read. That said, I'm having a really tough time getting my head around Jeremy's message, and I left a few comments to that effect.
Over the past few months, SEOmoz has written some nice things about Eric Enge, the SMX conference, Keycompete, Text-Link-Brokers, Reddit, the Googlers and dozens of others. Guess what - no kickbacks, no payments, no under-the-table favors. We're not being paid to speak at SMX (in fact, we're paying to send a mozzer to cover it). We receive no kickbacks or even a free acount from Keycompete. We had a relationship with TLB where they hosted our site for a couple months, but the bandwidth got too much and we switched to Superb Hosting and guess what - full disclosure. I would be absolutely shocked to hear that someone thought SEOmoz received benefits or kickbacks from the companies we use. Even Indextools, which I love, and am very fond of talking about, doesn't give us anything beyond the usual free account for re-sellers and discounts for having many clients with them. When I link to them, I never use an affiliate link or have them track that traffic. I like their service; I share my experiences honestly; end of story.
We support a huge endorsement of vendors on the recommended list - a list that I send several interested parties to every day. Guess what, when someone does try to give us a comission for those referrals, I always say no. Here's my exact response to one recently:
... that's an incredibly sweet offer, and much as I'd love to accept, I simply can't. If we took money from the referrals, it would be very tough for me to continue to give potential clients unbiased advice about who to choose. But, you can definitely buy Mystery Guest and I a drink in New York :)
OK, so maybe free drinks are technically a kickback, but you get the idea. My opinion on this is unshakeable - if you are recommending services because you've been paid to recommend them, you're doing your audience a disservice. I understand the Pay-Per-Post concept and I think it's fine if you get paid, offer an honest review and provide both pros and cons, positive and negative feedback. I even think Google & the other engines should be counting those links - the publisher has given them trust by providing a non-no-followed link, so it's really up to the engines to decide how much they trust the publisher (and how much others do), but I'm getting off-topic.
What really makes me upset about Jeremy's post are the comments. Just read:
I have to agree with you shoe. I tend to think/feel the same exact way.
Its like what they say about sex! we all pay one way or another!
I think it’s stupid when someone puts a marker next to affiliate links as if the reader isn’t astute enough to realize that the writer will be benefiting… money makes the world go round.
Amen. Blogging isn’t about 12 year old emo girls publishing their poetry anymore, it’s its own media outlet and is just as commercial as any other. People need to get that through their heads.
I would have to agree with you Jeremy. Everyone benefits somewhere, somehow. Even in blogging or a website.
Couldn’t agree more on this… blogging is all about getting publicity.
Seriously, out of about 70 comments, 30-40 are folks relentlessly agreeing with Jeremy's position that bloggers are perfectly within their rights to dupe their audiences about their motivations for writing or linking to content/tools/services/companies/etc. Luckily, there are a few folks whose thinking more closely matches my own:
I had already assumed that and that’s the reason I don’t take any of your recommendations seriously! It’s all about putting money in YOUR pocket, not ours.
Non-disclosure mainly becomes a problem if you end up endorsing something in order to get paid for it. It gets worse if it is a product that you have never really tried, or didn’t even like.
My favorite comes from Noah Robinson:
Wow, so basically, you’ve decided that (a) your thoughts and ideas posted are for sale for any price you deem worthy; ( b) there’s no reason to make specific disclosures about whether you’re influenced here or there cause you’re ALWAYS influenced...
...But anyone that reads your blog, in the past, or moving forward, should know that your statements are most likely biased in some way to make you more money. You’re not here to help others, you’re here to make others think you’re helping them, while simultaneously, making money off that advice…even if it’s not the best advice that would help others.
Basically you’ve undercut the very authority and credibility that you’ve worked so hard to build up.
I think you ought to reconsider this one…
I'm with Noah. It seems like after this post, it would be very hard for me to take Jeremy's advice about any product, service or website seriously. I'm not suggesting his blog is no longer valuable, but with such clearly corrupt editorial practices, how could we judge whether he really thought a service was good or not? How could we know whether he isn't hiding a contributor's skeletons in the closet?
If you've been paid to blog about a product or service, or you want to throw an affiliate link into your blog or if you even want to recommend services that provide you a commission, by all means, go for it! I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, and I certainly am not trying to tout SEOmoz as some great and mighty ethical angel casting the first stone. I'm just saying - tell me about it. Give me the truth so I can judge for myself if your advice is valuable and helpful.
There's two possible scenarios here - #1:
-
You write about a product/service and tell your readers that you've been paid to do so
-
They think - hmmm, well it's a paid review, but I trust that Shoemoney guy; he's given me good advice in the past and if he wants to make a few bucks, hey, who am I to stand in the way?
-
They check out the referral and give it a fair shake
Then, there's scenario #2:
-
You write about a product/service and make no disclosure about any financial benefit you might receive
-
Your readers see it and think - wow, Shoemoney really likes that company, I should check them out
-
The reader has a favorable opinion and perhaps buys services
-
Later, they discover through one channel or another, that you were compensated for your review
-
They feel betrayed. Maybe the service is fine, but their trust is now lost - how can they take your advice at face value again in the future? How do they know you'll be honest with them if something goes wrong with the company's services? Why should they believe what you say?
Now look, if Jeremy's making this post just to tell his audience that Shoemoney.com and all the products he might recommend should be considered paid reviews, OK. I'm cool with that. But, he's going a step further and saying that no one, anywhere, on any blog, should have to disclose money they earn from writing about a company. It's not the ethics of it that bug me, it's the potential outcome for those who might take that advice. It's the scenario #2 situation I just described.
SEOmoz itself has recently been taken to task for our monetization strategies with the premium content, re-design of the homepage, inclusion of ads, etc. We certainly blog not only out of the goodness of our hearts, but as a significant part of our marketing strategy. I'm not arguing here the blogs must be 100% altruistic with no business side benefits in order to be trusted. I'm saying there's a world of difference between a blog like SEOmoz or SearchEngineLand or SEO-Scoop or MarketingPilgrim where the best possible advice is offered in the hopes of attracting traffic, building trust and gaining from the indirect benefits of premium membership or advertising vs. the undisclosed sums exchanging hands in order to get a recommendation or promotion of a service that may or may not be any good (even in the eyes of the reviewer). Jeremy's obviouslyl not going this route - his blog does provide valuable advice and I think that he often times does give a fair & balanced shake to the services he reviews, even when they have paid him. But, he's suggesting that others don't even have to be that forthright.
What do you think? Is it really OK for bloggers to hide their financial benefits from their audiences? Is it true that SEOmoz is benefiting just as much from our supposedly "unbiased" blogging as Shoemoney does from his paid blogging and I'm being hypocritical? Should there be a boundary?
p.s. Despite this, Shoemoney's staying in my regular reading list and Jeremy will certainly remain a friend. But, hey, if we can't disagree, then that becomes a disclosure problem itself? :)
The idea that every blogger on the planet is doing it solely for money is absolute bull crap!
I would venture to say that a large number of blogs don't convert traffic to sales or any kind of financial kickback. Rather, the benefits are things like getting to know a person or company's character, reputation, what they care about and sometimes, who and what they respect. (These things may pay off far later in a financial way but the path feels more genuine and considered.)
I put more personal value in those types of blogs myself because for starters, I hate being used. I'm not a reader slut and my reading time is not for sale. When I sense my presence only matters because the hope is that I'll click something that will earn the blog owner money, I don't stay and likely never return.
Some blogs are revenue generators by design. Some are ways to communicate with others around the world. My father has one and its for his grandkids. He'd think this discussion is insane.
Diversity is what I want to see. If every blog was like Rand's or Jeremy's, we'd all be bored to tears and complaining about the lack of interesting blogs.
Hey Kim, yes I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I also think that disclosure is important, and to top it off I agree with Rand that if someone is getting kickbacks, and is disclosing it, then their 'honest' opinion as to the veracity or quality of the services or products they are promoting does become suspect.
Is there a middle ground - sure. Bet Shoemoney never anticipated this can of worms, - then again, being the guru he is, it might all be very clever link baiting - again =)
Exactly, Kim. I would go even further and say that the majority of blogs in the blogosphere aren't designed for this, when you consider the incredible # of teen / miscellaneous personal ramblings out there. Maybe they're not putting out the same level of content as more "professional" blogs, but I'm not going to read professional blogs where I feel like I'm being used either, even if their content seems worthy of my time.
Most of the blogs I read are not designed to immediately convert to dollars / pounds / euros. Maybe they make money selling adsense, but I am happy to give them a $.45 click every once in a while because I value their material. But they're not out there shilling for services, products, or what have you.
Why does that sound like you just called both Rand and Shoemoney boring...? :)
We have a disclosure policy at Marketing Pilgrim and there's strict guidelines about editorial content. Any relationship that has a monetary value is disclosed and you can't buy your way into a blog post - you have to earn it like everyone else.
That said, a lot of our advertisers have relevant news, so we do cover them when appropriate and make the disclosure, even though we weren't actually paid for the post.
I'd say we're the opposite of Shoemoney. You can pretty much assume the posts are unbiased, unless we make a disclosure othwerwise.
To a large extent there is semantics involved here.
Even Kim's dad's blog for the grandkids has an intrinsic worth to him and thus a bias. There may be times he is annoyed at them and may not say so in order to keep them talking to him.
You admit a blog entry is about a client but it is still passing possible link love, readers tend to not care about affiliations in most cases and since you are not giving equal time to their competitors you are helping them regardless.
Recently, Eric Schmidt made the statement that the web was helping to foster democracy globally but refused to answer questions about how Google had knuckled under to various countries' demands for censorship.
We filter everything whether we are aware of it or not.
While Jeremy is a self-poclaimed whore, the rest of us are pimps of some type or other.
PS Rand I love you like a brother but you don't post these blogs without thinking what may get your readers involved or motivated to comment.... you learn what are the hot words/topics, get insights from others, etc.
And those shoes definitely scream pimp!
It all sounds very noble, Rand, and your post matches what I know I have judged of your personality, but you are pushing a very different business model to Shoemoney - to the best of my knowledge, he doesn't take clients, and he isn't trying to build a reputation to attract same - you are.
Jeremy is blogging for $$ - thats pretty obvious from the style of the blog and I don't think anyone who's been on the 'net for more than 3 days would mistake it for anything else. You're here to build a rapport with your audience.
If *you* start pushing product without disclosure, we'll feel betrayed. When Jeremy does it, its just what was expected.
:)
Leadegroot,
" If *you* start pushing product without disclosure, we'll feel betrayed. When Jeremy does it, its just what was expected."
This quote hits the nail on the head
Lea, right on, as usual. :)
I see 2 issues:
I am totally with Rand on his approach as being the right thing to do. It ties in with my view of the world, how I want to live my life. But I get that this is not universal, and perhaps there is no reason why it should be.
Chris Johson commented on Rand's previous SEO article on Wikipedia blogpost that "If the wider world thinks we SEOs are scumbags then that's going to be reflected in our Wikipedia entry". The approach of "selling out" (ok that's an emotive term) or being paid for recommending products, particularly when it is not disclosed, does nothing to help SEO's image and everything to hurt it. Snake-oil salesman peddling in illicit wares, ready to take your money and leave you hanging at every opportunity.
For me, perhaps another question is, what is the problem with disclosure? If anybody should be able to see that the links and reviews are paid for, then what is the harm in including a note for the few people who don't?
Leadegroot had another interesting comment regarding business model: "...Jeremy is blogging for $$ - thats pretty obvious from the style of the blog...". Because if that is his business model, then it's clear that building trust and rapport and respect isn't ever going to lead to money. No kids education, no shiny car. Does this change the practical decision? Maybe, but based on my take point 1 from above, I don't see that as a business model I could, personally, be comfortable with.
You make the assumption that making money is counter to building respect, report, and trust. It's simply not true. Maybe you don't respect or have report with bloggers that take financial incentives, but you shouldn't confuse personal preferences with a general trend or universal accepted cultural value.
I respect Shoemoney, I don' t care that he makes money from his blog - good for him. I'll take his recommendations with a grain of salt, but you should take everyone's recommendations with a grain of salt, because we're all human and perceptible to bias and suggestion regardless of the form it takes.
Everyone responds to incentives. If a marketer, rises from poverty and builds an empire - that demands respect. You may not like him as a person, but that accomplishment demands respect if you value hard work, creativity, and anything even resembling capitalist ideals (If you hate individuality and capitalism then maybe you would see that as part of the problem).
How privileged you must be and others to hold on to such concrete ideals. Why do you think so many talented geeks are so poor? Because they confuse blind idealism with practicality and what makes good business sense. Rand underpays his employees. Why does he underpay them? Because his business model doesn’t make enough money for him to pay his employees that market value for their services (don’t bite my head off here, this is my opinion).
In one of his podcast interviews he commented on how he’d love to help fund start ups. Do you think most people acquire that level of wealth by putting blind idealism above business practicality? Good luck – business is cut throat and the strongest survive. It’s very Dawin-isk. What happens when you hold too strongly to ideals, is that you end up poor or working for someone else who dosn't hold those ideals.
Nice comment - and I absolutely take your points. I had tried to explain that I don't expect the rest of the world to agree with what I feel is right. That's a personal thing.
However, and maybe this does flow directly from what makes me tick, the idea that my values act as a drag on my potential success and therefore should be jettisoned doesn't work for me. Perhaps it is because I have this view on the rightness or wrongness of conflicts of interest that I feel this way.
I purchased the CDs for every single mp3 I own. Not because I had to, not because I thought this was the best way for me to get a large collection of music, not because I wouldn't rather have accumulated the money towards a fantastic vacation, but because, for me, this is not negotiable. I have to live with myself after all ;-)
I still maintain that many people would see undisclosed paid reviews and links and comments as a conflict of interest. My previous comment was trying to link the Wikipedia blog to this one - does SEO practices affect the SEO image? I think you'll agree that, even in spite of the lack of awareness and understanding and knowledge, it will have an impact.
I agree - I'm actually all for discloures personally. If I take money for a review the first sentence will be "I got paid to review this product". So I'm with you there. I also NEVER pirate movies. Sometimes it's tempting, but I just don't want to do that. Strictly financially speaking - a better decision would be to pirate all my movies and invest that saved money into more assets, so I understand your POV. I do think that the movie decision does SLIGHTLY hinder my financial success, so everything even the decision to pirate or not is a financial trade off. It's just important to find a good balance of being fair and ideal and being practical. If I took idealism too far, (as in not represeting clients I didn't personally approve or like their business plans) I would seriously hinder my financial success and end up poor or like I said ealier, working for someone who dosen't hold such strict ideals.
[quote]Because if that is his business model, then it's clear that building trust and rapport and respect isn't ever going to lead to money.[/quote]
*for Shoemoney*
He's chosen one way to make money - this does not mean there are not otheres.
If you're promoting without disclosure... it could have legal implications
Washington post article about FTC regulation of disclosure in viral marketing
Journalists are held to extremely high standards, and many newspapers and other media outlets have been sued and extremely damaged by unbiased reporting.
Blogging is no different, and bloggers could get into real legal trouble for skipping disclosure.
While they are, I'm not sure all journalists are held to, or more appropriately, live up to the extremely high standards that they either should or that the public in general perceives.
This again comes back to the challenge and how the government or courts decide to define blogging, which again it may come down to a case-by-case, as some blogging may be seen as personal opinion, others might be seen as news sources, and obviously others as commercial/advertising, which at least in the latter might fall under FTC advertising regulations.
Naoise, thanks for linking to this article.
Anybody who thinks that non-disclosure is fair-game, would do well to read it. The point of the FTC regulations:
The penalty for practicing deceptive marketing tactics:
This is really new ground, perhaps unlike anything we've come across before. Blogging stretches from purely commercial to completely personal, from celebrity status to average Joe (no offense to any Joes), from corporate or groups to individuals, and every combination of the above.
On one hand, blogging is like a personal interaction between individuals, but on the other hand, it may be like a "celebrity" endorsing a product on a TV commercial. Or a local radio announcer who talks about a local business they used... they may be paid to do it but they are also unlikely to jeopardize their reputation to endorse something they don't believe in themselves.
Is there really going to be a one-sized fits all answer?
One thing is certain, no one should make a purchase decision (or perhaps any other decision) based on a single "interaction." They should certainly see what others say and they should come up with their own assessment of who is making the recommendation to begin with.
Either way, I hope you haven't sweated the SEOmoz monetization approach. I think SEOmoz has struck a wonderful balance in this area. I certainly don't feel that the open content has suffered or been cut back in any way. You've offered a alternatives in payment as well as in being active in the SEOmoz community in exchange for payment.
Seeing both the premium side and the regular member side of things, I think that most would agree that regular members haven't had benefits cut, just that premium members get extra perks.
For the knowledge and community provided by SEOmoz, I find it rather hard to complain... but you can't please everyone.
Shoemoney gets credit for coming out and disclosing that pretty much anything he says about a third-party is incentivized. At least he did that, I know plenty of bloggers who never disclose and I trust them less because of it.
SEOmoz gets credit for disclosing that they don't get kickbacks for discussions about third-parties.
Both cases are full disclosures, even if from different positions. That's cool by me and I'll continue to read both blogs. It's the ones who don't disclose that worry me.
It all depends on the blog and the blogger. As Jeremy would say, there is this huge Grey area where people make a lot of money.
What are you trying to acomplish?
It's probably not a great idea if you're trying to run for public office or build a reputation as a roll model for your niche but if you're like John Chow and trying to gain a reputation as an Evil Blogger, or aggressive affiliate marketer or it's more than obvious that you're trying to sell stuff, then it might work in your favor.
In general... Ads are good. People want them. I get the Sunday paper but don't even read it, I just want the ads.
That's why I watch MTV sometimes. (It's a cross promotional free-for-all) Other times I want to watch PBS and get away from that sort of thing. I can respect both approaches if done well.
Things would get screwed up if I learned the PBS news program that I thought was unbiased was actually receiving huge kickbacks from oil companies and political action comities.
However... If I someone told me that MTV was receiving huge kickbacks from record labels, etc... I would assume the person telling me this had been living under a rock.
I wasn't surprised when I read the Shoemoney post. I don't read his blog, or listen to his podcast for this reason.
You either have ethics or your don't. You can't have some, or a little bit of ethics.
Shoemoney is obviously a good marketer and businessman, but there are others that are equally successful that I choose to listen to and emualte (ex. Rand).
I've worked for unethical businesses in the past, and for owners with high ethical standards. I know who I want to be like.
That's just me, I could be wrong. :)
Brian,
Could you send me a link to the Official Ethics Manual?
How many of us have been 'rewarded' in some way or another, by this whole business of blogging? Money, drinks, links, traffic, subscribers, fame/attention...should I be disclosing ALL of that which benefits me, whether it be directly or indirectly? Does it matter that it's money or drinks? What if 'drinks' come from a $500 bottle of champagne? That's not as bad as a $100 ReviewMe? And if $500 for drinks IS too much, can someone please identify the exact cutoff?
I don't see a lot of disclosures in the comments sections of blogs, but I bet the vast majority of bloggers, at least the experienced ones, know that they get something back when they post a comment, just like they get something when they make a post.
And can someone please tell me the difference between this:
"Even if they are not paid directly for reviewing or mentioning the product directly I assume they are hoping the users find the information useful or maybe even the product owner will see the review and pay them in the form of mentioning them back or advertising on there site..."
...and linkbaiting?
My apologies for the slightly acerbic tone in my first comment...Rand, I've been reading daily for a few months now, and I love the job you all are doing and the information and tools you share.
Disclosure: I may, now or in the futre, directly or indirectly, monetarily or otherwise, somehow benefit from making comments on this blog, which is known for it's excellent content and high traffic, which may, however unlikely, trickle down to li'l ol' me.
I'm fairly torn on this subject because I do think it's probably good for a blogger to disclose when being paid to speak about something, but I also detest the idea of some kind of disclosure police out there regulating blogs.
I think a blogger should definately be able to choose whether they want to disclose being paid for a blog post or not, but I'd say that non-disclosure may not be the best practice. The libertarian in me says that ultimately the free market will weed the non-disclosers out. Throwing good reviews at bad products will ultimately lead to distrust and lack of readership, which will make future reviews invalid.
Maybe that's just wishful thinking, but I'd like to think that the readers ought to have some responsibility. If we're looking to rely on them to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, then why not anything else they read?
I agreed with Shoemoney on this matter and am not afraid to agree with him publicly.
All us bloggers blog for a reason, to make money. Many bloggers take different routes like solely to make money or to create trust to make money, Rand I believe you do the latter. This blog is ace and I have a lot of respect for the SEOmoz team, company and blog because I feel I can trust it, and if I didn't do SEM myself, I would give you guys and girls a try.
I can see your point regarding Shoemoney's kickbacks but I think (or I see it) in a different way. You don't expect anything back from them, but you hope to gain the trust of the visitors so they pay for your services or use your premier service which is where it matters more.
I'm not wanting to add fuel to a fire here, I just believe in the long run, we're all in it to make money
I agree with Dudibob and Shoemoney- to an extent, but in another way. People are online to gather information, read and learn. Bloggers and "us" talk about what we know in a topic arena, what worked what didn't, etc. etc. and provide resources to what we feel is helpful, or motivating in another way.
I believe that it is the creditability of the one individual who is writing that the reader sees- and ultimately the reader’s value in the bloggers post(s).
Everyone is online to gain "some" value- even if it is from affiliate links, text links or kick-backs.
If the readers like what they see in the blogger, and gain true value from it then its fine.
No one is out there to be martyrs.
Martyrs to what cause?
The fact that we work online does not mean that everything we do online is work. Some of us blog just for kicks, or to express our views.
To reiterate my comment from over at Shoe's blog:
"I’m gonna leap in here, and say that you’re both on the money here. As usual, it’s more a shade of gray.
@Rand: Whilst you may not have gone out with the intention of getting things from mentioning someone, I’ll bet you still get it, even if it’s just a link from whoever you’re talking about. People want to reciprocate when you do something nice for them. Now, you may not go out with the intent to get good stuff back, but the fact is it’ll happen anyway.
@ Shoe: Shoe man, I respect the hell out of you, but I’m with Rand here. Not everyone is planning on getting something out of a blog post or mention. As I said above, it’ll probably happen anyway, but that’s not nec. why someone is going to do it. Have a little faith in the human race. I know it’s hard, but… :p"
Things are very rarely black and white, and I think that's the case here...
'Common sense' should be in your middle name....
It's actually James Christopher, but I'm considering getting it changed...
Peter James Common Sense Christopher Wailes
Can you imagine my email address?
Jep. [email protected]
In fact every time I see a blog post or basically anything including conversation I assume someone is benefiting from mentioning the product they are talking about.
I really feel sorry for Jeremy if he actually goes through life with that much cynicism. I met him very, very briefly in NYC in April and he seems like a genuinely good guy. But that doesn't seem to be a healthy attitude. There are so many people in this world who do good things because A) they want to, or B) it's the right thing to do -- with complete disregard for any sort of payment or return favor. I can't imagine going through life always assuming the next person is trying to make a buck with everything they do. Maybe I'm naive.
There is a balance there. In some ways being "about the buck" is a survival technique. No matter what you have to do, it's important to make enough to feed yourself, get basic medical, pay for your child's education care etc etc. At a low salary (which a HUGE amount of people are at) even the basics are difficult, so if you just made an extra $3,000-$5,000 per year with some affilliate links and paid reviews *very doable* that could really help you out. Obviously there are other methods, but they may be harder to grasp in the short term, which if you're having financial difficulty takes presidence over the long term.
It's easy for people that are doing well or well enough financially (I'm included in this) to be overly idealistic. When you're not doing so well - that's when your ideals go out the window for survival. I can see how a poor blogger would really value the extra money for writing paid reviews.
Many times when richer people rise from poverty they still maintain the survival and monetary policies that they had when they were less fortunate. One of them may be to see everyone as trying to capitolize on all the monetary opportunities they can. If you were poor and having difficulty paying for the basics, you can see how that could be a survival technique.
Just a thought.
I should add - this comment has nothing to do with Shoemoney, I don't know anything about his background. I was just in a mood to digress on a few ideas that were bouncing around in my head.
If you are being "rewarded" (money, tickets, kickbacks) for posting on any issue/service/product I believe a full disclosure should be issued.
(a) It helps us (the reader) determine what the industry leaders are thinking and whether they are being influenced... (b) builds trust with the publisher as they are forthcoming to their readers...
After reading Jeremy's comment and the context of the thread I have to agree he has certainly delt himself a blow to his readership. Coming out and admiting this commercial interest to posting as a single comment won't affect new visitors though leaving them unbeknown to this fact.
SEOmoz rules!
I've designed and built a half-dozen websites for print magazines that are trying to monetize their content. There's never ANY discussion about whether or not paid content should be disclosed as such.
It's mostly an ethical decision -- the writers and journalists and photogrphers and reviewers I've worked with are sickened by the idea of an undisclosed, paid recommendation.
But there's a sound business reason, too -- if advertisers suspect their competitors might have an "inside track" with your editors, they take their money elsewhere, where they know they're getting a fair shake.
Rand, I almost completely agree with you, but I think you may be taking it a step or two too far.
Getting referral fees from your list of providers would set a bad precedent, because it would lead you to question why you'd chosen to send a given prospect to a given consultant/firm.
But when you talk about companies you've chosen above all others, what would be wrong with getting something out of it in turn? It's up to you to decide whether a given provider is good enough for SEOmoz to use, and if you've made that decision, I don't see any harm in them showing their appreciation.
For example, I like the company that hosts my site a lot. I've recommended them to a number of my clients. Would it be wrong for me to work out a deal with them, having me recommend them to all of my clients who need hosting in exchange for a discount for those clients? I know I'd continue to recommend them, even if I can't get a special deal, so why not see what I can do to help them and my clients?
What's important to me is believing that you haven't sold out just for some deal. If you genuinely recommend some product or service, then telling me that they've thanked you for your support by offering you something in return but that that deal has nothing to do with why you recommend them is fine by me. I'll take your word for it.
TRUST is the biggest issue online. More than anything (with the exception of maybe price) it has a massive influence on conversion rates.
The Internet is a world of skepticism, hacking, phishing, spam, and other deceptive marketing tactics. I honestly believe that the marketers that operate with more transparency (even before the law forces them to) will, ultimately, crush their competitors.
Trust builds a relationship. The stronger the relationship the more likely someone is to buy from that person -- especially in a situation where EXPERTISE or advice is involved; which is the case with 90%+ blogs.
Clear disclosure (not tiny hidden links) is one of the best ways to be upfront and honest with your blog readers. And when you're honest with them they will actually REWARD you and be happy to use your affiliate links. I know because mine tell me and actually do so.
I just wrote a blog post about this situation and explained what I am now doing with my blog -- I am including a special button (that contains a dropdown statement) at the bottom of any post that contains affiliate links or any other link I am being directly compensated for. Here's the post...
I Would Like To Disclose My Disclosure
Hi John,
Yes, you are right, it is about trust and honesty, but what that means is different depending on the environment you are active in. A lot of things are obvious and clear to other people, even if you don't say or do anything specific to point it out.
That can cause issues if you act the same way in a different environment where people do not automatically know and understand. This is the typical cause of misunderstandings between people from very different cultures.
For example. If you go to a market in Germany and see an advertised price, then that is Exactly the price you have to pay, down to the cent, including TAX. The is also no discussion about the price, it is what it is, take it or leave it.
In the US is it already different. The advertised price does not include Tax. The Tax you have to pay is different no matter where you go. German tourists often forget that and are surprised when they see what they actually have to pay. At least the base price is fix and if you happen to know the actual TAX rate that applies to the store location you happened to visit and have a calculator, you will be able to figure out what you have to pay.
Where is the disclosure here. Its outrageous. Unexpected 6-8% of the item price as additional cost can be quite some money. It is disclosed in a lot of places, but not everywhere, but Americans don't think about it, because it is clear to them and does not require extra disclosure.
You see what I mean? You should disclose what your audience might not expect automatically. What that is and the how and how much depends on you and who your audience is.
I have fore example also written up an editorial note that is referred to from every page and some special placements in some additional pages as well.
Have a look, that is my disclosure.
I added to it what I believe my audience might not anticipate and requires clarification, just to be sure. No more, no less.
No disrespect to Jeremy, but he seems to trying to tar everyone with his own brush (as my Grandma would say). Yeah you could argue that no one ever does anything without profiting in some way, but there's a world of difference between reviewing a product when you've been paid by the provider and when you haven't.
I agree with Rand that it's annyoing when people set themselves up as the Internet Police for stuff like this, and of course people don't have to disclose if they don't want to, but it's clearly going to diminish the trust of readership if a blogger gets 'caught' taking money directly as opposed to being upfront about it from the get go.
Agreed in general - especially about recommendations of third party tools/software/company... if I want a hagiography, I'll check out the company's own sales patter.
But...
I suspect that many of us out here are blogging not for personal reasons, nor just for any saintly notions of community: we're blogging for business. Our posts are (partially) about boosting our search engine rankings, generating interest and creating leads. Sure it's nice to chew the cud with other SEOs, but ultimately we're interested in the guy who phones the office as a hot lead because he's read an article that dingles his dangle.
And are we being impartial? Doubtful. If you sell linkbaiting, your posts are going to biased towards that aspect of SEO. If you sell Black Hat/White Hat? Ditto. And are we getting paid for it? Sure as heck fire!
I think probably most of us are operating in a grey area, and the divide isn't as wide as we'd like to think it is.
"...I think these blogger disclosure policies while noble and all that good stuff are extremely silly. Everyone gets paid one way or another."
I totally disagree that disclosure is silly. Its crucial to maintaining integrity. OK, if I blog about something I like, its a form of endorsement, and vica versa - even writing this comment could interpreted as way it get in good with Rand & SEOmoz! - but, if a blogger is getting a free sample, or getting paid to review a product, that should be mentioned in the post. If not, they might as well be blogging for WallMart.
I agree manfatta: integrity is everything and disclosure should be a foregone conclusion. Pity it isn't!
Aviva Directory has an excellent article, 12 Important U.S. Laws Every Blogger Needs to Know, and the first item is blogger disclosure. I suggest you check it out if you haven't seen it.
Maybe I missed it but what about ordinary paid links? Not affiliates but "hosted" links. Should those be disclosed or marked ina special way? I keep those off of 14thC because are difficult to detect (and I do include them on other sites for the same reason).
If you think there's no problem with them, what's the difference?
Do you purchase links on other sites? Should those site owners be marking those links as "purchased"?
I bet there is some hypocracy going on here. Kind of like your competition sending junk mail while you send targeted direct mail, right? I mean, how valuable would purchased links be if they were marked so everyone could clearly see them (including Google)?
Randall - we're on the topic of editorial blog posts about companies or products or services that purport to be independent but are in fact influenced by money. If you have a link on the side of your page that says "partners" or "advertising" or even a "directory" for reciprocal links, there's no disclosure issue in my mind. A paid link is not the same as a paid review.
Not sure why no one's addressing the real topic here...
Is anyone reading what Rand wrote? I mean he spent all that time going into detail and explaining EXACTLY what he meant by the post, yet many are missing the overall point.
Paid reviews, paid posts, paid plugs - none of them have to do with paid links, paid ads or paid placement. If I got the post correctly, I think he is mainly talking about the mix of paid reviews in with the normal blog posts and blog content, not the posts themselves (since many make money by doing reviews). Mixing them together makes the rest of the non-paid content seem tainted, or out of place.
I think if there was a section for paid reviews or posts it would be a lot more clear where the line is between something offered as an incentive and something he genuinely uses and wants to share with readers. Especially if there was a statement or inro to the section that explains the purpose of the reviews and the fact that they were paid to write about them.
He's not dogging Shoemoney, he is simply explaining what he would do different and why it's important to him, IMO. The point is the differences between this blog and Jeremy's. Not the actual act of posting paid reviews.
I'm saying I don't see the difference. And if you pay to place a link on someone else's site I'm not sure how you can claim a moral victory for disclosing paid reviews or affiliate links on your own site.
No one's talking about morals, I'm talking about effective business practices. Do YOU really not trust SEOmoz or the content on this site because we advise clients to buy links? Do you really not trust content on the Harvard Crimson because they sell link advertising? How about WashingtonPost.com (also sells link ads)? Is the advertising of links violating the quality or efficacy of their reporting? NO. Big NO.
It feels like you're trying to push this point with examples way outside the scope in order to make an argument that "it's all relative" and "it's all the same." It's not. Paying an editorial source to write supposedly editorial content that isn't really fair and balanced (or even their true opinion) may have things in common with paid link advertising - share a trait here or there - but it's NOT THE SAME THING.
You know the old saying - "that crosses the line." Guess what - this is where the line is, and IMO non-disclosure by bloggers of paid recommendations in blog content is way, way over the line. In Jeremy's opinion, it's fine. That's where we differ.
That's fair. But maybe someone needs to let Google know a link is not really an editorial endorsement. For that matter, maybe someone should tell the average web viewer. When I watch my wife surf...
* shudder *
Really, I think your scope may be a bit off because you are who you are and you do what you do. I don't think these practices are very different at all.
Maybe I'm wrong. Explain it to your mailman and see if he can tell the difference.
That said, Rand, you know I think the best of you and your business. A big part of that is you honestly try to do the "right" thing even at the expense of cash or the occasional popular oppinion. That's very admirable and something I like to think we have in common.
But I'm going to watch out for a "me too" post to chime in on. It seems I only speak up when my opinion differs from yours and I wouldn't want you to get the wrong impression. Truth is if I thought little of you I wouldn't bug you at all.
David Maister is a guy I follow on professional services. One of this Big Ideas is that getting customers and prospective customers to trust you is a phenomenal differentiator and a key component of building a successul professional services firm. It's a (slightly) different industry, but I have become convinced of many of his arguments over time. This is about trust as being good for business as I think Rand mentions above.
Those interested should check out his stuff.
And no, I don't get anything from Mr Maister ;-)
My answer is based on the presupposition that Heinlein was right when he said "never trust a man who claims altruism" (paraphrased).
You're both right. In this case it comes down to the business model.
Rand, you are accruing the capital of reputation. Which, over the long term is as good as gold (pardon the cliche).
Shoemoney is cashing in on the capital of his reputation...which would not be worth nearly so much if his product/service recommendations had historically been crap.
He gives full discosure..."Assume I'm making money on it." You take issue with his assertion that everyone else is doing the same as well.
We are either building a reputation, or profiting from it. If you don't profit from it, then what's the point? It's Adam Smith's world, we just live in it.
@brevetoxin: I absolutely agree, and it shouldn't have to take a Libertarian to understand it. Even a tax/spend/regulate Statist should be able to grasp that the free market will quickly devalue anyone who pi$$es away the hard earned capital of his reputation by recommending substandard products and services.
When you say "profit," does that necessarily mean money?
And I really have to disagree about the wonders of the market. We live in a world where Lindsay Lohan puking at a gas station is news.
Ron (and everyone else) - Again, my issue isn't with Jeremy's being on the take - I'm totally cool with that (for goodness sake, read my post). What I take issue with is his suggestion that bloggers shouldn't disclose whether they make money or were paid for a story or not. It feels like most of the comments here are not on that topic.
Well, it would be nice to hear an on-topic reply to this question, then:
The idea behind linkbait is to make some content that people will find usefull or interesting so they'll view it on your site and, perhaps, link to it so other people who would find it usefull or interesting can find it as well.
What motivation is there to disclose? If linkbait stole your car keys and tricked you into buying Creed's Greatest Hits every time you linked to it, then yeah, disclosure would be paramount.
If we help a client build linkbait, we don't feature it on the SEOmoz site and say, "Wow, look at this great new site/product/service we just found, you guys should all sign up!" That wouldn't be linkbait, that would be a non-disclosed, manipulative review wherein we had a distinct interest in persuading people to one particular decision/action.
True, but when you submit some item to digg you don't say you work for a search marketing agency and this is a client of yours, do you?
Bob - again, we're way outside the topic area or the focus of my criticism. We're talking about bloggers making product recommendations and not disclosing they were paid to do so. Everyone and everything that gets submitted to Digg probably benefits someone - do they all need to say so? Do I need to write on every piece of content that I create for the web that "I may now or in the future derive or provide value of a direct or indirect fiscal nature with this content." Nope - that's inferred. It's obvious. It's not worth mentioning. However, if I come on SEOmoz and gush about a new link building service and then you find out that I was paid $10K to talk about them, would you be pissed off? Would you lose trust in SEOmoz? That's the issue - nothing more.
That certainly was the original issue, and I agree with you on it, but the discussion seems to have expanded and taken on a life of its own, so I figured I may as well reply to Scott's reply to Steve.
My original point, which certainly seems on-topic to me (but hey, it's your site) was that:
a) money (the disclosure of which you were complaining about) is not the only currency which is dealt with in blogs or social media
and
b) it is not the only reason that people may alter the tone or content of a post
And while you and your agency may in your own work and that on behalf of clients act in a way which is not influenced by any currency, other people may not be so scrupulous. And, in cases that we have all seen, where friends are promoted and favors traded, what is the difference between that and what you object to in your original post?
Certainly not, but there's no sale or undue influence involved in Digg. In fact, it's just the opposite: The linkbaiter/provider/whatever puts a piece of content out there to be judged and, paid or not, has no further control over its influence...that's up to the consumers. The only "selling" one can do on Digg (et al) is writing a good title and description.
A successful piece on Digg is such because the consumers have vouched for it's quality and value, not the producers. Therefore, the interested party has virtually no ability to influence the actions of the consumers, rather they are directed to worthwhile product by peers, which is why social media sites, consumer review sites, etc are so popular...they provide insight and recommendations on products/services/sites that are (relatively speaking) free from commercial interest.
I'm not arguing that anyone should disclose! That original argument was brought up by Rand. The point I was trying to make was that there are many different ways to lose trust both in traditional media and online. Selling your soul for money is one of them. Selling your message for pageviews is another. And both are equally practiced on- and offline
It was a rhetorical question in this particular case.
Rand, you are always right. Jeremy was wrong. SEOMoz is the best blog ever, and no other will even come close to their ability to help others. SEOMoz is perfect.
-Rand
P.S. Josh, be careful not to paste this part into the comment, and we will give you free premium membership for life.
Very funny Josh. We might just have to double premium membership prices just for your account :)
After reading some comments I realized the irony in this whole thing. Jeremy blogs for fun, it is not important to his business. He would do well without it. He does probably better because of it. The power of blogging is not to be to underestimate.
On the other side is SEOMoz and a lot of the other SEO/SEM blogs. I dare to say, that the blogs are to a more or less degree critical to your business. Direct referrer from a client is important, sure, visible at trade shows too. Wait a moment, what are the chances to become a speaker at a well known trade show if you don't have a blog?
Especially today. In the past was it the forums and maybe articles that you published that got you the attention. Forums are still important, articles not so much anymore, but a blog beats all that.
As I said, even if you don't receive a reward directly in response to your post, you will receive it (if you provide good content and are a nice fella to discuss issues). Not trackable <> Not there.
Also, if Jeremy recommends junk for cash, his business would not suffer. His blog readership probably will and some people who like him today would not like him much longer, but he does not risk his business, only his reputation.
If you on the other hand would do the same thing, your business would probably suffer so you can't afford doing this kind of stuff and even have to use extra caution that people can not even get the wrong idea. An affiliate link will probably make some people think at first that you have done what you did for commercial gain in mind.
That could be a misconception on the surface by somebody who does not know you at all and does not want to take the time to find out if that what you provide is honest and faithful.
I think your two scenarios are very valid. If Jeremy wrote about about Product X and said, that he was being paid by them, I would still read it b/c its Shoemoney, but know all the long, he is probably going to be more favored towards the project and less bias about it. I would be fine with that completely. It the deception that I think will really get to people. Even if I never found out he got paid for a review and then I signed up for a service based on Jeremy's referral and ended up with a crap service, I'd be a bit pissed for he essentially deceived his audience. Interesting post Rand!
Hey - This is a super-old thread (by internet standards - over two years old!!), and I haven't read all the comments, so if I'm repeating something someone else said, my sincere apologies. (That was my "self-pardon"/disclosure.) I know that we're talking about blogs here, but there are few people in the "make money in internet marketing" space that have done some interesting things with this issue. As you may know, that world, of which I'm not a part (just an interested observer), is extremely incestuous. When one of the "big names" launches a new product or service, there are always 10 or 15 of the other big names who promote it to their lists. Some of those promoters, however, will say things along the lines of (and we're talking emails here): "Just so you know, the link below is an affiliate link. That means that I get paid if you buy through my link. But I only promote things I believe in, blah blah blah... In fact, I don't need the money at all. I just want you to be aware of the product. If you would rather buy the product without paying me a dime, just go to the website directly."
This has the effect of increasing trust dramatically, in my opinion (and you can be sure it helps the person taking that "complete balls-out disclosure" route in the long run, or he wouldn't be doing it. Fact is, you gotta think long term. Is it worth it to sell 50% less of whatever it is you're linking to now, if the lifetime value of your relationship with the individuals who follow you and take your advice increases by 1000%? Duh.
Although the strategy I'm talking about is not taken from a blogging example, it completely fits into the scheme of blogging for profit - maybe even moreso. By the way, if you want to see the stuff I'm talking about in action, it comes from a guy named Frank Kern, who is quite a character, and actually a very smart guy as well.
Full disclosure: I have no relationship whatsoever with Mr. Kern. He wouldn't know me from Adam. If you subscribe to his email list, or purchase any of his products, I will earn precisely nothing. Bubkis. So there.
Nice find mate!
I would like to state for the record that we (IndexTools, Inc.) do not have an affiliate program and as such cannot provide any commission/kickback to anybody for linking to us, this including Rand at SEOmoz. We work with numerous partners around the World, SEOmoz being one of them and we are very happy about the fact that they like our product, but they are in no way obligated or paid to be positive.
We hope that the tool and the people at IndexTools is what makes people want to talk about us. :-) - in the same way Rand run his business.
(personally; we think that we are a bunch of positive people with a great tool, and I AM biased here.. ha ha)
.. and that I personally find Rand not only extremely knowledgeable about the Industry in general and in particular SEO and at the same time tremendously friendly – does not affect the commercial relationship - I would not hesitate to link, forward and overall endorse Rand and his company’s work! – As Rand, I do not want to be paid for that.
N.B.I have great respect for Jeremy Schoemaker – and reads his blog with great interest as well!
Dennis R. Mortensen, COO at IndexTools
My Web Analytics Blog
Now there is a comment that straddles this topic.
If people want to think that you get a kickback for writing a nice post about something, they will think that if you like it or not. Remember the A-List blogger discussion? Helping each other out with linking to each other and create a elite circle? I have no idea where that came from, but some people believe that and there is nothing you can do about it.
A blog is something personal for me, so you get me, the good stuff and the bad. Think what you want, but I won’t mutate something personal into something full of legal gibberish to repel people. It's as disgusting as a legal contract with your spouse that lines out how you have to behave in bed, what you can do and are prohibited to do. Nobody is forced into the relationship. If you don't like it or don't trust it, walk away.
If you want to communicate cold corporate messages, write a press release or a white paper and don’t use a blog. Simple as that.
Tech Review Sites and Payola article at slashdot has another take on the topic. Not quite the same, and more parallel to Rand's views, but interesting if you are interested in the ethics similar aras.
If people like the product then why should it matter is I get a kick back for an affliate link?
And if they don't like the product, why should it matter if you duped them into it? Right?
"duped" - all information is tainted, even you try as hard as you possibly can to be fair and un-biased you'll fail, because there is no such thing. How do you determine whats fair and how do you eliminate bias? If they don't like the product, then they don't like it, you're not responsible for the actions of people following your recommendations (especially if they're honest recommendations). All I mean by honest is that you personally believe it's good advice, as long as that's true why does the kickback matter? Personally I'd disclose any kickbacks, but that's me, I don't care if other people do or not, I take all info as tainted and evaluate evidence on a case by case basis. I hate it how everyone presumes to tell everyone else what they should do. I'll do what's good for me and you do what's good for you and then everybody should be happy right???
Information tainted by bias is one thing, information tainted by bribery is quite another. In one, you're getting the honest opinion (yes, it's opinion) of a person, in another, you're getting an inherently dishonest opinion (and far more so if there's no disclosure).
Honestly, Solomon, I'm shocked to see you argue this direction. I would have surely pegged you the other way 'round. Yes, you're absolutely a pessimist, but I usually see you as an inherently ethical one.
Rand - I'm FOR disclosure as an individual - I would diclose paid links or affliates OUTRIGHT on any of my blogs. Actually though that's hypothetical. I because I don't have (and I'm not going to have) any paid links or affilliate links in the content sections of my sites, because my renvue models tend to be more direct ( as in selling a product or service) which avoids all the ehtical grey water you get into with affilliate marketing. I do have adsense sites and other advertising based web properties, but they arn't trying to trick or fool anyone.
I just don't see why people think it's ok to demand or be so upset at individuals (not news reporting blogs) that take kicks backs or get paid by affiliiates Obviously I don't condone lieing for money which would be outright unethical. I personally would disclose money I accepted for links or affilliates. so why do you think my opinion is unethical?? I don't understand, and this is major for me to be called unethical so please respond..
A couple of things:
First, it's all opinion. If you're not bothered by someone's ethics or business practices, fine, but Rand may have a different opinion and others may agree or disagree in either direction.
Second, think about it in terms of a magazine. The ads are ads, clearly and unequivocally (even the ones that try to be sneaky have to include a small banner indicating they're advertising). As would be the case with banner ads or AdSense, this isn't inherently dishonest, though it may or may net be perceived as tacky, unnecessary or fantastic depending on one's impression. Where the dishonesty comes in is when a magazine does a feature article on products or services because the product spends so much money advertising with them. Or, more pointedly, they reflect positively on a bad product, pull a bad review, or choose to gloss over a superior product because they are afraid of angering the advertiser and losing the account or other stricly financial motivation. In such a case, there is a gross conflict of interest between the best interests of their readership (clients) and their own financial interests. It is inherently unethical and dishonest to knowingly misinform, disinform or otherwise manipulate your readership in such a way if you are posturing as an honest and reliable source of consumer information.
I'm not saying this kind of manipulation doesn't happen (pick up any magazine on the newsstand), it does, rampantly. I'm just saying I think it's dishonest and I would choose to support, take advice from, and behave in a manner consistent with more noble company.
Actually for that matter, I don't put paid links in my blogs or websites (in the content sections sometimes I run adense or text link ads in the margins) and I've never pasted affiliate links or merged content with advertisments. I just personally don't have a problem is a blogger wants to make some money for putting a link out there if he or she discloses it and I MIGHT be ok without disclosure depending on the blog and context (like an affilliate marketing blog that's all about making as much money as possible online, I wouldn't take ANY of the advice as being genuine).
Ok Rand, I've got an ethical dilemna for you. What if you were to start selling Index tool, Analytics or any other product part time . Do you believe sales is inherenetly unethical? It involes painting something in a good light (not lieing) but making it sound good so the person wants to buy it. I rarely run into people that think sales is unethical in principle. In this case the blogger is the sales person, the blog the sales tool. Your confusing medium with message. If you started selling index tools outright, then would it be ok for you to blog abou the product you're directly selling?? So that is identical to disclosing a paid or affiliate link. Why is it any different online, then if you were a regular part time sales person for the company? I doubt even a purist would have a problem with that as long as it was clear that you were a sales person representing a product.
And that, my friend, is exactly the point of disclosure.
My main feelings have been covered really well above. I would sum it up as follows: until I get to know someone, I don't generally assume they are not getting paid even if they don't disclose it. With SEOmoz in general and Rand in particular, I know you well enough to know that you'd let us know if there was any kind of relationship (e.g. the Superb disclosure - btw I signed up for a shared account there for a new project the other day - thanks for the advice).
When you get to know people, you can make these judgements - and in Shoe's case, I think he's right that we should have been making this call even before this latest post. Until that point, I would lean a little towards assuming links are affiliate etc.
I've always taken people at their word at first until they've given me a reason not to. On my first few visits to a site I really won't assume links are paid or unpaid. In all honesty it doesn't enter into my thoughts right away, mostly because until I get to know someone their I don't place a lot of value on their recommendations. I may take someone at their word, but that still doesn't mean I'm going to automatically follow thier advice either.
Usually by the time it enters my mind to wonder if a blogger is getting paid to place a link I have a pretty good handle on the blogger and have a good idea if money is changing hands.
I think that Shoe's dedication of a blog post to this topic is the good. Just assume that everything is paid. At the same time, I think, since he's very visible, he'll prolly make good recos since his rep hangs on it.What is missing is a link on the front page to this post (or maybe in his About me page). So that new readers know that the policy is.
Whether his opinions of products/services he recommends is genuine or not in actuality, it's the proposition and glorification of selling your "favorable" opinion and support to the highest bidder that I find distasteful.
Don't get me wrong, I like Jeremy as an individual but, much like Rand, I dislike some of his tactics despite them being effective. Just because something is effective doesn't make it right (a term I know is subjective). Pharmaceutical companies lobby and bribe FDA regulators all the time to get drugs approved. It's incredibly effective, not always illegal, and they make a ton of money from that approval. Then maybe the drug they pushed through turns out to kill or injure people...even with the lawsuits, the drug company still made money, so I guess it's okay, right? Wrong.
seems to be the never ending debate between what an AFFILIATE does and what a SERVICE provider does.
Affiliates will almost always be in it for the cash, and service providers will always follow a vision. That's why affiliates often offer low quality and specialise in marketing.
Sales people are geared by greed, it is a reality that is unavoidable. I think the reason SEOmoz is successful is because the vision stands out so vividly.
Its short term VS long term, nothing wrong with shoe money’s green tinted shades of greed, it sounds like the voice of bitter affiliate experience – but mostly just with regard to most online and offline. Regarding it being ethical or not – that’s up to the reader, its all just a dot on a very multi-coloured gradient.
"Checked" greed is good in a capitolist society. If you want to be VERY rich for example, you have to work VERY VERY VERY hard or VERY VERY Smart. So If I'm mister greedy and I start off with no assets. If I want to make more money then eveyrone else.. I'm going to have to open up a new market or innovate in an existing one (if I do the same thing as everyone else the economic profit is 0 and with no assets to start with the situation of staying with the status quo is bleak). Ofcourse some people commit crimes, but that's where the checks and balances come in. Disgarding criminals, even if you're the greediest bastard in the world, to become rich you're going to have to produce something valuable (I'm disregarding fraud, which can make you rich, but should be illegal and is, but people get away with it on technicalities - look at religion or at quacks). I strongly believe Bill Gates has done more good things for the world then Mother Terressa ever has. And when he started out he was one hell of a greedy bastard (some would say he still is).
Capitalism is great. I'm into it. But it does have acknowledged problems.
What I'm getting at with this rather overly-long Jed Bartlet-esque monologue, is that appeals to the universally protective god of capitalism to do good are dangerous. There are many times when blind capitalism does not give great results.
Totally with you on Bill Gates though.
Nice Retort. I should have over emphasized the CHECKED part of captiolism. I agree that "laissez-faire" style capitolism is VERY dangerous and in our own system, there are some major problems we're experiencing from it (pollution is a wonderful example). But in general though many people are too quick to point to individual greed as a fault. Greed is a motivating factor that can be used to do great amount of good or evil. If it's kept in check by laws and government then it can be steered in the direction of producing more "good" then bad effects. I just like to throw this stuff out, becuase of how many blog posts go off about human greed and all it's ills, when I don't view greed as a downfall in our current system - I see it as a motivating factor. There are many other motivating factors, but greed is strong one.
Hey David, I taught some Econ once upon a time, so I thought I'd interject the terms you're looking for:
Your first example, of a lighthouse, is an example of a public good. The problem you cite is the free rider problem, which is sometimes used as an example of externalities, but then we get all confused. A public good is one that no one has an incentive to provide, so usually we make the government step and provide it.
Your second example is a negative externality. The solution for negative externalities is usually taxation. Side note: there are also positive externalities (like getting a flu shot; others around you are protected from contracting the flu from you even if they don't get a flu shot themselves). Governments may try to encourage people to buy products with positive externalities by subsidizing these products.
Imperfect information, monopoly/cartel and economic injustice you covered pretty well. The only one of the standard market weaknesses you didn't list is recession/depressio. Good job!
Also, I should note that the "solutions" which I listed here are highly imperfect, very subjective, and not at all in line with pure capitalism--which obviously doesn't exist anywhere but the black market.
Always a little embarrassing to throw around fancy terms only to find I'm misusing them! Thanks for the corrections - think I got most of the principles about right though. Let me go and ponder rational expectations of bloggers in the meantime...
Joel Spolsky wrote a great article back in December talking about Bribing Bloggers and how Microsoft was sending out free laptops with Vista on it.
His article on the Sprint Phone he got for free shows how this doesn't always work right.
I think that it is better to say that you are being payed for something. For example, if you write about your hosting provider and they are doing well for you and somewhere in your text you put an affiliate link you should mention that it is indeed an affiliate link, at least at the end of your post.
Somehow I tend to believe more to people who do it that way...
Sasha
I don't recall ever putting up a disclosure clause on my site... I think I'm with Shoe on part of this - of course you are trying to get <i>something</i> from your website: cash, power, reuptation, ranking, whatever.
On my site I do occasionaly drop affiliate links. And I don't bother to announce them. The reason why is real simple: I won't link to anything I think is crappy, even for money. The reputation of the site is too impotant. I also link to a lot more sites where my take is nothing. I just don't see any reason to turn away cash for something I was going to do anyway.
Do I really need a disclosure policy for this?
If Shoe errored it is in thinking everyone is selling out (we're not). If you feel threatened by his statement, maybe take a look at your own practices.
I don't think I'd even do a paid review for something I don't think is any good. I just wouldn't feel right about accepting money to slam someone's product and I'd rather put more positive stories up... usually. There have been a couple unpaid negative reviews. ;)
I think the worry here is summed up in where you say "The reason why is real simple: I won't link to anything I think is crappy, even for money", whereas Shoe's saying it doesn't matter if you link to stuff that is crappy, if you're doing it to get paid.
You know I've got a respect for you Rand, and I'm with you on your position, because it's you and I trust you not to link to something that's pants. I also respect the hell outta Shoe, but I'm not so sure I trust him as much.
Just my two cents...
I like this reply because of the word "pants". As an American it made me smile.
:) I shall try and include it more often.
...Pants
Love the "pants". Awesome.
:)
It was the same line in Randal's comment for me too. Also the mention of reputation being important. I would still add a disclosure though if only because after enough paid links the non-paid links might begin to look like paid links too. I think the disclosure helps maintain a good reputation.
And I'm finally beginning to understand the proper use for 'pants'
Glad to have helped educate you in the ways of the pants.
All that depends on your style. It's ok to be stictly ROI and be outright about "this for that", becuase you don't have to give unbiased information, infact even if you're not getting a kickback or direct commision there will still be some in inherent bias there anyways. I do greatly respect those bloggers (this includes you rand) who value honesty to the degree where they won't take a comission for a service they've recommened. I personally would accept the commission. Now I wouldn't push a service just for the commission, but I would take it nonetheless, because being too idealistic is bad for business and at the end of the day you have to pay for your kid's education and accepting comissions for a product you would recommened (and do) anyways is not unethical (especially if you disclose it).
Infact as a user if I purchased something because I found it via your recommendation I WOULD WANT you to get some sort of payment out of it, because I would want to directly encourage (with dollar bills) the creation of good content and encourage you in your pursuits. The same reason I often donate to the plugin creators of the wordpress plugins I'm using. I don't have to, but I want them to get enough cash out of it that they'll be able to keep it updated and feel about a project I benefited from.
PS. I used kid's education as a random example that sounded better then "that shiny new car" - lol.
Personally I don’t care if bloggers are getting paid.
Then I see something that isn’t like it should be I assume one or both:
1) They are getting paid.
2) They are incompetent
Many times I conclude both. Other I think bloggers are writhing too many posts and doing to little research.
In my blog I like to let the skeleton out of the closet and take the problems that follows.
Why write then you have nothing to say?
Most of the comments here seem to come from folks who either didn't read or didn't understand my argument with Jeremy. I'm not suggesting that blogging shouldn't be motivated by a desire to make money or grow a business. I'm arguing that the best way to do that is to provide disclosure.
Most print publications provide something close to full disclosure (though one could certainly argue that those owned by Disney or GE or Rupert Murdoch have their indisgressions). They do it so the public will trust the content and opinions inside them. If you found out that CNN was paid by a pharmaceutical to create a 5 minute segment on how great a new drug is, would you really just shrug and say - "hey, props to them for trying to make a buck."
I don't believe it for a minute. You would be outraged, horrified and your trust in CNN forever after would be significantly scaled down. Yet, somehow, it's OK for bloggers - why shouldn't you hold Jeremy and I and Danny Sullivan and Andy Beal and Donna Fontenot and Michael Arrington to the same standards of trust?
Very frankly, I think you (collectively) do. There's just something odd about this discussion that's making folks abandon their usual reason.
Can't argue there, I'm personally for disclosure, but I don't think it should mandatory on an INDIVIDUAL'S blog. If the blog crosses over and claims to be reporting news as opposed to just some individuals rants and raves I can see your point.
But (he said, advocating devilishly) what are Disney or GE or Murdoch doing apart from "linkbait" in traditional media guise?
Linkbait being essentially pandering (and I use that word in its fullest sense) to defined target audiences for particular mercenary goals...
Linkbait, in and of itself, has nothing to do with deliberately altering or obfuscating the facts of a story in order to manipulate your audience. Pandering is one thing, lying and manipulating is another, especially when it's under the emblazoned, key-framed and frequently trumpeted auspices of "Fair & Balanced" reporting.
Well, if I replied with "Journalism" in place of linkbait, it would be just as correct and just as misleading.
While I'm willing to accept (at least for the sake of argument) that none of your linkbait is tailored and manipulated for an audience and an end, the fact remains that manufacturing a non-existent dispute, overwrought exaggeration and downright misrepresentation for the sake of effect is the stock in trade of many current linkbaiters (for whom attention is everything), just as it is in the traditional media cases that were mentioned by Rand above.
If you're trying to say that Linkbait can be made manipulative and malevolent, you'll hear no argument from me. Anything can be used to manipulate and dupe people: government, journalism, education, religion...anything!
Just because something can be used for evil doesn't mean it ALWAYS is, or that it ever SHOULD be. If the argument is that since some linkbait is "bad" then all Linkbait is "bad", I think you may be missing the mark. I'm not a proponent of bad-apples-bunch logic, I fall more along the lines of bad-apples-bad-apples.
Based on this response, Rand, I have to say that blogging is as much about style as it is content. Personalities come out through the text used, the template, etc. and that translates to what type of person/site this is. From that the viewer can infer if the OP is on the take or not. And trustworthy or not.
The personal style leads to bias and that is a major point of distinction between bloggers and the regular press.
Of course, this is off the cuff so I could be way off base here, but that is my initial reaction. But take this into consideration:
Those are just some quick title descriptions of some popular industry sites. Based on those I think you can get a snapshot of motivation and what types of people would frequent such sites.
Would Shoemoney get visitors who want an "anything goes" approach to making money? Would Kim feel fufilled if website usability became a significantly reduced issue? Would you be happy if you picked up more clients?
Of all of those Donna's looks the most altruistic but people expect the "news" to be paid for by ads.
MHO
Just to be clear, my comment was in response to someone's statement that all blogs want to make money. I completely disagree with that.
Disclosure, for me, is logical and fair. I was questioned on the phone the other day about the ads at Cre8asiteforums and how much time I put in there, for which I'm not paid. I explained that our ads raise funds not for us, but for educational scholarships in the SEO industry. Oddly enough, after I explained that, the energy shifted and I no longer felt criticized for posting ads.
Does this mean we need to keep explaining why they're there? I'm sure there's a lesson there for me. And like you Rand, I'm funny about what money I'll accept. Like I don't take a cut of our forums ad revenue, despite my time putting the ads up, invoicing, etc.
Ads, to me, are sometimes like little lobbyists. Some blogs/sites will only get ad revenue from places that agree with them or want to be seen with that blog.
Personally, I need the freedom to blog with free will, not directed by what I think advertisers want me to write about. Most blogs I visit that are revenue models do it with such a professional, classy approach, or offer great content, that I could care less what the blog owner walks away with. More power to them.
But, like I said earlier, my time is valuable and once I sense I'm being used, all deals are off.
Kim, I suspect all bloggers want something even if not cash. Otherwise they'd keep their thoughts and oppinions in a private notebook.
Actually, I hold the bar a bit higher for you (and others) than I do for the main stream media. For two reasons:
As a consequence, I read a blog with a mindset that says "what's the source" and assume they might be telling the truth. While I listen to news reports with a mindset that says "what is the real story" and assume they are pushing an agenda.
At the end of the day, I and I alone am responsible for finding out the truth about any product or service before I buy.
Caveat Emptor
Caveat Emptor, indeed. I feel the problem at the heart of this argument is when a lack of disclosure prevents a reader from realizing they are being "sold" on something, rather than benignly informed.
Rand I completely agree with you. I've had this very same discussion on some forum threads in the past. I have no problem when someone gets paid to link to something, but if they aren't upfront about it I will tend to assume other links have been paid as well and assume that links are motivated by something more than a recommendation. That will put up a barrier to trust between me and the site.
On the other hand if you mention when you've been paid to link to something it takes down the barriers to trust because you have been honest.
Transparency is good and isn't disclosure being transparent.
I think that taking the value from Jeremy’s contributions to the industry because of a single post is a bit far fetched.
I do not believe for a minute that Jeremy directly profits from every single recommendation he makes. Actually, he is pretty much one of the most open source Marketers in the industry. Take for example what he did regarding his Landing Page designer. In the one of his most recent shows he had him on, and not only posted a lot of the Designers work in the WebMasterRadio chat room, including a couple of landing pages he had designed for him, as he also talked about the designers fees in the show. I doubt he had anything to gain from this, he merely showed some recognition to the designer that has worked with him for so many years.
Additionally, Jeremy did not say that he was benefiting from every recommendation that he posted, he said that one should assume in the business World that everyone is in the market to make money.
It’s beyond me how anyone would assume differently.
There's always going to be something in return:
-So there are those who blog recommending products they don't know about, but they get paid for it (sales people).
-Those that blog about products they tried before and know about and they get paid for it (they're being honest).
-Those that Blog to create a reputation online and sale services (still selling something).
-Those that blog just for passion.
Thank you, Rand, for calling this one out. Paid advertising should be disclosed, period. In the US, there are laws about this. Advertising in "editorial" content should be disclosed, period.
Jeremy and many other folks are trying to cloud the issue in an obviously self-serving manner, because their business model depends in part on this form of deceptive advertising.
Darn it, I don't have a lot of time to comment, but I just read a new review for wordze over at seo-scoop and I immediately checked to see if it was tagged with some kind of tracking / affiliate code, and it appeared to. This really changed how I felt about the recommendation, and how I felt about the blog.
Rand, you said something at last pubcon which I really connected with - you were on the reputation management panel, and your questions first was something like "Before I take on a client for rep mgt, I find out if they REALLY did something bad, some people don't deserve to have the bad stuff pushed down".
The fact that you don't take kickbacks or finders fees doesn't surprise me one bit.
With that said we all gotta be able to pay for flights to China (I am taking my first vacation in years to Hong Kong in January) so you got a right to make $$, but the way you go about monetizing this site further solidifies why me and my team follow you guys like hawks, you and your team seem like genuinely good people. Keep doing what you're doing...
Wil - Donna had this at the end of that post:
That would seem to me to fit perfectly with full disclosure. Am I missing something?
Oops, my bad...you know should should move that to the top or the title, because when I read blogs I jump in, read, find the link, and am gone...so I never read that. I'll drop her a line.
Actually, I would think that if you are going to publicly criticize someone else's blog post it would be important to actually read the whole thing. More important honestly, than where someone puts their full disclosure, don't you think?
Assuming they are not hiding it, I mean, which she obviously wasn't. We're not talking about 6px footer text here. That was a pretty strong anti-endorsement of her entire blog you did there. I'm just glad you came back and decided to disclose that it was based on you not actually finishing reading her post (although you probably should have included that in your original comment, bolded, underlined, and in the first sentence).
Gosh, 54 comments so far and hardly any mention of LinkBait!
Great way to stir up controversy - heck, you guys couldn't have done it better if you had planned it this way beforehand ... or did you?!? ;-)
And given Jeremy's interest in Ultimate Fighting and recent workout program, is he gunning to unseat the King of LinkBait?
Gosh, how could I miss this one. Thanks god that David Naylor was mentioning it again today.
I left already a comment at Dave's and also Shoemoney's blog. I disagree with you. I think I also know what your problem is.
Stop thinking of "getting paid", "benefit from", "getting rewarded", "kickbacks" etc. as the equivalent of "selling out". You can be perfectly honest and true to your hard and at the same time benefit from it.
As a matter of fact, your free blogging benefits your business, your free speaking at conferences benefits your business, whether you like it or not. It is not as easy to virtually impossible to track and measure, but it does benefit you. I know that you like to measure everything and hate if you can't track it to determine success or failure, but that is the SEO in you too.
If you do something good to somebody, they want to thank you for that (unless they are egoistic assholes). This thing of doing you something good can have all shapes and sizes and getting a commission for referrals or a free account or product or some other form of commercial value can be one form of returning the favor.
You need income eventually so you can not refuse all financial returns of your activities. This does not mean that you should do things differently than you did before. If you start seeking out monetary reward at all cost, you got a problem. This problem tends to come back to you as well, because the people that followed your advice or recommendation to pay for some junk will return the favor of getting ripped off to you to.
It goes both ways. Not only good stuff comes around.
I think we're forgetting something here and that's the readers. As if we just blindly follow everything Rand or Shoemoney says.
I assume that A-list bloggers get big benefits. I don't care if it's free tickets or cash.
I would love free tickets to something. Or a free drink. I used to get free drinks in DC just for being a girl.
Anyway, I hate that I'm even responding to a post like this - b/c with the two of you going back and forth - it just feels all setup. Like this:
Shoemoney: Hey Rand, let's start an argument on the web.
Rand: cool.
Shoemoney: I'll be the bad guy again.
Rand: I want to be the bad guy this time!
Shoemoney: No, I'm your pimp.
Rand: Crap. Oh well, this will bring lots of traffic and comments.
Shoemoney: I knew you wouldn't let me down.
----------------------------------------------------------
Ok, I don't really know. Just sometimes these public things Shoemoney does seems so orchestrated - like the whole MyBlogLog thing and Andy Beal was involved.
I promise that's not how it happened. I read Shoe's post, I responded in comments, then took it to the blog. And as for linkbait - last I checked, with the exception of Shoe's link to us, we don't have anyone else sending more than 3-4 visitors to the page... There's no orchestration behind the scenes here Nathania - if there was, I promise I'd disclose that, too.
BTW - for those who are interested, Jeremy called me to pre-record his radio show for next week and we discussed this issue for nearly an hour. I enjoyed the debate and I think Jeremy made a lot of good points.
I saw Jeremy mention the invite to you for the radio show and I was wondering if you'd agreed. I assumed you had and I'm sure it will be an interesting discussion.
I do agree with you about disclosing when you're getting paid to link to a product, though I never took Jeremy's post to say that he gets something directly in return for every link. Maybe it was just how I read it, but I took him to mean the same as you in the sense that most of us are hoping to profit in one way or another through our blogs.
Maybe the profit is a link back or more comments or maybe it's simply the attention of the person we're linking to.
My impression was that other than the disclosure part you and Jeremy were more in agreement with each other than disagreement over the issue. I guess I'll wait for the radio show to find out.
oh i was joking.
i don't really think Shoe's your pimp. no matter how much he might want to be.
:)