Comments on: This is not my blogosphere

By: Anna Creech

Anna Creech — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:01:14 +0000

Coming from the world of radio where it’s more unusual to purchase the music played on the air than to receive a free copy from the artist/label, it never occurred to me that reviewing products provided for free by the creators would be considered “dirty” in some way. Sure, if you’re expected to write glowing reviews of things and/or are paid in addition to receiving the review item, that might be ethically questionable. However, I spend a lot of time and effort in listening/reading/watching the things I review, so at the very least, getting a “free” copy of it to work with should be reasonable. I have never written a review that stated anything I didn’t believe in, whether it be positive or negative. I’m sorry if accepting free stuff to review means you think my opinions are tainted.

By: Heather

Heather — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:02:50 +0000

Great and thoughtful post, Meredith. I would like to point out, though, that some of these issues do indeed arise in mainstream media as well – some of the networks have been caught (and probably not caught!) running “stories” that are really just video news releases from corporations, packaged to look like reporting. They are given to the stations free, and they look like “real stories,” so for short-staffed local affiliates they are sometimes irresistible as a way to fill a few minutes. I’m not sure whether FTC charges have ever been laid, but a few stations have been outed and shamed.

Also, there’s a long tradition of giving freebies to journalists. One of my journalism profs used to joke that a good ethics rule of thumb was, “Never accept anything you can’t consume on the spot.” I suspect that many traditional publications in areas like fashion, travel, music, sports, food, etc. have some conflicts of interest that they aren’t being totally open about. As some of the commenters above point out, it has long been tradition for reviewers to receive free copies of books, CDs, etc. Obviously these aren’t high-value items and so there isn’t the same implied “buying” of a positive review. Most reputable news outlets have codes of conduct for staff; maybe the community of consumer products bloggers needs to collaborate on a code of conduct, something like the Health on the Net code, that bloggers could abide by. I have a feeling that reverse disclosures will be necessary in the end – i.e. “This blog does not accept freebies from any of the companies whose products it reviews.”

By: rachel

rachel — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:52:58 +0000

Meredith — Thanks for the shout out . But I think there’s a very fine line here — as a “mommy blogger” and a frugality blogger, I’m approached fairly often by companies to do these types of reviews/giveaways/word-of-mouth marketing. I’ve set up my own personal guidelines for this sort of thing (receiving a product to review, I’m absolutely OK with — I see this as akin to book reviews, and you can see a mixed review I posted today of an iPhone app that I got the code to d/l for free: http://www.mashupmom.com/?p=13412 ). I don’t do pay-per-post, because IMHO that crosses a line. I don’t do blogroll link exchanges (my blogroll is composed of sites I personally recommend, though I do need to update it).

I do post sponsored giveaways, and do sometimes receive the same product to review from the company that’s running the giveaway — but will say if I don’t like that product. (Ran a giveaway on Nature Valley Granola Nut Clusters recently, got some for myself from the company, didn’t like them, said so; I’m posting one tonight for a Crayola product I wouldn’t personally buy, and will say so.) What I also find interesting is that I’ve made several negative comments about the policies at a local grocery store — every other local mommy blogger I follow recently ran a giveaway for a gift card to that store and a promo touting their new (ha!) low prices, which I wasn’t offered. But that’s tangential…

I do have affiliate links — and one thing I find fascinating, is that I’m signed up with some affiliate aggregate sites where I pass up posting 90% of their offers as irrelevant or spammy or scammy. I see the same links I’m offered show up on a number of the mommy blogger sites I read, which does disappoint — but if I weren’t informed, or didn’t bother to hover over the links to see if they’re affiliate links, I’d never know.

I have a longer post on this brewing myself, but just some initial thoughts. Basically, if an affiliate link or giveaway or whatever is something I’d post regardless, I’ll post it as the affiliate link. If it’s not something I’d post if it weren’t affiliate, I don’t. I’ve unsubbed from some of these blogs because they’re over the top with the blatant money-making strategies, and I think that in the long run they’ll lose readership if the more solid content isn’t there.

By: Maxine

Maxine — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:13:46 +0000

What a great post! I admire you for writing it. I love blogging as a way to connect with people who share my reading interests. I would be horrified to think that anyone is involved in commercial sponsorship or otherwise commercial activities related to blogging, as it is primarily a venue for like-minded people to share thoughts and ideas on a common topic (in our case, reading). Unfortunately, blogging was not invented when I had my children, as I would have found blogging to be a supportive activity when my children were babies, particularly when I was quite isolated at home in the “maternity leave” phase. But if blogging had been possible then, I would have shared your viewpoint 100 per cent. Good for you to write this post!

By: Meredith Farkas

Meredith Farkas — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:01:39 +0000

Daisy, does the reasoning that someone is doing something to stay home with their child make it ok? If I took of my clothes in front of a webcam so I could stay home with my son, I would still be doing something morally questionable. For me, the ends don’t justify the means, but that’s everyone’s individual choice.

There’s a big difference between making money through advertising/sponsorship/Amazon and tailoring the content of your blog to the companies who give you things and then still claiming that you are honest and independent. I don’t have any problem with people making money off their blogs so long as the content isn’t dictated by the people giving you money. I never said that all bloggers who get free products only write positive reviews, but many of the ones I looked at do. If someone wants to be known as a trustworthy source of information, they will not accept payment from a company for a review of their product. Because it doesn’t matter if they are honest; many people will not perceive them as being honest.

By: daisy

daisy — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:35:15 +0000

There’s a piece missing here: this is one way for parents who stay home with their kids to make money while staying at home. Blogging is their job and their source of income. Without the sponsorship or support, many of these parents couldn’t afford to stay at home. They are professional bloggers.

I think required disclosure is excellent, and that’s all I need, for the time being.

Think of this as a way to empower families to have more choices in child care.

(And, I have indeed read negative reviews of items given to the blogger for free.)

By: thewikiman

thewikiman — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:48:45 +0000

This kind of issue is why Blog with Integrity came about (http://www.blogwithintegrity.com/)...

It’s not a solution to the problem as such, but an indication that the person displaying the badge understands the issue and takes it seriously.

By: walt crawford

walt crawford — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:42:16 +0000

Providing review copies of CDs, and books, and DVDs and…back in the day…CD-ROMs is fairly standard practice, and not inherently fraught with ethical problems, given two rules: First, the provider has no expectation that a review will actually appear; Second, the provider has no expectation that the review will be positive. As soon as there’s a quid pro quo, it’s ethically questionable, no matter how many disclaimers you use. (That’s why, in looking for a Cites & Insights sponsor, I specifically say “someone in an area that C&I doesn’t cover.”)

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:03:04 +0000

Another interesting place to look at this is in the music blog area. Music companies have been giving away albums to bloggers in exchange for reviews. I’ve personally accepted a number of albums, but with quite a lot of research beforehand – I’m pretty selective about what I take and review, and it’s generally positive because it’s something that I’ve liked already.
That being said, I think it’s up to the person who’s reviewing. For me, a copy of the album isn’t necessarily a free pass to a positive review – I try and remain impartial when it comes to music, highlighting what I like and dislike about the music that I review. I have to say, a couple of people who’ve sent me stuff have stopped, or not even acknowledged some of the reviews that I’ve written because they weren’t positive.
I do like the requirement for bloggers to announce what they have been given, but just because of that, I don’t necessarily think that compensation provides a good review, at least in the music world.