Natiiv

Ted Shelton wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Did you ask Chris for a comment before posting this?

I'd say that Panasonic should be glad that bloggers are independent minded and not just bought and sold. It sounds like Chris wasn't there as a patsy for Panasonic NOR for Sony. The fact that he has a commercial relationship with a competitor (8 months later) actually validates that je is the kind of person they need to influence.

Eric Eggertson wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

I don't quite see the problem. Are bloggers, journalists and others supposed to put on some sort of chastity belt when they agree to attend an event, thanks to the largesse of a company that wants to gain coverage of their products?

By that same token, employees would be forbidden to talk to your competitors at conferences and networking events.

Presumably, you were interested in Brogan because he was persistent and innovative in his blogging. Shouldn't be a big surprise if he shows persistence and innovation while at the event.

Ry Jones wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

I don't see the problem. He isn't in their employ; would it have been worse if he'd gone and totally ragged on Panasonic and Crayon?

Susan Getgood wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

It's a dilemma. I've never run ads of any kind on Marketing Roadmaps for much the same reason. In fact I often joke that marketers don't get free s**t, we just get s**t for free.

So, where do we draw the line?

Is it possible to simultaneously be an observer/marketer and an active participant in outreach programs as a blogger influencer? Like most ethical questions, the answer is highly personal. We all have to make that decision for ourselves.

I do see a potential issue, and it is not limited to the Brogan example in your post. We advocate for authentic blogger relations. We tell companies they need to build long-term relationships with bloggers to reap the true benefits. Yet, many influential bloggers are building business/consulting relationships, potentially with competitors. Clearly, a company's investment in time/relationship with a blogger is for naught if the blogger *subsequently* becomes a paid consultant to a competitor. It may not be an ethical lapse, but it does present a problem for the practice of blogger relations.

I am the last person to tell folks to walk away from a legitimate business opportunity, or from an exciting blogger relations opportunity as a participant.

But it's something you have to think about, especially if you decide to straddle the fence and do both.

David Binkowski wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Ted, I did ask Chris this question publicly on Twitter to which he declined a response - public or private:

http://twitter.com/dbinkowski/status/3454333690

Ultimately he is eroding the trust of those he interacts with, does business with and writes for. Having to slap a "buyer beware" label on someone isn't something that drives up brand value or equity with clients or sponsors, either. It will be interesting to see what his proverbial "tipping point" is - the point at which advertisers, companies, etc will not want to work with him because his reach begins to decline due to these sort of actions.

I don't blame Chris for trying to make a living, but it's awfully convenient (and slippery) to be able switch means between blogger, entrepreneur, paid spokesperson and author to justify your ends.

Mike Driehorst wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

While Chris Brogan and others like him are influential and would be a good "hit" (I hate that term!), that is the risk you run when you treat any type of consultant as just a blogger. You can't really separate the various professional versions of oneself. They're all intertwinned.

So, for that reason, be careful who you try to influence. While Brogan's influence may be very alluring, he's not one I would reach out to on behalf of a client. He has to many potentials for COI. I admire his thoughts and work, but doubt I'd send him any product to review, for example.

Blogging has been great starting points for many to build themselves what I call a "mini media empire." Nothing wrong with having a great audience and influence, but when you reach a certain level, you lose the genuine, every-day person feel you'd still think of when you think of most bloggers. And, you quickly get off of most lists for blogger outreach.
-Mike

Spike Jones wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Great post, Leah.

And THIS is one of the fundamental problems with "INFLUENCER" blogger marketing. For the most part, they don't give a crap about you or your product. They care about elevating themselves at your expense. They are a billboard which you rent for a month and then choose to follow the glory and the $$ and pimp your competitor next month. Where is the sustainability in that?

We are all social media grad school right now. And the next couple of years are going to separate the boys from the men. Or girls/women. You know what I mean. But this kind of BS will be something we look back on and say, "I knew it."

MrBrownThumb wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

This is an interesting post. I know us folks who blog about gardening aren't as in demand with these kinds of brands, ( hi, Panasonic, Cannon, Sony... we use cameras too :] ) but I've found myself torn in a situation between two competing brands who have been really nice to me.

One the one hand Panasonic got what they were "paying" for when the gear went back. On the other hand I've been brought up to be loyal to my friends but loyalty has to be a mutual thing too.

What had Panasonic done for Chris lately?

You can't expect for someone to remain loyal to a brand indefinitely just because 8 months ago they put out a lot of money to get some good press.

I don't fault Chris for looking out for himself and his interests.

Megan Fridell wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

The term "Don't sh--t where you eat" comes to mind when I read this post. While I'll agree with many commenters that, as a blogger, Mr. Brogan did nothing wrong, I would also agree that it does indeed tarnish his image as an influencer and bring into question his business ethics as a consultant.

Sony hired a blogger who had intimate knowledge of their competitors social media outreach program. Was it ethical? No, not for Sony, and not for Mr. Brogan. Was it smart? It may have been smart a few years ago, before the world was watching how social media is changing the marketing game, but not now, not in the age of transparency. Sony has jeopardized their brand by getting in bed with an influencer who was also in bed with the competitor - regardless if the proverbial non-compete condom was on or off.
I for one immediately call into question the similarities between the Panasonic program that Mr. Brogan was party to, and the Sony program which he helped create. What sweet nothings did he hear from Panasonic that he then whispered into Sony's ear, and for how long did this affair last? It's a heady claim to be sure, but as more and more bloggers become social media consultants, the possibility of espionage becomes a real threat.

There are a lot of uncertainties in online relationships building. It's the reason why there is such a great cry for transparency and trust. It's sad to see that someone who seems to have such insight into the the idea of "Trust Agents" would jeopardize his own standing as one.

Muhammad Saleem wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Hi Leah,

I'm afraid I really don't get your point with this post. Let me see if I got this right. Panasonic and Crayon invited Brogan and others to their event to showcase their offering to these influencers, and while there Chris met with a competitor to compare the two companies' offerings and 8 months down the line Chris has a relationship with the competitor?

I really have to wonder about Panasonic's and Crayon's motivation with the invitation (if they are actually miffed about how things turned out). Did they simply invite him to see their offering without any obligation, or was it explicit that he would be exclusively bound to them by attending this event? If it was the former, then they got what they bargained for. Chris wrote is unbiased opinion on his site in the article you linked to above and thanked them for inviting him. If they had their eyes on the latter then shame on them.

If anything, I think the result is another testament to the fact that Brogan's opinion and his credibility is not for sale. He went out, looked at everything, made up his own mind and went with a relationship with a competitor. He is not a Panasonic or a Crayon employee, nor does he have a contractual professional relationship with them.

Panasonic and Crayon should be proud of themselves for selecting such an independent minded influencer to offer his opinion and they should ask him why he chose a relationship with a competitor. I'm sure his response will provide them with invaluable feedback on what areas they can improve in.

Chris Brogan... wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

I haven't spoken on this yet, but one reason I might not yet have replied to the Twitter stream was that I was onstage giving a fricken keynote, and then talking to the people who attended it, so I might not have been so active in Twitter at that point. That's not at all the same as "declined." I just never responded because it flew past in my stream. (Try reading the output of 93000 conversations for a few minutes, but then that's my cross.)

Panasonic wasn't a client. I was there on behalf of Crayon. I fulfilled my duties, wrote my blog post, did my time. I was there as a blogger.

Sony wasn't a client in January. They became a client last month.

My campaign with Sony is different than the project where I served as a blogger from Panasonic. Here's how: we targeted dads not influential bloggers; we asked them to work on specific projects with their kids, media making projects that blend the use of the gadgets with more family-minded media making.

Neither Panasonic nor Crayon own the patent on "blogger outreach." Jeremiah Owyang has upwards of 100 examples on his blog (too lazy to find the link). So if I'm somehow being called out for launching a blogger outreach campaign for a consumer electronics company, um, yes. I did. I most certainly did launch a blogger outreach campaign for a consumer electronics company.

Did I "steal" anything from my experience with Panasonic? No, not really. I mean, I went through the experience, so I guess I have some sense of what it meant to be flown to a place, given some gear, and let loose to play with it. But I have a WHOLE PAGE of gear that people have given me over the years. Maybe Panasonic stole from Nikon, who gave me a D60 the year before.

Not exactly getting the point of this. I know the ORIGIN of your story, because said origin didn't respond to my reply to said origin's angry email. But I'm not sure what the accusation you're trying to level really is.

Just the same, the conversation's interesting. But I do have one final point: if your level of attempts to contact me for my side of the story is a tweet or two, that's lazy. Points off for grace.

Chris Brogan... wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

So, I just re-read the piece.

Panasonic is mad that I met Sony at CES? That's silly. That's totally silly. I'll give you the 300 business cards I collected at the event, and I'll also tell you that Panasonic should be upset that I met Humana and several other large clients.

My role with the project was to use equipment and blog about the use of the equipment. I did it. I even took flack at the time for not trashing the equipment (Hey, I happened to think it did reasonably well).

So if that's their big rip, I'm not sure how the word "trust" is part of the equation. I performed my duties and did so above board.

I'm not on staff at Panasonic or Sony. I have no contract with Panasonic or Crayon that extended past the event CES.

Um... hey look, a red herring.

Chris Brogan... wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

It just strikes me as interesting just how close to the truth your fiction is.

That said, what about the rest of it. Are you seriously thinking that Panasonic and Crayon should be angry that I struck up a relationship with another company?

I still speak to Scott Monty even though I'm a lifelong GM driver and even though Fritz Henderson (GM CEO) blurbed my book.

Again, remember that I was there as a blogger trying out toys. I had no allegiance to any party, so had no way to betray trust. I was professional and dispatched with my obligations professionally.

David Binkowski wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Chris, technically you did decline my request. I specifically asked a question via an @ and you didn't answer, yet you did answer other people. The question was, "is Panasonic pissed that you're working with Sony?".

If you're saying "I don't have a relationship with Panasonic anymore so I wouldn't know", then that's fine, but just say it.

Just for clarification -- if you were there on behalf of Crayon, you were also there on behalf of Panasonic. They paid Crayon who then paid your way. That's like claiming cocaine doesn't come from Colombia but from Newark (sorry, closest reference). The check might've said "Crayon" but the origin is still Panasonic.

Finally, you are now wearing several hats at once. You truly are a trailblazer. My final point was that it's going to be interesting to see how consumers and your community (two different but not mutually exclusive groups) embrace it and if brands will continue to utilize your channel as a blogger instead of as a consultant -- and if it erodes any trust.

Chris Brogan... wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

David - so wait, no response is a decline? Hmm. I'm not a journalist. I'm willing to accept it if that's what you say. By the way, I asked President Obama whether or not he was a Nazi and he didn't answer. I think he declined to answer.

Okay, so semantics of who paid who for the dance, there was nothing in my instructions or nothing implied that suggested I not meet other companies. I'm not going steady with either Panasonic or Sony, nor did I strike up a business relationship at the event. (This is, after all, 8 months later, and my pitch to Sony was hmm... 2 months ago, I think, but don't quote me, herr journalist).

Is that still the charge? That I can't kiss other girls? Still not there with you.

As for the "many hats eroding trust," I've covered that one far too many times. My take: disclosure. I'm not in PR. I'm not in journalism. I answer to my community, my clients, my family, and the law for the most part. I am clear in my intentions.

Here's a better question back: are consultants not trustworthy? Was Panasonic afraid that I might try other equipment? Because that's not the flavor that Panasonic Chairman Yoshi Yamada left in my mind when I met him at CES. He seemed very confident in his products, and he seemed very appreciative of the differences in what they provided that other companies did not. In fact, his candor and his comportment made me a fan of Panasonic's perspective that day in a way that no advertisement ever could have accomplished.

And, again, I've not heard word from Panasonic that they're upset. That's fiction, according to your post. I wrote my post in January and they were reportedly pleased by it, or so said Crayon.

Funny how a 3rd party observation just gives this story so many more ways to look at it.

Big companies worried about whether or not I should blog about their product? Hmmm. I'll save my news on that one for later.

Justin wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

hmmm, ironic that this guy just launched his "Trust Agent" book tour. I'd be ticked too -- Chris's actions really seem slimy -- go to a conference on someone else and see what kind of action you can whore up. Classy

Chris Brogan... wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Wow, an anonymous comment. I feel so chastened.

Man up.

David Binkowski wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

So you're comparing yourself to the President? Or are you saying you disregard your community, of which I'm a part of? I like your stuff and when I read the AdAge piece wanted to ask an honest question. I appreciate you answering it here.

And just for the record, I'm glad you worked CES, networked and got work out of it. I've never met you but have heard you're a nice guy.

So here's what I know: All of the research on using celebrity spokespeople -- which, is what I think you have reached within the online world -- shows it does not influence people. My question is: When does the average consumer start to change who they trust online based on the amount of paid and earned placements? And when do companies start to look at folks with large reach online as anything other than a media outlet that can be bought and paid for?

I made the point earlier and I'll say it again - switching hats frequently causes confusion, even with disclosure. This post I'm just Joe Blogger, not a journalist. The next one I'm being paid and disclosed, the one after that is just one I felt like writing, the one after that is paid again and dislcosed. Then I'm a journalist because I went to an event to cover it. Then after that I'm writing because I felt like it. Inconsistent, to say the least.

David Jones wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Leah, I salute your bravery for bringing this grey area up for discussion. There is no real precedence, so the discussion and debate is valuable for the rest of us to follow. If folks can avoid getting personal, there will be some good lessons in this. Clients, agencies and bloggers will appreciate what to expect from each other in the future as this won't be the last situation like this.

Whether it was intentional or not, the AdAge reference to Sony meeting Brogan at CES (which isn't consequential) rubs Panasonic's nose in the fact that they underwrote his travel expenses to meet with a competitor. I would expect that to hurt. I'm sure they'll get over it.

Jeremy Pepper wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Chris, what red herring? Maybe you need to take the constructive criticism if you are going to tout your qualifications as a social media tool identifier. Yes, tool identifier because you have told me many times that you do not do PR but discuss the tools of social media. Which is great, although in a vacuum, and not much help for those of us that work in the trenches.

But, now you ARE in PR, social media relations, working with other social media you know and providing them products for review, etc.

Last year on your birthday, I offered to help you with personal PR because you needed it.

And the truth is you still need it. You wrote a book on trust, but what does that really mean? Does it mean "trust me, because I have these people read my blog and follow me on Twitter"? It seems that truth is what you make it, and when it is convenient to you.

For example, you had an interview in the Chicago Tribune (it's no longer online, but is on Factiva). What struck me in that article was how defensive you got when the reporter asked about going to CES for Panasonic; you said you were not required to blog, etc. But, you DID post on Panasonic and the products. It might not have been inherently stated that that was the deal, but that was the intent.

Then came KMart. Talk about using your community's trust for your own purposes. You didn't disclose your affiliation with Izea and that you're on the board (FD: I like Izea's concept and methods). The excuse was that it was on your Daddy blog, so it was all okay. But, it wasn't; it was a violation of trust. And now, on your blog, it seems like you go over the top on disclosures, but it leaves me to wonder how transparent it is - like "I'm just writing about this because I like it" ... but was the product sent to you for free?

This was the offer I had for your birthday: messaging. You know what you could have said for both incidents? A statement that would have probably been built on trust and honesty - and some would not have been happy - but most would have been unable to fault you.

Yes, you could have said: I am just starting out in a new career and venture, and in part of that venture, corporations come to me with opportunities to present to you, my community. As I am a family man with a wife and children, I weigh these options and go forward with them to provide for my family. Panasonic is one such situation. Kmart and Izea is another. If you are going to begrudge me from making a living, maybe you shouldn't be part of my community.

See how straight forward that is? It's honest, it's based on trust, and it answers any questions there might be about propriety.

Finally, taking the Panasonic / Sony incident that this is based on. As someone that worked for large CE companies (agency and in-house), I know that the crap would hit the fan in such a situation. You may have inadvertently put many people on the hot seat right now. Purely conjecture, but it is quite possible.

Chris Brogan... wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Compare myself to the president? No. Think the claim is silly? Yes. But I know what you feel, and you know what I do. So, moot.

You asked:

When does the average consumer start to change who they trust online based on the amount of paid and earned placements? And when do companies start to look at folks with large reach online as anything other than a media outlet that can be bought and paid for?

---

I believe the average consumer online already questions who they trust. I believe that people who don't practice full disclosure in their blog posts for reviews are finding their reviews less trustworthy (except to their core existing community).

At the risk of sounding like I'm pitching my project, I believe Sony took that gamble by choosing some bloggers for their project that don't have a large reach.

But if I leave THEM out of it, I'll tell you that MANY large companies pitch me all the time to blog about their thing. Sometimes, the pitches don't fit me in the very least. Okay, most times. And those get passed by.

I've spent 10 years building a community. There's not a decent dollar sign (okay, $10 million) that I would take to betray that trust. (Except for $10 million).

On your other points, you're getting into the sponsored post territory and that's probably worth another post instead of a comments-back-and-forth, but I've written my take on it.

As to your assertion that I'm a nice guy. That's hearsay. : )

Chris Brogan... wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

@Jeremy - well damn. I'm never saying no to your birthday present offers again.

I respect your opinions. And yes, I can see through your lens the interesting comparisons.

As for what the book's about, drop me a DM with an address, and I'll send you a copy (or did I?). Or is that bad ethically?

Hope :-) wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

So Chris, did you sign a non-compete with Panasonic and Crayon when you attended the CES conference as a test blogger? My guess is no, so you fulfilled your obligation and off you go.

I totally get what Leah is saying in point, but think that as business people, especially in this new space have to enter into clear agreements. I would honestly be mad as well, as I've been burned myself, but since then, I've changed the way I partner with others.

Maybe this is just great learning for Panasonic, Crayon and everyone else reading this post and the Ad Age article.

I don't want someone working for me, learning what I know and then going to a competitor or starting their own social networking business, so I've started having my interns sign non-competes. It states pretty clearly what I expect from them, what I'll give them in return etc. I've had one person not want to sign and that's ok. I have similar agreements with sponsors that outline expectations.

Maybe agencies need to have something similar and if they don't want a blogger or other participant in such an event to work with a competitor they should have them sign something to this effect.

Thanks so much for posting this Leah. You bring up a fantastic point and it has generated quite a discussion

Chris Brogan... wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Hope - it's an interesting question. Did I learn anything about Panasonic that I would give to Sony? No. I used their products, which are all commercially available. Did I learn anything from Crayon and how they handled blogger outreach? I learned that Joseph Jaffe, Greg Verdino, Jane Quigley, and the Crayon team did an amazing job of running the blogger outreach, that they managed some incredible experiences, like the chance to meet Yoshi Yamada, that they had some really good bloggers in the project like Steve Garfield and Melissa Pearce and Stacy DeBroff (MomCentral), to name a few.

Was any of that something I could pick up and run to Sony with? No, not exactly, though I sincerely hope I can have 1/2 the quality blogger outreach campaign that Crayon executed.

Still not catching where I did something wrong, but then, I guess that's why all the interesting people are visiting to comment. Can't see how one would issue a noncompete that would say "don't ever blog about another consumer product" again.

Is it me? Because beside throwing a few stones, I'm still waiting for some education, and all I've had in that department was Pepper (who hit me with a good point or two).

Chris Brogan... wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

So, I think I've commented plenty and stated my thoughts and the like. I'm going to stop for now, but I appreciate the chance to comment, and am grateful that Leah permits open conversations in the comments section. Even though I'd have rather been contacted before the post, so we could discuss it, I don't mind clearing it all up in post-production. Either way.

Thanks for all the things to think about. I appreciate your take.

Kfir Pravda wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

What a great thread we have here - Leah, thanks for getting the conversation started. And as a disclosure, I consider both Leah and Chris as friends, as our paths crossed in recent years.
From business perspective, I never sign exclusivity deals, unless they either provide me enough biz to cover the loss of revenue from competitors, or increase my "brand" value in a way that will enable me in the near future to either charge more from my customers or reach more of them.
I believe that if Crayon or Panasonic wanted Chris never to work with their competitors they should have made an offer that justified it.
Also, there is no "secret sauce" in the blogger outreach Chris participated in, that copying it should be considered as a business or trust issue.
That social media tools have a great moderation and filtering tool called the community. If Chris would do things, over time, that damage the trust he gained in the community, people would stop following him, and he would lose any influence he ever had. Simple as that. So, if people are confused with Chris's hats, Chris would notice it.
I always wonder about those guys who are complaining about Twitter folks who are spamming them - Twitter in a sense is the purest social tool out there - you just unfollow the guy and that's it.
And last point - come on guys, bloggers do whatever the f@#k they want. they are taking risks if they are not open with their readers, but they have no loyalty, and they don't suppose to have one either - if they wanted to be in that position they would have been spokespersons or journalists. Brands that can't stand this heat, should stay out of the social kitchen.

Idan Gazit wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Fascinating thread. My $0.02: standardization is just part of maturing as a field. This whole thread revolves around the fact that employing bloggers is a young and ill-defined modus operandi.

If "influence blogging" is becoming something systemic, then there should be some accepted guidelines on disclosure—how to disclose, when to disclose, what to disclose, where to disclose. Sure, not everybody will adhere, but that will be one of the differentiating factors between the moonlighters and the professionals.

I imagine that the people doing the hiring will appreciate having a kind of standard interface; it's a kind of expectations management. "Burned" is a feeling of surprise. The whole point of contracts (social and otherwise) is to reduce or eliminate surprise. Having a common set of standards regarding disclosure will help manage the expectations of all the PR reps doing the hiring while at the same time reducing surprise about what a blogger can or cannot do from an ethical standpoint.

Leah, while I appreciate the PR firm sentiment of "getting burned" by having "your shill" shilling for somebody else, I think that their bellyaching is akin to that of the music industry. The world is changing, the channels via which consumers get their message are changing, and steadfastly trying to do business-as-usual will only make their situation worse. If they were smart, they'd band together as an industry and try to come up with a set of blogger standards themselves, while they still have a chance to define and control the initiative. Otherwise, a bunch of bloggers will pen a manifesto and the PR firms will have missed that boat, too.

David Benjamin wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

My honest opinion is I don't know if what Mr. Brogan did was unethical or not. Being new to blogging and never working in the PR or Marketing arena I don't have enough experience to comment.

The back and forth between Chris and others that have commented on this topic have been enlightening. I continue to learn from posts like this but more so in the comments afterwards.

My takeaway is that I believe jealousy can often get in the way of observation and opinion. Forget about this example and look at life in a broader scope. We all make our own assessments and then use facts to try and validate those assessments. Only problem is facts can be looked at from different vantage points. The lines can get quite blurry the closer you look at them.

Chris Hambly wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

As stated above the lesson here is if you want to use a "blogger", (whatever that means), then "sign a non-compete", legalise it.

Quite simple.

There is no friendship in business when the sh!t hits the fan, all you have remaining is the law and its documents.

Gordon Rae wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

I'm not sure why people think there's a trust isue here. There's a tradition in advertising and PR that you don't represent two clients in the same space at the same time, because that's conflict of interest. But Chris Brogan didn't do that. He got a gig with Sony after his gig with Crayon was over.

I've know clients put a clause in the contract that says I promise not to work for a competitor for x amount of time after the gig is over, and if Panasonic imposed such a condition., that's the only reason they'd have a right to be angry.

Finally, the whole thing about bloggers being hard to trust is a bunch of hooey. (I know ,that was part of your fiction.) This is normal marketing. The main ethical problem with Chris Brogan's job would be if Chris said a client's product was good when it was crap. If you hire someone freelance for two months, of course they'll be looking for their next gig. And they'll offer a credible independent opinion, because they're not desperately trying to keep the paychecks coming.

David Binkowski wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

The more I re-read this thread the more I see my point is getting lost. As someone who works at an agency I have seen bloggers use client events to pimp their own, competing services, to which clients are turned off from working with said blogger again. The "Seven Deadly Sins" of social media includes "it's hard to shake hands while you're reaching into their pocket"; this is the lesson for brands and agencies here. I also have diffiulty believing that communities trust those folks who are perpetually hawking products, even when disclosed. "we now interrupt this message" got old on TV and it's playing out the exact same way online.

Steve Garfield wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Hi Leah,
I was also on the CES trip with Chris Brogan.

Your fictional story IS fiction because in fact, Chris made it clear that he would be meeting other companies at CES. We all knew that. What other companies could he have met there that WOULDN'T have been competitors?

Wait. Don't answer that.

In your continuum of blogger outreach you define #3 as:

"Sponsorship by a brand to attend an event, co-host an event or travel for an experience"

Sponsorship is different than covering a bloggers expenses to go to an event.

I blogged about this prior to the trip:

"Panasonic is covering my flight and hotel, and taking us out to dinner, letting us use their products, and showing us what they are up to.

There's no requirement for us to blog about Panasonic, just to make one post a day and one after CES. So if you see the tag LIHD on my post, that's for Panasonic and means Living in HD."

http://offonatangent.blogspot.com/2009/01/look-for-me-at-...

I was very clear in my conversations with Crayon that this was not going to be a sponsored trip where we only blogged about Panasonic.

Crayon's Greg Verdino blogged about the expectations too:

http://gregverdino.typepad.com/greg_verdinos_blog/2008/12...

Here are a couple of posts I made from CES:

HOW TO: EDIT Panasonic SDR-SW20 MOD files on a Macintosh
http://offonatangent.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-to-edit-pan...

Recap: CES DAY 1
http://offonatangent.blogspot.com/2009/01/recap-ces-day-1...

After CES, Panasonic invited me to join the Living in HD program.

I explain that here:

Living in HD - Blogger/influencer outreach program
http://panasonictestcenter.blogspot.com/2009/03/living-in...

In that post I link to Crayon's Joseph Jaffee's thoughts about the two main issues:

"1. Should bloggers be compensated in any way, shape or form for their time, effort, energy, passion and contribution. The answer can only be a resounding YES, with standard terms and conditions (disclosure, transparency etc) which make both common sense and business sense.
2. Is expecting bloggers (in return for aforementioned compensation) to write, talk, post, create etc about their experiences, reflections, ideas, participation crossing a line? The answer here is a resounding NO, provided there is adequate disclosure and transparency."

Read more:
To pay or not to pay, is THAT the question?
http://www.crayonville.com/blog/?p=378

I've got a disclosure page on my site and link to it from my twitter bio.

http://bit.ly/SG_Disclosure

Finally, you say, "What are the lines? How long does loyalty last?"

There are no lines.

There is no plan.

There is no loyalty since none was asked for.

We're just bloggers trying the best we can to be authentic and trusted sources on the topics we write about.

Disclosure and transparency helps us do that.

Susan Getgood wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Like some of the other commenters, I am more interested in the larger issue this example brings up. Ethics are a personal issue, and each person must decide for him or herself. That's an underlying premise of BlogWithIntegrity.com a project I recently launched with 3 fellow bloggers. What matters is your relationship with your customers, your readers, your community, and properly disclosing your relationships.

It's not about whether Chris or anyone who has done a similar thing has done anything wrong. For me, that's almost irrelevant. Decide for yourselves and act accordingly.

What matters is how this dynamic impacts the practice of blogger outreach. Brogan is by NO MEANS the only person on the planet straddling this fence. As pointed out above, a company takes its chances when it reaches out to bloggers with offers and programs. Successful blogger relations isn't a one-off program though. We are mutually investing time in the relationship.

Of course, the blogger is equally likely to accept an offer from a competitor, but when it is simply blogger outreach, not consulting, the company's investment in the relationship is not lost. However, when that blogger enters into a paid consulting arrangement with the competitor, I *do* think the investment of the previous company is at best, lost.

Absent a non-compete, though, there's nothing ethically wrong. X did a program with company a and now X does paid work for company b.

However, increasingly, I think this dynamic, and this possibility, will impact the practice of blogger relations. Some possibilities:
-Influencers may have to pick a side - are they blogger-influencers or are they consultants
-Companies may ask bloggers to sign non-competes in exchange for participating in significant programs
-Companies may start to shy away from the big names that tend to have these multi-roles

It's an interesting conversation, Leah. Thanks for bringing it up.

Randy Lawrence wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

No one can, or should, independently judge what the blogger did or didn't do in this case without all the facts. What we each can - and should - do is judge how we will act in the future, based upon the scenario that Leah has put forward. Does evaluating a competitive product mean you will be tempted by the competitive offer? Does your evaluation of your client's service mean you will take your knowledge and build a better service, having received what you know from them? (Too many government-to-private sector examples to note here...)

Leah's comment about having a "compliance officer" is worth noting. If a global PR enterprise sees the need for this policy-making and enforcing position for its employees, perhaps the burgeoning ranks of global social media consultants could benefit from a similar officer. The Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions at IIT, provides a wonderful library of "codes of ethics" on its site: http://ethics.iit.edu/codes/coe.html

Several notable codes are here for bloggers and other social media consultants to consider, including insight from WOMMA, Direct Marketing Association, Society of Professional Journalists, Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals, Global Alliance For Public Relations and Communication Management, The International Association of Business Communicators, Institute of Management Consultants, and the Standards of Professional Conduct for Academic/Management Consultants.

Any one of these contains the type of well-thought policy and procedures that bloggers and other professional social media consultants can use in guiding their way through the day-to-day challenges they face in the evolving Web 2.0 world.

Annie Heckenberger wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Here are my thoughts on what I'm reading:

I don't see an issue with Brogan meeting Sony when reviewing a product for Panasonic on Sony's dime. In fact, I like that he did some due diligence and went to their booth to compare the products. His relationship with Sony appears to have resulted long after his Panasonic trip. Not an issue for me.

I do have an issue with marketing people acting as review bloggers. Personally, I think that marketers should be marketers and reviewers be reviewers - call me old school, but I still believe that blurring that line results in "payola" which is why the FTC is now investigating bloggers.

And yes, I consider someone consulting on social media for corporations, a marketer.

Now here's the thing, I wouldn't have invited a marketing blogger into a CE review program in the first place. I understand why someone would want to. Brogan is very influential. He gets lots of traffic to his blog. No doubt traditional media read it too, and it could generate MSM coverage. That said, I think it's inappropriate for the exact reasons of what's happening here.

Blurring the lines between (citizen) journalism and marketing can be a dangerous thing, something Sony (ironically) learned the hard way a few years ago with Andy Pargh. (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0661434/news?year=1998)

It would be wise for ALL of us, to review the lines between church and state and ensure that history doesn't repeat itself.

Annie Heckenberger wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

And my link defaulted to the wrong Andy Pargh news story, one that happened a year AFTER the payola incident. Here's the text:

>>Today Reviewer Caught In Apparent Conflict Of Interest

27 January 1998 | Studio Briefing - Film News | See recent Studio Briefing - Film News news »

NBC has ordered Andy Pargh who reviews consumer products for its Today show, to cut his ties with Sony, the New York Daily News reported today. The action reportedly came following a report in the Columbia Journalism Review that included quotes from a Sony memo indicating that the company had hired Pargh for $80, 000 to write four brochures for its products in order to get "a leg up in getting him to cover our topics on the Today show." Pargh told the Daily News that he would never accept payments for mentions on the show. The newspaper said that Sony had confirmed that its deal with Pargh "was ended prematurely." » <<

Sean Williams (@commammo) wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Leah, thanks for a terrific post. Also, to the commenters for fascinating perspectives. I'll be referring to this when I teach PR Theory and Ethical Practice at Kent State this fall.

Much of public relations has traditionally been based on the concept of independent 3rd party endorsement -- you get the news media to write positively about your product, service, client, etc. The new world has devalued the news media (often with very good reason), showing it to have agendas and not be as unbiased as it claims.

The reader representative for our local newspaper makes it clear that reporters and editors do not accept free merchandise, travel, or even meals from prospective sources like companies because they find doing so ethically questionable. Thus, we can be certain that a positive review of a product was not paid for or influenced by the company that made or sold it.

Bloggers such as the esteemed Mr. Brogan claim neither to be journalists (though their communications seem like journalism) nor PR people (though many consult as though they are.) Transparency, as Mr. Brogan wrote, is critical, provided we as consumers of such material keep in mind that they do not see themselves as bound by the customs, rules or processes of journalism. Caveat Emptor.

Consumer Reports doesn't accept free stuff. Nor does it permit advertising. Both of those decisions mark it as an important source of unbiased information. Knowing that a blogger has accepted free stuff impeaches their opinion about that free stuff. However, landing a client relationship in the same industry doesn't seem to me, on the surface, to be unethical.

Jeremiah Staes wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

If Chris did not sign a non-compete (not that this level of interaction called for it, and you can't have non-competes in some states anyway, such as California) then where's the rub?

However, this line is blurred, I agree - with so many bloggers viewing themselves as "journalists" and people automatically thinking all bloggers should be journalists - well some are, some aren't.

Frankly, I hate the term "blogger." It needs to be ditched.

It's based off a platform name, not content. We all create content, the journalists, the marketers, the hawkers, the academics - and calling them all "bloggers" and then defining them by that (and defining their guidelines) is like saying all animals "breathe" and so we're going to treat a shark the same as a poodle. It's a horrid, confusing, general term based on the wrong focus.

Yael Beeri wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Thanks for the post Leah and the excellent discussion, what a wonderful lesson.
I agree with the comments that refer to this situation as a dilema and that this is a relatively new field.
A bigger question is, can you impose ethical rules on bloggers and on a community? Obviously throughout the years there have been some unwritten rules and endless discussions, but can you really define a set of rules? Will such a set of rules dictate that in a situation like this one, Chris Brogan should not have taken the offer? Would it be ok because a few months passed? Would it be ok, with the permission of Panasonic?
I believe that it's all a matter of balance and transparancy and that we may have as many answers as we have cases. I give Chris credit for doing this balance check and I think that Sony made the right decision to declare how the connection with Chris was made and not hide it and open speculative discussions. Balance and Transparancy.

Daniel Sevitt wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

I've now read the post and all the comments and I can't help but think it's all bogus. The reason Chris Brogan was considered for the original job by crayon is because of the network he has built and his credibility as a blogger on a range of marketing topics.

So, to accuse him later on of building a network and being a professional marketer just seems a little silly.

For this thread to have any value beyond speculation, we would have to hear from someone at crayon or Panasonic expressing some kind of dissatisfaction with the situation. I'll check back later to see if that's happened.

Nicole Simon wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

I am sorry, but quoting "he did not reply on twitter!" as reason for declining an answer is just ridicolous, given how unstable and mis and hit that lately is. For such things there is email and the phone.

Secondly, as long as there is no consulting contract, I do not see any problem at all with them having met at ces. could have been any other media event, but even if it was ces, there obviously was nothing in the panasonic deal to even suggest any kind of exclusivity.

take a hint from the real world: if your contract prohibits you from working in the same area, you do get compensated for it. and I am pretty sure the current agreement with sony has something like it in there, and that part is also reflected in the fee.

and 'have gotten secrets from panasonic'? please, from a simple "we invite bloggers and give them toys to play with? Nothing a normal consultant for social media does not know anyhow.

Are there lines which can be crossed and should be discussed? Yes absolutly. But not on something like this.

Serena Ehrlich wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Oh good grief!

If you are an agency and you are hired to do a project, at the end of that project are you supposed to forget all the industry information you learned? Are you supposed to walk away from that industry and never look back?

Companies who bring in bloggers MUST know by now that bloggers write about industries not only about particular companies. To hire bloggers to write about your industry and space and then to assume he would never do the same with your competition is, well, naive.

Another way to view this? Would you blast a reporter for writing about your product and your competitor's product in the same year?

This happens all the time in the auto industry. Companies will bring reporters out to drive their new car. These companies do not assume the reporter will never write about a competitive car, they just hope that the review they receive on their own car is strong enough to stand on its own.

Panasonic got what they paid for - if they wanted exclusivity for life, they should have paid for that.

Jenn Mattern wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

1. Would they bring along a journalist from Wired and then expect them to never cover or work with the competition? Probably not.

2. If you invite people to a networking event, expect that they'll network.

3. If you don't want someone working with your competition in the future, then put them under contract.

4. Understand that when you're relationship with a blogger is over, they're still an independent professional (if they blog in a business sense, which you should certainly know before reaching out to them). They have a right to pursue other work in the industry. Want to put a muzzle on them in some way? Then offer them a salary.

Anittah Patrick wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Even assuming that what Brogan did was suspect (and I completely disagree) I find it hard to garner sympathy for any company that capitalizes on

(1) the supposed authority of bloggers
(2) the naievete/sloth of a consumer public that does not want to investigate products on their own.

But, great post, Leah!! Terribly thought provoking (as the comments attest). :)

Chris Heuer wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Apparently this blog is not set up to allow trackbacks, so my very long reply from last night is not showing up here (you should fix that, its just an option) - I originally tried to post it as a comment, but there is a 3000 char limit here

http://www.chrisheuer.com/2009/08/24/conflict-of-interest...

This attack on Chris' character is wrong on so many levels... but it shows why I never wanted to become a 'celebrity' in this business, so much sniping and over analyzing and bs... read the post I linked to above on my blog

Leah wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Chris H - I've been on IM with my programmer this morning. He got links working and is putting trackbacks next on his to-do list. It is a custom site built with Django, not a Wordpress or Movable Type, so we don't have switches to flip.

Thanks for taking the time to comment here and write your post.

Kelli Lawless @kellilawless wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Wow Leah... way to drive some traffic to a good discussion/dilemma. Although, I'm guessing there wouldn't have been as much activity as if you'd kept the names involved anonymous. :)

As for the ethics of it... it seems fairly simple to me. What did the contract say?

Good business practices, however, might require other questions to be asked... like a lot of the ones above. Relationships are crucial, but exclusivity/loyalty -- in the business world -- seems to be driven by continuing relationship investment from both parties.

Thanks for the discussion, as it raises a lot of awareness for me... a burgeoning blogger yet to face this dilemma.

laura wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Wow Chris, you sound really angry and rude in these comments.

Colleen Coplick wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Wow. This is quite the kerfuffle centered on what amounts to networking at a conference.

I think that part of what Is missing is that traditional PR firms and marketers are only just starting to work in the social media space. The big companies are trying things out and learning what sticks. The fact that so many are upset about Chris tells me that this is very much a hot button issue - and one that much of the traditional PR world doesn't understand.

I come from a traditional PR background. I was a consultant and worked for many clients in the consumer space. Many of them, over the years, came to me specifically because I had worked for their competition in the past. They knew that I would have contacts and influence that would work to their advantage.

I am now working in a social media position, and my approach is a blend of traditional outreach and social media tools.

That said, I am also a writer. I love to write, and blog, and I do not write about the kinds of things my clients are doing - does that make me unethical? No, and by the same token, it does not make Chris unethical because he leveraged an opportunity that arose while at a conference.

I've met, and hung out with Chris. He's a fantastic guy, and one of the nicest, and for that matter, most ethical guys I know. The fact that we're even giving this so much attention is telling in and of itself.

Kathy Sierra wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

The idea that Chris could attend CES under these circumstances and somehow not meet or ever work with anyone else there is absurd. I can't find anything unethical in what Chris did.

That said, I'm not sure you exercised the best judgement, Chris, by letting an agency (or any client) pay for your trip to CES. It feels risky to attend any industry event on a single client's dime, unless that client is itself a trade publication or review site and independent of any specific vendor. Not because there's an ethics problem, but because there's an excellent chance that something like this will happen. You have better things to do than defend yourself over this, yet here you are...

If it's important for people to trust us, we have to care about the perception of others. If even a few smart, good people have a problem with something we do... it doesn't mean we did something wrong but it DOES mean we did something questionable, and sometimes it's just not worth the (however brief and ultimately inconsequential) twitstorm.

Beth Harte wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Leah, a very interesting discussion indeed! (Thanks to Annie for pointing it out to me). But I have to say, I can't seem to move past this: "The fourth includes a formal contract and probably a limited non-compete clause." Sorry...That's a joke right? [and yes, I am being slightly sarcastic.]

Given your scenario, I have a larger issue with the PR person/agency and organization than I do with the blogger. Back in the day (okay, we know this still happens...it's not *that* old school) when companies sent products to be reviewed by industry magazines or when they invited the reporter/journalist to an event happy hour to wine/dine them for a good review or even an article they didn't "own" that journalist/reporter nor did they make them sign a non-compete. In fact most PR folks who sent products in for review sat with bated breath until the review was published. When it was a good review they got kudos, when it was a bad review they ran around with chickens like their heads cut off doing damage control (Yes, I have been one of those chickens many times). My question: what makes organizations (or their PR firms) think they can "own" a blogger with a non-compete?

I have a major issue with organizations who think that can buy a blogger's (or journalist's/reporter's) voice and own it for an undisclosed amount of time. If an organization wants to have a non-compete that limits any blogger from doing business with a potential competitor, then that organization needs to consider paying that blogger for lost wages during that time period.

What are the ethics around that? And is that cost worth a blog post or two?

Another perspective to look at is this... How come Panasonic didn't hire Chris Brogan for any social media projects that they might have? If they didn't have a need, then why be upset just because their competition does have a need and hired Chris to help? If they did have a need, then they should have considered hiring Chris first...

Seems to me the PR mindset here might be more about quid pro quo than ethics.

Is there a potential lesson here for bloggers? It might be: Before you let your so-called "influence" put a shiny glimmer in your eye or make you too high on a pedestal, read any contract put in front of you because 1. It is just good business sense and 2. Your freedom of speech and ability to work might just be bought by an organization without payment in kind.

Thanks for bringing up the topic Leah! I think you've blazed a trail that many (organizations, agencies, and bloggers) might not be thinking about just yet. This is the kind of thought leadership that is needed today.

Beth Harte
Community Manager, MarketingProfs
@bethharte

Justin Kownacki wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

As a non-theist (much less a non-Jew), I can't help but question the POV that equates "appearing to break the law" with "actually breaking the law." This is why circumstantial evidence isn't usually allowed in court, and it's also why people are supposed to be judged by their actions, not their claims.

Then again, everyone has their own frame of reference when it comes to passing judgment. As we've seen in this thread, some folks think Leah's right, some think Chris is right, some think Leah is conducting a shrewdly-timed attack on Chris's character that coincides with the publicity launch for his "Trust Agents" book, and some think Chris not answering a a Twitter question is the same thing as consciously choosing to decline an answer, thereby implying guilt.

Perceptions, perceptions...

Rachel Kay wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Anytime marketers, bloggers, PR people etc... come together to question how to do our jobs more ethically, that's a good thing. This situation, however, has me a little perplexed.

If I understand correctly, Chris wasn't "hired" as a "consultant" at the tradeshow. He was brought in so the company could give him an up close and personal view of their products at CES. That happened, correct?

Sony hired him as a consultant to help create and execute a campaign months later. This is a completely different relationship.

Where is the conflict of interest here?

Mack Collier wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

IMO Spike Jones made the most relevant comment here, and everyone blew past it (probably because that Chris Brogan guy is so dang popular).

Panasonic reached out to the wrong people. They targeted 'influencers' as opposed to evangelists. Influencers have no vested interest in promoting the product they are involved with. Evangelists do. Influencers is good for initial hype and buzz, but neither can rarely be sustained. Evangelists have a vested interest in promoting the product before, during and after the outreach program.

I don't have a problem with what Chris did in meeting with Sony or anyone else at CES. And if Panasonic should be mad at anyone about this, they should be mad at themselves. I mean they bring a guy to an event BECAUSE they think he's influential, and they bring him to an event which puts him in direct contact with their COMPETITORS? Hello, what exactly did they think could and probably would happen?

Idan Gazit wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

I think that a lot of people in the thread aren't really discussing the same things that the post was supposed to spark discussion about.

The issue is perception. It doesn't matter whether Chris (who I don't know or follow) was ethical in taking on Job B after Job A, and I don't even think it matters so much that his plane ticket was paid for.

The question is about the PR person who *perceives* a slap in the face—even if logically they know there's no beef to be had, their heart is telling them another story.

Feelings aren't open to debate. They're not voluntary. If PR people feel burnt by bloggers, it doesn't matter that the bloggers were in the right. As unintuitive as it sounds, the bloggers should probably have managed expectations better. Bloggers are constantly writing about how to eke out a living from writing online—well, welcome to business, folks. Managing expectations is part of dealing with problems before they are problems, and anything that makes the people paying you unhappy is categorically a problem, whether it is your fault or not. *How* to deal with the problem is where the ethics come in.

Against the larger backdrop of "how do PR types interact with blogger types", I think Leah was trying to field a discussion about *how* these two camps interact today, and how their future interactions will be shaped by situations like Chris's. Hence the "can't put a bow on this" line—I don't see how she can be accused of "attacking" Chris when she's literally asking for people's take on a live, relevant case-study.

I wish this conversation would really steer away from Chris's maybe-faux-pas and towards exploration of how PR and new-media content producers (read: bloggers) can and should interact. That would be a far more interesting topic of discussion, IMO.

Michael Hoffman wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

I didn't read this post as an attack on Chris Brogan or an attack on his character. In the post Leah says she isn't sure where the line is, lets discuss. And it's an interesting discussion. I think Chris responded in too much a defensive posture, and there was no need for that. Chris, you are a celebrity and so you have to expect that you will be the case study. And you are among friends, really. We are all one way or another connected to this business and have an interest in finding the right/successful path.

I think it's clear Chris did nothing at all wrong. He isn't a journalist, all parties knew what they were getting into, he fulfilled his commitments.

But as the discussion makes clear the lines are confusing and blurry between writers/bloggers, marketers, brands and agencies. And the story looks different depending on where you sit among those players. This space will will continue to evolve and I appreciate such interesting discussion about it.

Ted Shelton wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Mack Collier is right to emphasize the comment from Spike Jones -- there is a difference between inviting an influencer to review your product and hiring an evangelist to promote your product. Although I disagree with Spike about the value of the influencer.

I think this conversation has two interesting threads that are worthy of further discussion -- (1) what should companies expect when courting influencers and (2) how do we translate the civility we expect in our f2f world into the online world.

I don't agree, for example, with Michael Hoffman - I do read this as an attack on Chris. Starting with the "This is fiction" preamble, we are given to expect a conflict and later we are served Chris as the deuteragonist in the correlating "This is non-fiction" section.

I see "us" doing this all the time -- we get caught up in our ideas and our questions and we don't stop to take into account the other folks we could and should be considering, especially when we write about them by name. This wasn't a time sensitive post that needed to be rushed onto the printing presses to make the morning news -- thought and courtesy could have been extended to Chris to give him a chance to talk through this before a global debate on ethics was launched with him as a core part of the dialog.

Sean Williams (@commammo) wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

After reading the comments that followed mine, I wrote a little more on my own blog. http://bit.ly/12Kky8

Leah, thanks again for a stimulating discussion.
Sean

Albert Maruggi wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Perhaps I am missing something in this tale of fiction.
1) did Chris fulfill his obligation to Panasonic ? Seems like a yes
2) was he paid for those tasks? Seems like a yes
3) wad there some exclusivity clause that he violated? Seems like a no

so what's the issue? Perhaps you thought you owned his every minute. What about this one, what if he stayed another day after the show and met with Sony would that have been acceptable?
On the topic of influenced vs evangelist, corporate America evangelists are not trusted as much as influencers because their opinion is paid for not their content. This social stuff should not be that easy, if it is, then I is a house of cards.

Jeremiah Owyang wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Chris

here's my big list of sponsored conversations

http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2009/03/03/running-lis...

Erick Mott wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Sounds like a good discussion for @CharleneLi to tap for her new book about open business and losing control.

Spike Jones wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

First of all, thanks for the props, Mack. It's much appreciated.

Secondly, it always says a lot to me about a person when they are accused of something and then go on and on and on and ON defending their actions. Why do they feel the need to do that?

And this sentence is the very reason I don't follow, read or pay attention to the person in question: "Try reading the output of 93000 conversations for a few minutes, but then that's my cross." Please.

Maybe one day we can look back at this post and mark it as the beginning of the social media influencer backlash.

Rick Calvert wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

I was at CES and there when Chris announced the Tweet up at the Panasonic booth. There was huge buzz. It would be great to hear what exactly Panasonic's goals were but imp they got more than their money's worth from Chris. I don't know who any of the other bloggers were.

This post is silly. Great link bait though. Thanks for suckering me in.

Karthik S wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Huh? Do bloggers go around declaring their allegiance to one single brand? Does a brand really need that at all?

Who is a blogger? Regardless of celebrity bloggers (who’s only extra criteria is that they have a sizeable and influenceable audience ready)…we’re discussing normal people who merely happen to air their opinions online. They air their opinion in the hope of building a better connect with their audience - so what they say, or who they endorse is entirely upto them! The audience will decide if they continue to be trustworthy, credible and above all, readable, based on the blogger’s opinion.

The relationship built by the PR agency (on behalf of a client brand) with the blogger is based solely on the basis of the product/ service/ offering of the client brand. It does not tie the blogger with the overall brand or product and any hint towards that would only deteriorate the relationship.

Its the product/ service/ quality characteristics that should tie the blogger to the brand - not a PR agency’s explicit word. If the client is upset with a blogger changing loyalties…tough luck! Get used to it and try wooing the blogger better, again.

Tom O'Brien wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Except for the part about "the person in question" I agree with Spike & Mack that the really interesting question is about the effectiveness of "influencer outreach" as marketing.

My hypothesis? I could care less what Chris Brogan thinks about a Panasonic or Sony gadget. (Or what Guy Kawasaki thinks about a Corvette.) If I want to know what is good or bad I will go to the forums where the real gadget geeks live and ask my questions. They are happy to help. Sony and Panasonic would both be better served finding out where their real advocates are and adding fuel to that fire.

Great blog post about this from Jeremy Epstein here: http://tinyurl.com/nkbrqo

My blog post about influencers vs. advocates here: http://tinyurl.com/r5molx

Last point. If you want exclusivity, you must pay $$$ for it.

TO'B
MotiveQuest LLC

collier1960 wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Wow. Seventy comments and counting. Leah, you surely know how to break the ice!

Collier Ward

Leah wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Collier - I don't think I've ever had more than 15 comments on any of my posts anywhere, so I have been floored by this. I don't know how people manage double or quadruple the comments on a daily basis.

Trey Pennington wrote 11 months, 1 week ago:

Leah, wow. To write a post that gets some many big names commenting is impressive! Not sure why Chris is such a lightening rod but this has been entertaining. Spike, Mack, Beth, Tom, and Jeremiah all make good points.

[DISCLAIMER: The persons mentioned in the comment may or may not be personal friends whom I feel a special compunction to promote and help succeed in any open or subtle way possible. Though they have not paid a promotional fee to be mentioned, they may reward me with mutual encouragement and quite possibly, from time to time, a shared drink. Upon such occasions, any and all such persons drink responsibly. This disclaimer not valid in all states and is void where prohibited. Consult your advisor before investing.]

Mark W Schaefer wrote 11 months ago:

The line that struck me most in this thread was from Chris: "I am not a journalist" ... and the implications for ethics and perceptions. I read that to mean, "I'm not a journalist and don't have to live by those principles."

I'm Ok with that up to a point. Chris is very open about his sponsors. Clearly he is a keen businessperson and this is his living. But with the demise of traditional media and rise of the social web, the line between blogger and journalist becomes increasing blurry. More important, the average reader's expectation of trust and ethics is probably the same whether from a journalist or a high-profile "trust agent."

I think at the point that a blogger crosses a line into celebrity status (especially one associated with "trust:), a new level of responsibility should go with it. Now the world is your "community," Chris. Maybe what's being expressed here is a revelation of that. Yeah, you WERE a blogger, but now we expect more.

Robert Safuto wrote 11 months ago:

Good job. It has been my experience that many of the people commonly recognized as social media "experts" talk about doing things one way when it comes to advising other people and then do things another way when its about their business.

Jeremy Pepper's comment is especially notable as well. "You wrote a book on trust, but what does that really mean? Does it mean "trust me, because I have these people read my blog and follow me on Twitter"?"

There are many other examples. When Scoble's company PodTech was going under he was very tight lipped about it. Yet he's the same guy who co-wrote Naked Conversations.

There's a need for people to question and challenge the authority figures (self-appointed and otherwise) in social media. Too few people ask questions or offer honest opinions. They hold back for fear of reprisal. You spoke your mind and in doing so have identified yourself as an independent voice in the space.

Jen wrote 11 months ago:

Oh Chris, you SLAY me with how emotional you get when people question your actions, even when they are obviously worth questioning - even just for conversation's sake!

Not to "watch you fall" as you say on Facebook, but for someone besides me to realize that what you - and others in your industry - do doesn't always add up. (It's tough to watch and go "no, wait, that can't be what I just read" and then see a bunch of sycophants nod their heads and cheer you on, knowing that if I say something to disagree I'll get a bunch of fans flaming me.) I'm just happy SOMEONE besides me sees this highly public stuff and goes WTF?! even for a minute.

That all being said, the point of Leah's post (I think) is that sometimes social media marketing business owners pee in the pool for their own beneift by creating situations where large companies may not want to use bloggers again.

I don't personally care who pees in the pool (that pool doesn't pay my bills) and with the information I've read I'm not even sure that you peed in the pool...but incidents like this and other similar incidents by others make the water look pretty yellow for companies thinking about diving in. (I say this from talking to my employer's clients, not pulling a rabbit outta my hat.)