Once again Mikee, think before you comment. ;-)

I guess its an example of how our advertisers and content are kept at arms length. We don’t tell our bloggers what to write, and we don’t let your advertisers tell them either. So, I guess that’s funny — but, not in a “ha ha” kind of way.

Cheers
Tony.

Absolutely nothing, and I’ve always argued that, always. Why is that ok? Because with a full disclosure, a clear dislosure, it’s on the blog reader to decide if they’re ok with it. If they’re not, they can stop reading that blog.

And frankly, gasp, I agree with VC Dan and Ted Murphy now, knowing the changes they have made to make PPP disclosed.

As covered here in the BH: http://www.blogherald.com/2006/12/18/payperpost-regains-its-integrity-requries-disclosure/

This conversation is boring, and should have been put to bed the minute that happened above.

However, Jarvis has, and always will be a blog loudmouth.

http://www.revenews.com/jimkukral/archives/000912.html

Wait, did one of PPP’s loudest haters from the past just come out and say he agrees with them now? Yeah, I just did.

Let’s put this to bed people. Nothing more to see, the disclosure solved the issue. The attempt at deception has been removed neh? So what’s the problem now?

This whole discussion is about sponsored posts with disclosure, something even more transparent than much of radio, TV, print and movies use today — not deceptive practices. JJ continues to take issue with disclosed sponsored posts, and I don’t think it’s about deception. Ridiculing, as he did, a woman for filming her kids hammering a non-HP camera for $20 is just class warfare being played out in the blogosphere — although she seems to have enjoyed the attention, see http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2007/01/31/pray-per-post/#comment-313521 .

Your reference to learning from experience is a good one, but I’d also note that JJ’s examples always speak from the writer side, rather than the advertising department or publication owner. He admitted himself that he left prior magazines because of differences with the business side of the house (was that because of right/wrong lines everyone agrees on or people being at different points on a spectrum because of their perspective?). Interestingly, bloggers are writer, owner and advertising department rolled into one — so they must find the best solution among that spectrum.

Alas, we’ve probably beaten this one to death, but that’s what’s fun about the medium…thanks for the thought-provoking question: What’s wrong with bloggers doing disclosed, sponsored content?

“blinders of the elites” isn’t pejorative?

As for “elitism,” I never suggest that my views, Jeff’s views, or anyone else’s views are the only one’s that matter. When my daughter gets close to the stove, I warn her not to touch it. Is that because I’m practicing agism? No, it’s because I’ve touched the stove and gotten burned and know it’s a bad thing, so want to help her avoid that mistake that I’ve made. There is value to experience. There are some mistakes she has to make on her own to learn from, but I try to help her avoid the really bad ones. So much of what’s happening in new media has been playing out in old media for decades, and some of those lessons are likely relevant.

My point was precisely that there isn’t a spectrum of right or wrong — it’s right or it’s wrong. Your notion of “spectrum of good/better/best practices” seems to skirk the issue what is right or wrong. Just because something is effective, doesn’t mean it should be done (e.g. spam, deception).

I agree that there is some relativism on what is right on some things, but on certainy things, e.g. deception, I take a pretty hard line. Everyone can make their own decision, but they will make the best decision if they do so with eyes wide open, and hopefully informed by past experience.

Everything is a show.

How one gets paid (ego stroke / notoriety & visibility / speaking engagements / banner ads / sponsorships / salary / wages per post / Pay Per Post), and the directness of the relationship of that payment to any particular piece of content varies, but it’s only a question of degree.

Sooner or later, the market / ‘sphere will assign the right value to opacity / transparency, and hopefully all of this heavy breathing will finally come to an end. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, your traffic will be obliterated.

It’s kind of an oxymoron to talk about a “spectrum of right and wrong” (again, your term not mine). What I said was there is a spectrum of good/better/best practices. That is absolutely true, particularly when you consider that posts encompass text, audio and video; and people blog for a variety of goals. I think you’d agree with that just as I agree “we’re all a bit confused because everything is changing so fast.”

As such, I think we agree on most things around this topic, but perceptions get in the way. I’m not big on managing perceptions myself. I try to do what is right for me, respect that “what is right” may be different for others, and speak up for the little guy being hassled for doing his own thing — thus, I resonate with your “what’s wrong with a disclosed sponsored post” scenario.

Keep up the great blogging!

I don’t think it’s fair to tar “JJ and his crew” as “elites” — from his experience in traditional media, Jeff, I’m sure, has seen first hand the importance of maintaining standards. Many new entrants in media, via blogging, risk learning about the importance of standards after they have done harm to their reputations, which for many is the most important asset.

This is to a large extent an issue of perceptions — PPP stigmatized itself by not requiring disclosure out the gate, so many people (myself included) are still leary of being associated with those negative perceptions, even if they no longer reflect updated policies. This post took a somewhat coldly analytic look at the issue, but the reality is that perceptions do matter.

And I’m not sure I agree with there being a spectrum of right and wrong in terms of standards, e.g. you’re either being deceptive or not — there’s no “sort of deceptive.” The debate is over where to draw the line and how to judge whether something is over the line. Engaging in that debate, and expressing personal bias based on perceptions and experience, isn’t necessarily “elitist.”

If anything, we’re all a bit confused because everything is changing so fast.

Scott

I was struck by the same points when I heard the AO panel try to distinguish between RocketBoom and blogs. They’re all the same thing, along a spectrum of purity (Weinberger) and paying the bills (Rocketboom).

The part that amazes me is the blinders of the elites to declare what advertising/practices are “proper” (yes, JJ even used that black & white term) in this huge, diverse, consumer-generated world. It’s as if they expect only the benefits of diverse participation, without respecting the diversity of opinions and goals of those participants. That’s why they continue to whine months after PPP required disclosure and made it clear that bloggers choose their topics — JJ and his crew don’t respect/value the right of bloggers to choose how they will cover their time/effort/expense in contributing to the blogosphere.

It would be different if they approached it as you do, recognizing there may be a spectrum of “good/better/best practices” for doing sponsored posts, but they can’t bring themselves to say that…yet ;-)

It sounds convoluted — and we’ve taken a lot of stick — but bloggers are far too sensitive about making money to engage many of them in a conversation about this.

Here in the Dollarsphere (not to be confused with the Dolorsphere) we don’t have such agonising wrestling matches with our consciences. Maybe the commercial end of blogging should drop the word “blog” altogether?