For the decade since its inception, blogging has been the Wild West of the writing world: new territory, unregulated and unpoliced. Until now that is.
Check out this recent story from Business Week Blogola: The FTC Takes on Paid Posts “The Federal Trade Commission wants bloggers to disclose when they’ve been wooed with cash or freebies from the companies they cover.”
Anyone who’s taken an entry level communications course knows that the term “blogola” is a play on the “payola” play-for-pay system that was rampant in the ’70s era music industry.
With the increasing influence of many blogs, it seems inevitable that the same sort of tactics would pop up in the blogosphere as well. So I’m not really surprised that the FTC wants to try to impose order on the chaos.
Every professional journalist and editor knows that you you have to be hyper-vigilant about staying true to your authentic tastes and opinions. If you have the taint of shilling, people tune you out. It’s just that simple.
The Gray Area
But with many high profile bloggers such as Chris Brogan being accused of accepting pay for promotion, I took a good look at my own blogging habits and there’s a gray area I’m concerned about that also affects countless other bloggers.
Since December, I’ve been a member of the Amazon affiliate program. What this means: When I write a blog post that mentions a book, I link it to the relevant page on Amazon with a bit of code.
Theoretically you can earn money or Amazon gift cards from being an affiliate. But the truth is, I’ve yet to earn even enough money from the program to buy even a cheap paperback book. So I’m seriously reconsidering whether being an affiliate is worth the time, hassle, ethical dilemma.
I’d love to know what you all think about Blogola and being an Amazon affiliate in particular. Please leave a comment here. I’ll be chatting about this on twitter too @mariaschneider.
-Maria Schneider
Flickr photo by 23905174@N00
{ 1 trackback }
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
I don’t think being an Amazon Affiliate constitutes blogola. Amazon isn’t sending you things or paying you directly for promoting their products. You’re providing links within blog posts that may or may not result in you being paid. Would you put links to the Amazon site if you didn’t have the potential to be paid?
I’m also a member of the Amazon affiliate program and see no ethical dilemma to using the program. I don’t recommend something just because I might get paid for it. I recommend it because my readers might find it useful. The FTC guidelines are there to prevent journalists from being influenced to deceive the public or not provide an unbiased opinion. Which might be valid.
But I’m not a journalist. For the most part, I don’t cover news, and even when I do it’s mostly pointing to what others have already written. And I’m not going to recommend something just because I might see a kickback from it.
On the other hand, if I take a paid blog post (which I have on some of my blogs), I make full disclosure that it’s a paid post. I see nothing wrong with it if you’re upfront about it.
(And btw, you can tell if an Amazon link is an affiliate link just by looking at the address to see if there’s an affiliate name included.)
I don’t think the two are the same. I do offer reviews of products within my posts that are tied to Amazon associate links. If the user ends up buying that product, I think it’s fair that the blogger is credited. I think getting paid to write a post is another story, because you’re basically warping your opinion because you’re getting paid and you’re not disclosing it.
Just my two cents. Thanks!
I don’t think being an Amazon Affiliate is unethical, but I too have not earned much from it. (Or anything, actually.)
I also have Google Adsense on my site, and from that I HAVE earned some amount of cash (not yet enough for the $100 payout, but I’m close). I don’t see anything wrong with that ethically either, but lots of people think it’s ugly / “selling out”.
I don’t see them as being the same thing at all, though there is certainly the potential for abusing the Associates system if you’re just writing glowing reviews of currently trending products in an attempt to cash in on the moment.
Blogola, though, is a minefield, and disclosure is simply a straw man that doesn’t address the underlying question of trust. Brogan, for example, hasn’t simply been accused of accepting pay for promotion, he’s publicly come out in support of it, misleadingly equating it with conversational marketing and using disclosure as his shield.
I find it ironic that some bloggers like to believe they’re replacing journalists but at the same time don’t feel any obligations to adhere to basic ethical standards. I’m thrilled to see the FTC taking a stand on this.
I think Chris aptly answered the mail on his “About” page. I read through his disclosures, waiting for the shock, awe, and offense but decided none of them affected my perspective on what Chris has to say or how he says it. By no means is he a sheep in the merchandiser herd :)
Frequently I follow Amazon Associates’ links to explore the descriptions, recommendations, and ratings a little further — all things that influence my purchase decision. Not a bit of problem if the referring associate is “rewarded” for their effort in bringing it to my attention.
I think the FTC is looking for blatantly paid for advertising, not the gray areas. If bloggers receives gift products and services with no strings attached, they should disclose that in any post they write about them and leave their readers to determine how much trust they will have in the posts. Hiring bloggers to write articles, however, crosses the line – a huge unethical no. Affliliates doesn’t appear to create much blogola – certainly not for me – but if I were a hugely popular blogger that resulted in a lot of Affiliate pay, I’d disclose that. Without Affiliates I’d still link to Amazon or other websites when mentioning books or other products on my blog so readers can quickly see what I’m writing about – good or bad. I suspect those bloggers who are only in it for the blogola aren’t able to hide it easily…and once Twitters get ahold of their names…
By the FCC’s definition, as long as the blogger states that they are part of the Amazon affiliate program, then no laws have been broken.
My main concern would be around the whole history of payola, it was invented to undermine local DJs who were promoting ethnically mixed dance events and it completely ignored the moneys being given to more prominent DJs like Dick Clark. In more recent times, the law was only enforced when the big record companies were “caught” paying monies to independent record promoters for radio airplay. Independent record promoters aren’t direct employees of radio stations and were technically exempt from payola laws. Point is, the FCC only enacts the law when it feels like it and usually brings the hammer down on independents and leaves large media conglomerates alone.
If a “blogola” law does come into existence, its true purpose will be to consolidate media control and leave the individual in the dust.
Love the “Wild West” analogy.
Maria, you have a well developed sense of right and wrong, I trust your personal judgement about being an affiliate. TV, Radio, Magazines take money from affiliate sponsors; I would think it would be the same with blogs. Sure there will be the equivalent of a “Consumer Report” blog which must have NO advertising, but as long as your book reviews are honest, not written to get sponsorship, it seems fine to me.
Somehow we all have to pay the bills, we live in a capitalist society, that is what we are all about. If it helps, I recently went to a church and they had paid advertisements in the bulletin.
Very helpful comments everyone–maybe I’ll stick with Amazon’s affiliate program after all. And Mary, thanks so much for your support.
Maria, I’m sure nobody told you you’d get rich in the Amazon affiliates program. If you have a gazzilion web pages and a affiliate links on each one, your benefit depends on visitors clicking through your link and BUYING the product. For that you might get a quarter or a buck or whatever. Over the course of a fiscal quarter or two, you might accumulate enough quarters to get yourself a free book or two. It’s not much but it’s something.
But affiliates marketing is much different than being paid to blog about a product. If you get a free book and review it and put an affiliate link on that page, it may or not may go to that book. Or you could set up a direct link to that page. If you pan the book or product, some visitors may buy it anyway, or buy something else through your link.
But that’s vastly different than getting a Ford for a year and writing nice things about it – without telling your readers or reminding them each time you write about the product.
However, I’d love to have people offer me lots of money to post about their product, but if it’s junk, I would say it’s junk.
Agree with the others. It’s only a “scheme” if nobody knows what is going on except the Madoff at the top. There are no secrets here, so keep those fractional cents rolling in until they add up to a paperback.
–John
Maria, I don’t think you fall into ‘blogola’ territory at all. But, and at the risk of sounding curmudgeonly, something to consider when ‘affiliating’ with a company or brand is this: what message do you want to convey to your readers about your views on the business of writing and publishing? Because payfer links are esentially endorsements for a product; if you believe in that product, feel it fits with your mores about the business of writing and publishing, then everything is copasetic.
In my monthly debut book deals, I always offer a link so readers can buy the book – I link directly to the small or independent press itself and/or Powell’s. Because I hope against hope that in ten years there is more than one distributor of the written word.
Peace, Linda
I was an Amazon Affiliate for several months or a year, and linked to books I mentioned or reviewed in my journal on LiveJournal. During the entire time I was an affiliate, I received exactly zero in return. I canceled (or attempted to cancel, as Amazon apparently doesn’t understand that term, and am no longer using) my affiliation a couple of months ago, in response to Amazon’s scandalous behavior toward a number of books about LGBT issues. (See http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10217715-93.html for just one report.)
My opinion: it’s not worth it. Even if it doesn’t influence my opinion about a book, it can certainly create the appearance that my opinion is up for sale. I no longer link to Amazon (and fully intend to go back and remove the old links “in my copious spare time”).
I’ve never really looked into Amazon’s affiliate program but from the comments I’ve read here it seems that it may not be worth the effort. While I don’t think it amounts to Blogola, I do think it may affect reader’s perceptions as to a writer’s independence.
When I mention a book on one of my blogs I usually link directly to the author’s website. I figure readers can then follow links from the author’s site to some point-of-sale if so inclined.
Blogola is when someone pays you or gives you things in exchange for blogging. Amazon affiliate links are more a way to point people towards products and services you (supposedly) recommend. They call this affiliate marketing. It’s an entirely different mindset than blogola.
I use Amazon because it’s the easiest way to point people to the many books I read in a given month. It sure doesn’t pay the bills or even buy more than a few beers a month. If an indie book distributor network offered the same type of tools, I’d do it.
I have an About page where I disclose all my business relationships.
I have a gadget blog and I am always looking for the coolest items to put on it. I have found many of the gadgets I promote on amazon but even if I can’t find it there, I still post the item and a link back to the appropriate website whether I make money or not. Currently it takes a lot of traffic and lots of clicks to make money on Amazon. Any little bit helps when trying to finance a career of writing or blogging.
Even though you may receive nothing from the link, IMO, it does appear to introduce the essence of bias. (I don’t think you’d be even asking yourself this question if you didn’t know this to be true.)
I’ll give you an analogy:
Let’s say I’m a physician who blogs on medical issues–current research, ethical practices; maybe I even feature interviews with up-and-coming stars in the medical industry. Then one day I critically analyze the literature about Vitamin X supplements and conclude they are worthwhile. My conclusion is based on sound scientific principles.
What would you think of me (and my conclusion), then, if I were to enclose a link to only one specific Vitamin X manufacturer on my web page?
Do you see? It doesn’t matter that I’ve received peanuts in compensation. It doesn’t matter that I haven’t declared “you must buy from this site”. By implicitly endorsing the link, I have allowed a justifiable question about my neutrality.
If this wasn’t enough to deter you, ask yourself why Amazon has an affiliate program in the first place. Why go to the trouble? To use the medical world again, for comparison, there is a reason that pharmacy companies spend money on ten cent pens with drug names. They work. (This is precisely why many forward-thinking universities ban their students from receiving these seemingly-innocent gifts.)
Anyway, just my $0.02. Kudos to you for giving this some thought.
As often said in politics (and isn’t everything business related – politics?) “..the perception of impropriety is as bad as impropriety itself.”
I’m not at all suggesting that blogola is going on here..I don’t sense that at all. You raise the question however.
What you didn’t exactly make clear, Maria, is what exactly was the motivation for affiliation in the first place? More exposure through cross promotion? Easier access to books for the readers? What are the benefits that extend beyond you as publisher/editor?
The fact that you raise the question I think points to the right answer for you.
Hi Michael,
One of the main reasons I signed up with the Amazon program was to report on it because it’s often recommended to bloggers (by problogger and others) as a way to earn money blogging. I’ve been experimenting with various techniques with this blog in part to be able to report back on its effectiveness. I don’t really think being an Amazon affiliate is unethical, but I wanted to see how others in the writing community felt about it.
I don’t believe they’re the same either. I thought this whole discussion was very interesting indeed…
Penny in North Dallas area
http://www.martinpenny.com
Since a vast majority of us make between zilch and bup-kiss from Amazon, the FTC should really get real.
Also, it’s not rocket surgery. If I go to a blog post and it shows a book cover, if the link DOESN’T go to Amazon, I wonder what the blog owner was thinking.
My two cents…
George
I think your ethical question has been well addressed by the comments already posted, but I wanted to comment about something you wrote.
I wish that were true. It should be true. Sad fact is that many comm professors (most?) have no idea what a blog is — muchless blogola. A comm student is lucky to have a textbook that has more than a couple pages about the Internet. I just completed a masters in comm last year, and the number of comm professors who know anything about the Internet is pathetic. When I wanted to do Internet research, I had to explain basic things to them like the difference between a forum, a chat room and IM. The vast majority of them got their PhDs before the Internet was readily available to the masses, and they ignore it because they have tenure. I have also discovered that my college students are pretty clueless about the Internet beyond Facebook and Wikipedia.
Even though there are millions of us on the net, there are still many people, including academics, who only use their computer for email. Just as most people wouldn’t suggest you get an MFA if your ultimate goal is to be a writer, I wouldn’t suggest even a single class in communication if your goal is to do anything online. There are a couple universities on the leading edge, but the majority of academia is at least five years behind on what’s happening online.
Hi Deborah,
That is really shocking to me that universities are so behind the curve with teaching about the online world. They’re definitely not doing their students any favors. How sad.
Wow.
Much of what Deborah says is true, but it is never a good idea to generalize about university professors and classes. I bet if she checked out the “technology and information” courses at the university, she would be happier.
But, teaching basic web and communication skills online sounds like an opportunity, “a better mousetrap idea”. I just finished reading today’s Mashable post and only understood about 1/3 or it. I’m thinking of the quote, “The faster I go the behinder I get.”
I was specifically addressing the “entry level communications course” in Maria’s post, and communication is where all of the social media and networking classes should be taught. Computer information science deals with programming and the internal workings of the computer, and some departments teach classes on how to use Word or Dreamweaver. With everything being online today, it’s easy to see what other universities are doing. I was repeatedly told that if something were worthy of study, I’d be able to find lots of published research on the subject. While most students had lit reviews of 30-40 recent articles, I’d be lucky to find 10 — and I’d try to explain that blogs had only hit the mainstream about two years prior to that point, so there hadn’t been time yet for stuff to get published. Of the 60 master’s degree students I knew at the university I attended, NOT ONE knew what a blog was or an Internet group or forum — including the ones in PR, which is really sad. I did go outside my department to find advisers to get my research done, and people who really use the Internet are scattered across disciplines sparsely. It would be easy to generalize that the academic world is totally in tune if you look at a couple of conferences or know a professor or two who is knowledgeable. Unfortunately, those people are still quite rare. I do teach some community ed classes in social networking online, but it would be great if more Internet education was incorporated into the core curriculum classes in college. Until somebody puts it into the textbooks, though, most professors are going to keep teaching from the same outline they’ve been using. “If it’s important, it’s published.”