Social Times - Latest Comments in Why Big Brands Don’t Sponsor Blogs

Re: Why Big Brands Don’t Sponsor Blogs

Ken — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:51:55 -0000

I think perhaps big-time advertisers are probably pursuing sponsorships on ads, but what about authenticity and transparency on blogs? Do these things play a factor in how the blogger decides who they can have on their site IF their blog becomes a high-traffic domain? Will people criticize the blogger for succumbing to the "greed of corporate America"? How can a journalist (professional or citizen) truly write about stuff sans bias without the issue about transparency lingering over their shoulder?

Of course I agree that brands probably don't want to get mixed in with bloggers who trash each other and slander their compatriot's good name to get a leg up on the competition.

Re: Why Big Brands Don’t Sponsor Blogs

Mister Snitch — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:46:16 -0000

"Do you think there should be some sort of certification or standard created for blogging?"

Of course not. If a blogger can't conduct himself well, he will pay for it in the marketplace. Certification? By who?? That's absurd.

Re: Why Big Brands Don’t Sponsor Blogs

Nick O'Neill — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:15:47 -0000

@Allen , I agree that links are key but isn't making money more important for a business? A business can have a line out the door and around the block but if they have nothing to sell, they are worthless.

Re: Why Big Brands Don’t Sponsor Blogs

Allen Stern — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:07:23 -0000

remember that for a variety of blogs the current prize is links - that's the key. if some other metric was the key for him or her, then that would be the key.

always remember this line from the honeymooners... you better be nice to people on the way up, because you are going to see the same people on the way down.

Re: Why Big Brands Don’t Sponsor Blogs

Nick O'Neill — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:23:41 -0000

@Mary those are great points ... you may be accurate about having to aggregate all the views. I gotta say that the ad agencies must be lazy people then ...

I'm not sure that the lack of literacy is one of the reasons though

Re: Why Big Brands Don’t Sponsor Blogs

Mary Baum — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:23:15 -0000

Then why do you suppose brands happily support the op-ed sections of newspapers, Fox news (which won a federal court case explicitly affirming its right to lie on the air), Comedy Central (I include this for balance, but it in fact has a better record for accuracy than some other supposedly more reputable outlets) and talk radio? To name two, Rush Limbaugh and Maureen Dowd have made personal attacks based on lies and innuendo their stock in trade, and neither of them have ever gone to jail.

I propose two other reasons. One is that media-buying agencies don't want to deal with the complexity of putting together several million eyeballs at a time online when they can get the same reach with a single network television/radio or national print buy. Number two is that, given the rather sorry state of broadband penetration and declining adult literacy in the US, even the biggest blogs, even aggregated in networks, may not be delivering audience numbers in the millions in the first place.

Re: Why Big Brands Don’t Sponsor Blogs

Tim Courtney — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:59:12 -0000

With the freedom to blog or talk about whatever you want to comes the responsibility to be held accountable for your words. It's unfortunate that society rewards those who post false accusations. It's the precise reason tabloids are so popular, but yet not reputable.

I'd get more specific on my analysis, but I'd prefer not to pop up on some peoples' radar screens.

Re: Why Big Brands Don’t Sponsor Blogs

Andrew Feinberg — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:51:35 -0000

While I can't stand that book, I do agree that bloggers like us that do report news need a code of ethics, a sense of profession. There are efforts to do this by people like Bob Cox at the Media Bloggers Association.

Keen's comment about jail stems from a different in American and UK libel laws. What I suspect really bothers Keen is that in the new media world, you don't need to have a gatekeeper, promotion, or apprenticeship to publish. You need to be right. And if you're right enough, you'll no longer be an amateur.

Besides, most of Keen's book is a tome of hate against Wikipedia, anyway...and it's a known fact that for most topics covered in major encyclopedias, Wikipedia is just as accurate.

Keen is a snob who would like the unwashed masses to simply go away and leave newsgathering and dissemination of facts to the Oxbridge elite of his homeland. He should go away.