DISQUS

mark fletcher · 2 years ago

Good post.

Regardless of whether a blog carries ads or not, all blogs are publications and all bloggers are publishers and as such have the responsibility of publishers.

Joe Zekas · 2 years ago

It strikes me as more of a pointless exercise in semantics to say that all bloggers are publishers and have the responsibility of traditional publishers.

Many publishers have traditionally made up the rules as they went along, and their advertisers often had no trouble accepting that.

Fred is a pretty predictable product, based on his track record. If he wants to say, and advertisers are willing to accept, that the rules are whatever he says they are whenever he says that, what's your principled basis for disagreeing with that approach? You're speaking for advertisers who are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.

Also, in the Google-verse, the notion that there's a relationship between bloggers and advertisers is impossible to sustain.

Mark Devlin · 2 years ago

I have always said that the real issue for bloggers was not whether they could become journalists or not (some have, with difficulty), but whether they could become publishers. (some have, with difficulty).

Scott Karp · 2 years ago

Joe,

I said, precisely, in this and the previous post, that publishers can make up their own rules -- but it needs to be clear what they are.

Fred is consistent -- in the way that most traditional publishers are consistent. But if he's going to accept advertising, he can't just change on a whim and, for example, start swearing in every post.

It's not about what the standards should be or who gets to decide -- it's that standards MATTER.

And there's nothing semantic about that.

Drew Meyers · 2 years ago

Scott-
I don't mean to be the devil's advocate, but I don't agree with your argument. I'd argue that Fred could easily change on a whim and start swearing in every post if he wanted to (though I highly doubt he would do that) - there is no one forcing the advertisers to advertise on Fred's blog. If they don't like what he says, then they can cancel their ads. It's entirely his decision whether or not to alienate his advertisers. Sure, Fred would likely lose some revenue if he did that, but so what?

I think it's the same with all Media Companies - they certainly try to please their advertisers because they are paying the bills, but no one is forcing them to do anything.

Scott Karp · 2 years ago

Drew,

I don't disagree with most of what you said, except that if advertisers can't depend on Fred to uphold some consistent standard, then they'd be foolish ever to advertise on his blog. And his fairly to uphold a consistent standard -- whatever HE decides that is -- doesn't serve the needs of Federate Media very well in selling his inventory.

But the fact is that Fred DOES uphold a consistent standard, which is why advertisers do run ads on his blog and why he IS a publisher and his blog IS a publication -- even if his standards are different from those of traditional publications -- although I really don't see that they are.

leo · 2 years ago

However you want to define "publishing", I think this points to a more basic question, namely, one on integrity.

To get someone to pay you for your endorsement doesn't sound right whether you're a blogger or not.

How would this go down if instead of a "publisher", I did procurement for a company or, extending the analogy a step, prescribed drugs for my patients, etc.?

Best to avoid this kind of thing in the first place. The intentions can be misconstrued no matter what you do.

David Cushman · 2 years ago

This kind of issue came up at the 'Dark Side of Social Media' event in London last week. There was much muttering about how people risk revealing too much of themselves (ie the notion of a potential employer blogging for your thoughts/pics on facebook etc etc).
What you post is a record of what you think/how you act. If you do something daft/inappropriate you can't withdraw that from real life.
Your friends/family/wider society doesn't forget - and your actions are moderated by this.
Same rules apply to blogs. Say it if you mean it and expect it to be read.
We should understand that what we post is instantly disaggregated (ie can be taken out of context).
In the real world that's the equivalent of gossip being passed on by people who aren't a primary source.
Like I say, same rules apply.

Seamus McCauley · 2 years ago

He has a responsibility to his advertisers to act within some guideline — he can make up the rules, certainly, but advertisers are entitled to know what they are. Otherwise, how can they make an informed decision about whether to run ads?

Well, if advertisers are genuinely concerned about whether the sites they advertise on have a published policy the price they are willing to pay for ads on sites that don't have such a policy will fall to reflect the risk they associate with its absence. Much as publishers without ABC-audited circulation figures traditionally command lower advertising rates than those with audited circulations because advertisers discount for the risk that those publishers' figures are made up.

If Fred starts feeling a pinch as advertisers desert his site for lack of a stated policy or cut the rate they're willing to pay perhaps he'll rethink. Making commitments to future action can be very valuable for the person making the commitment. But until then, you're asking for a type of consumer protection that the market, through prices, already provides. Advertisers can show the value they place on a commitment by advertising, or not advertising, or by advertising for more or less money, and even stating their reasons when they buy.

billg · 2 years ago

It is difficult for me to understand how anyone cannot accept that the act of creating content and making it available for others -- in any form, by any means -- is publishing. You don't need to run ads, make money, etc. You just need to write the words and put them someplace where others can read them.

And, Leo is right. Bloggers who don't disclose that they've been paid to say something do not represent a special case. Would you go back to a doctor if you found out she had been paid $100k by a pharma company to tell her patients about their new drug? Ethics are ethics.