Forrester says Sponsored Conversations are OK

Does sponsored content suspend credibility in your eyes? Before you answer that, let's take a look at the issues. In the spirit of full disclosure - I received the draft report for review directly from Forrester. Since both Josh Bernoff and Jeremiah Owyang are analysts I read, follow, and quote, I read the report with interest. I'm meeting Sean Corcoran for the first time.

[Forrester's Sponsored Conversations Matrix]

I'm willing to talk about it, because sponsorship goes to the issue of sustainability for many. Ignoring the trend would be like not talking about the pink elephant in the room. Especially in the next couple of years when things - economically-speaking - might get pretty tight for brands/companies and professionals, it makes sense to revisit how sponsored content would work.

Traditional marketing is giving us more and more dis-connects. Will new ways of marketing, when implemented with transparency and honesty, give us better results? Note that I did not call this new marketing. To me new marketing is a business' willingness to realign with the marketplace.

Blogging is maturing, and many are making a consulting business and career from what started as something they did out of passion. I followed with interest the evolution of Darren Rowse's business with ProBlogger, Digital Photography School, and TwitTip. He started TwitTip way after my blog and look at the number of RSS readers.

With influence comes the ability to expand one's products and services. Darren is a good example of doing that. Another example is Brian Clark with Copyblogger and Teaching Sells. Branding is not for traditional brands anymore.

Yes, I know we're talking about the more gray area of sponsored content. I asked my friend Chris Brogan to comment on this trend. I wanted to have his perspective because his work with Izea a couple of months back was the catalyst of such animated - and in some cases unbalanced - discussions by many. He said:

"Content marketing and sponsored content is here in 2009. It requires transparency and rigor, but it's here."

It's a very accurate statement, and that is the reason why the Forrester team decided to put together a draft report on this topic. Analysts, too do need to make a living, don't they? If you look at the matrix they put together, there are some interesting suggestions as to why a sponsored conversation might work for some bloggers. 

Forrester makes five recommendations in the brief: mandate disclosure, ensure freedom of authenticity, partner with relevant blogs, don't talk and then walk away (yes, that is directed to marketers). Steve Rubel says that the distinction between writing an advertorial and writing in a blogger's own voice might get prickly.

I agree. In fact, I'm aligned with what Wendy Piersall - another business person I respect and read - says in the comments to Steve's post:

"We are definitely going to see more of it, because the metrics are emerging to prove sponsored content works.

Few businesses don't rely on some sort of sponsored endorsements. Referral fees, product placement, and celebrity endorsements have been around for decades (centuries, even, as Olympic athletes were paid to use products in ancient Greece!).

I once received a free (but not inexpensive) camera to review and I thought it was a piece of crap. I offered to send it back to the agency and not write the review, but they (impressively) asked that I write it anyway. Influencers aren't willing to ruin a good reputation by shilling crap, nor by pissing off brands, either."

If you recall, a few month ago, we discussed the Disclosure Toolkit unveiled by the Blog Council. Ben McConnell notes in the comments to Bernoff's post, that

"Guidelines for blogger disclosure are as trustworthy as Wall Street is to self-regulation!"

That may be. I think it depends on the person, like everything else in life. In the comments to Owyang's post, Janet Swaysland from Beeline Labs shares some advice to companies and bloggers who are wading in sponsored conversation territory: 

1. The conversation must have a purpose. It has to be about more than the sponsor’s brand, or even the specific product category the brand is selling in to.

2. Make “the company they keep” and the opportunity for bloggers to reach a broader audience more valuable than any compensation they may receive.

3. Sponsors should participate (judiciously, and disclosed as sponsors) in the conversation, demonstrating genuine interest and depth in the topic. If the sponsor has nothing to say, they shouldn’t sponsor the conversation.

At my blog, I'm the editor, the writer, the publisher - and in some cases your friend and colleague, that person above getting paid to write what she thinks. In fact, I know you probably believe more what I write here, than what I say in company meetings, where I am paid to offer my experienced and project-tested advice. Think there are no politics at play? But this is a conversation for another day.

The blogosphere can be a powerful marketing channel, true. This is new territory, complete with the need for full disclosure and honest reviews on top of that. Whenever I review a book I received as a gift, I disclose that piece of information - that has been the extent of my sponsored conversations here. As my readers, it's your choice on whether to believe me or not - on anything I write.

Do you have any thoughts, feelings, guidelines, examples, you'd like to add here? Ask questions, too, please.

Comments

[Tish Grier]

totally right, Valeria, that this is new territory--or at least it's different than it was a couple of years ago. IMO, some of this change revolves around whether or not a blog *should* be a money-making machine for the person who keeps it. In the past, many of us said "nobody promised you that your blog would make money for you." Now, we've come up with ways for blogs and blogging to make money via "sponsored conversations." Still, just because you can doesn't mean you should....

Personally, I don't like "sponsored conversations." I feel they are often phony. I can't tell if the person really likes the service/product, or if they are just saying so because there's a big pay-off at the end of it. Even if the blogger is transparent, I can't believe them any more than I can believe a celebrity endorser.

Part of that has to do with the fact that no one will ever say that they *don't* like something, if a product is flawed or could use improvement. When all the reviews are glowing, I begin to wonder.

If we err on the side of politeness all the time, and not willing to point out when a product or brand isn't too good (and that's being honest, not "pissing" on them as Wendy Piersall says) then all we're doing is the same old marketing thing. What's the point?

[Ed]

After reading that chart, I think sponsored conversation is already contradicting in itself. If we know such a conversation raises doubts on trust factor, can we therefore still consider it as genuine?

It certainly says alot, in each form of sponsorship which comes first? When someone starts a conversation about a certain brand or product, what's the true motivation? Real interest in the topic? Or the sponsorship? These are "truth" which will be difficult to uncover.

[Bruce Christensen]

I love it when the "elephant in the room" is recognized. Isn't that what the transparency of Web 2.0 is all about?
Just acknowledge that you are being sponsored and if you have earned my trust, I don't mind that you get paid to inform me.
Think about the success of "Page Two" advertorials in a Paul Harvey radio show. If Paul suggested that we each have a pink elephant in our living room, we knew he probably had one in his. When Paul endorsed, we trusted and Paul was paid handsomely.
There is no reason that a trusted blogger can not endorse, if it is done in honesty.

[Ben McConnell]

Nice roundup of opinions on the subject, Valeria.

Just as it's not OK for me to steal a loaf a bread from the store because I'm hungry, a blogger's gotta eat is not a justification for accepting sketchy marketing practices. That's quicksand, which is very difficult to extricate oneself from.

If trust in the platform is eroded, that ruins it for all of us. When that happens, it invites regulatory bodies to step in, as they already have in Europe.

[Wendy Piersall]

Thanks for the link and thoughtful post Valeria!

I think I am going to start a new page on my blog - a page chronicling all of the sponsored post and sponsored link pitches I have turned down over the years. If I were to give it a *low* ballpark estimate, I think I have probably turned away over $50K in revenue, because they are products or brands I was unwilling to align myself with.

The fact that I am now catching heat for taking a $500 gift card to me is downright laughable. My policy is that I won't take payment for anything unless I would be willing to write about it for free anyway. And that I keep a boundary between sponsored and paid content.

It is completely unjustifiable to judge a blogger's ethics based on what they are paid for, unless you also know how they are unwilling to be bought.

[Jack]

I am not bothered by ads on blogs. I expect it. All I ask is that it be clear when the content is being paid for.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Tish - it is so good hearing from you! All of my day work is "sponsored", should it be less credible? These are good questions to raise for sure. I don't think we have answers, yet.

@Ed - what I found through experience in living is that very few conversations are not coming from self-interest. Yet people rarely disclose their real motives, don't they? Sometimes even to themselves. You raise a good point - how does one know which part is genuine if one gets paid?

@Bruce - in fact, I found that with anything, even the most minuscule request I have, if I manage to be direct in my communication style and don't dance around it, we all get to the point faster and have an answer. Again, not minimizing or (heavens) rationalizing the issue, just thinking about it.

@Ben - I can tell you are very passionate about the topic. Are you saying that if I posted something about me getting paid to - for example - run a campaign with a South African winery, that would make me less credible as a marketer? I happen to love red wines, am learning a great deal about the European reds, and often give wine as gifts to friends. I was taught about the Church/State division between advertising and PR and while I always ran both throughout my career, I never crossed that line. What you get here is my opinion, some days better researched than others, it depends on how much sleep I want to get/need.

@Wendy - you have no idea of the kind of press releases and pitches and business propositions I get... well, maybe you do. I like the idea of keeping things separate, as I was saying above here with Ben. What you say in closing is really good. I like some facts with my opinions. I've not taken certain jobs because the cultures did not align with my personal value system. Voices with integrity can rarely be bought. That's probably why this conversation intrigues me.

@Jack - and that's fair enough. The interesting part is that people can often be more easily persuaded than bought.

[nicoletta]

Very interesting topic. I wonder if 'sponsered conversations' are so effective in a marketplace like the Italian one. My feeling is that Italian customers are not so confident, even though the blogger is a great influencer. However, I don't have any data to support my opinion.
What do you think? Do you believe Italian customers are ready for such a marketing innovation?

[Jack]

Hi Valeria,

I agree. I am a big proponent of simple campaigns. Far too many campaigns wander off into oblivion by trying to be cute.

Let people know if you have a bias and then they are far more likely to let their guard down and accept your praise of a product.

[Adam Needles]

I'm having a hard time thinking that the type of people who most companies are probably going to target to write 'sponsored' blog pieces - aka 'buzz agents' - really get the fine lines here.

When you talk about an analyst firm, a reporter or a top-tier blogger, I think these people get the ethical line. In fact, firms such as Forrester are absolutely sponsored content ... it's just it's a scale sponsorship that spreads it across everyone in the industry who participates and, thus, ensures that no one is getting an unfair amount of attention -- scale multi-client research. Newspapers basically do the same thing. But you're talking about a sophisticated few percentage points at the top of the total population in terms of the people who write for these channels.

The issue becomes grey when you talk about a much broader segment, which probably is more happy to take the cash than they are compelled to maintain their 'journalistic' convictions. Frankly, the reason the 'sponsoring' companies won't comment on these post is because they would prefer to disavow that they actually sponsored them.

I'm also worried when I see systems that are pay-per-post -- i.e., you've sponsored a specific post, versus just sponsoring a site. I'm not at all concerned about that type of 'banner' sponsorship advertising, but it should come without any strings attached for coverage.

Valeria, I appreciate you've tried to provide a blanced picture here, but I feel that what we're talking about is a big deal -- one that gets at the heart of authenticity and brand reputation in the modern era. I can't simply be okay with Chris Brogan's 'it's here' so deal with it, comment. And I'm not sure that I find Forrester's report sufficient.

Thanks for driving the dialogue. This is an important one to have.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Nicoletta - perhaps someone more qualified than me should take that question. Would it be considered innovation? I do wonder about that. Publicity is ubiquitous over there, but do people pay attention and are they swayed? Are there strong opinions about bloggers who might be sponsored to write something? Ben a few comments above mentions European regulatory bodies stepping in...

@Jack - being straight forward might indeed be a good course for those who respond to a direct message.

@Adam - the funny thing is that the people companies would likely want to sponsor may not be up for sponsorship in this manner. Sure, maybe they have ads on their sites, but here we're talking about mixing content. Or maybe it's best when the sponsored content is presented in an all sponsored format on the get go. The audience showing up will know that from the onset. Aren't company Web sites sponsored content, after all? Who thinks a company might e balanced and objective about what it offers. The report needs more research and data points, that's for sure. As for Chris, he graciously agreed to give me a quote for the post and I might not have done the best job at framing it correctly. Good food for thought here. Thank you.

[Geoff Livingston]

It kind of reminds me of a soccer match where the team is sponsored. Doesn't make the soccer any less exciting.

[Ramesh]

Thanks Valeria for the article. I think pretty much all content is sponsored in some way or other. There is a business model here. Overall it appears that we are trying to create more trustworthy source of information with consumers having a strong voice.