Bribing Bloggers - Joel on Software
Bribing Bloggers - Joel on Software
I read this article with interest. I recenlty used Joel’s site to recruit a lead developer for a new startup that I’ve helped found, and I respect his opinion on a loft of software development practices. I also so happened to be in NYC yesterday meeting with the folks from Edelman to discuss Higher One’s PR needs.
On one side, I would tend to agree with Joel. The fact that the blogger receives something for free is the classic Cialdini influence case where he or she may be more likely to write something positive. That being said, I would disagree with his assertion that this makes a free sample equivalent to a bribe. Essentially it sounds like the argument that he is making is that because the sample is being provided to people who have publishing platforms, it’s a bribe? What about all the major publications out there? They thrive on receiving free review samples? Are they all being bribed? Maybe right? I think that what Edelman and Microsoft are doing is making it easier for people who have opinions and audiences to experience the microsoft product. There are key differences between what they are doing and what I would personally term a bribe. A bribe is
1. I will pay you to do X or say Y about me or my product.
2. You will not disclose that I paid you.
What Edelman and Microsoft were doing was
1. If you’d like we’ll send you a free sample of our product.
2. If you then feel like it, please write about your experience - good or bad
3. If you do write, please disclose that you got the free sample…
4. If you don’t want to keep it, send it back after the trial or give it away
As the FTC made clear with their recent ruling around word of mouth marketing programs, this sort of program is a marketing initiative and thus disclosure is key to meet the truth in advertising requirements.
The argument that Joel is making is that because the program employs an influence tactic, this means it is tantamount to bribery. Most print, radio, web, and TV ads also utilize certain influence tactics (visual, verbal, etc). Does it mean that those ads are bribery? Then the only way Joel could write an unbiased piece about anything would be to close his eyes, ears, and show up at a store (or visit online), not read the packaging materials, buy the product, and review it after using. But how would he even know what’s available?
At the end of the day I understand where he’s coming from. Also, if he thinks that he personally is more influenced by having a free sample then he certainly is doing his readers a favor by declining (it sounds like actually has a negative review bias from his comments though)…However, I disagree that - in this case - what Edelman and Microsoft are doing is unethical. Their strong statements on disclosure and providing the blogger with a choice to participate is miles from the unethical no-disclosure buy a positive review model of payperpost.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:29 am
I think there is some question as to whether or not they provided instructions to bloggers to disclose and in my opinion it is disclosure that is where the rubber hits the road on all of this.
http://marshallk.com/microsoft-wants-its-laptops-back
Providing product samples, even high ticket ones, is not in an of itself unethical and is quite different from compensation….accepting them is a personal choice based upon one’s own beliefs regarding objectivity. In either case, non-disclosure is unethical and compromises objectivity and trust.
Marianne
January 25th, 2007 at 8:00 am
The outcome matters.
What I mean is that if, by whatever means, a vendor influences what is said about its products or there is a perception that a vendor influences what is said about its products, those oppinions are tainted.
For example: the Joel case. I am much more willling to believe what Joel says now that I know he is ethically “sqeaky clean”. No amount of argument on your part is going to convince me that your oppinion is unaffected, because you are too weak to take a stand on a fundamental issue, so how could you take one against a giant corporation who could take you out economically if it wanted to.
The outcome is that in my oppinion, Joel has the courage of his convictions, puts his money where his mouth is and takes a principled stand in life and that gives what he writes enormous authority. Despite your protestations to the contrary, you lost the credibility battle to greed.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Marianne,
You’re exactly right. If they did not expressly say that disclosure was needed then I agree that the program was wrong. My understanding was that they did ask that Bloggers disclose that they received a free trial machine and version of the software.
Mark,
I think you missed my point (I expect better from a fellow South African!). I certainly wasn’t attacking Joel. I agree that his moral stand is admirable. I wouldn’t necessarily take the offer from Microsoft if it was offered to me. My post was more meant to take on the idea that he feels that any free sampling program is wrong because it is an influence tactic. I would not have disagreed at all if he had said that they hadn’t demanded disclosure (leaving disclosure up to the blogger) and for that reason he felt that the program was wrong and he would not participate.
Thanks for your comment…and I forgive you for calling me greedy even though you don’t know me…
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:45 am
In this debate, my reference to greed was not personally directed at you, in the same way that you were not attacking Joel personally. It’s not greedy to argue that eating more food than you need is ok. But actually eating more food than you need, is being greedy…
So let’s build a bridge.