Interesting point and worthy of some discussion. ...

2009-08-01T18:23:19.077-05:00

Interesting point and worthy of some discussion.

First of all, I do not see Paid Search ads and Paid Blogs posts as substantially comparable, so no, I would not wage the same argument. In my opinion, there are *parallels* but *very substantial differences* between paid blog posts and paid search ads.

The FTC and advertising ethical practices require ads to be “clear and conspicuous.” On search engines, PAID ads are visually and structurally different than CONTENT (search results), specifically to avoid the muddling of advertising and editorial. Search ads are not presented "in context" with organic results but appear above and to the right of the results to prevent any confusion. As a result, consumers are 100% certain of what is ad and what is content, which protects both Google's trust and the integrity of the brands advertised.

A paid blog post is not “clear and conspicuous" as an advertisement, at least unless it is immediately and obviously disclosed as such (which is certainly the exception and not the rule). A paid blog post that appears like every other post except for a subtle disclosure at the end (or no disclosure) seems not only likely to confuse consumers but specifically designed to confuse consumers. After all, this form of advertising isn't called "sponsored conversations" for nothing; it's like those involved are trying to convince themselves (and others) that they're actually subsidizing a discussion and not paying for advertising.

I think there is a good reason to look to traditional editorial/advertising to learn from history what is right for media, consumers, and brands. I don't think blogs have rewritten the laws of media trust, advertising ethics, or brand building.

In newspapers, advertising is advertising; content is content. In newspapers, there is no confusion between the two--news organizations don't permit advertisers to run ads that look exactly like an article, and they certainly would never allow a reporter to write a "sponsored article". When an ad gives a great deal of information in an article-like fashion, newspapers require different fonts and clear delineation that prevents ANY confusion of paid ad from editorial content. And, I'd point out that no respectable brand would ever take out one of those advertorial-looking newspaper ads; those types of ads tend to be used to promote cheap consumer collectibles or get-rich-quick MLM schemes.

I certainly support the idea of brands advertising on blogs. Google Adsense ads (which represent the context of the blog but don't present the ads in context with content) are perfectly acceptable. The distinction between this sort of advertising (or banner ads) and editorial is very clear for both brands and consumers. But blogs presenting ads in *exactly* the same way as content is a problem, in my opinion.

It is very clear the FTC is going to publish rules about paid blog posts, and there are clear indications they will be very strict. They may even go further than even I would suggest or want; these rules may require disclosure of ANY exchange of value. My thought is that any exchange of cash for "sponsored conversations" must be clearly and conspicuously disclosed, but I don't object to free product being given to bloggers for review. Of course, even that has to have its limits--a box of free diapers seems fair; a lifetime supply of diapers (or a car) is not.

In the end, while we can debate what is right or not (and wait for the FTC's actions), this much I believe is true (and I strongly suspect you'd agree): A brand that has to pay for attention is sending a signal--perhaps subconsciously or maybe overtly--that it doesn't have the level of brand loyalty or furnish the kind of consumer experience that gets people talking and blogging authentically. Some marketers may open their wallets and pay for blog attention, but smart marketers will find ways of engaging consumers and bloggers to earn far more valuable, genuine, and authoritative attention.

Thanks for the comments!

Would you wage the same argument against Paid Sear...

2009-07-31T14:49:31.349-05:00

Would you wage the same argument against Paid Search? I wonder. You might argue the two are not comparable, since most Paid Search ads clearly state 'Sponsored Links' or 'Advertisement,' and (from what I understand of IZEA) the paid blog posts and tweets do not make these disclosures (and are more "sneaky" under the guise of legit authors). But you have to admit, there are some parallels between both kinds of paid media: they're done very much in the context or attempt to appear like they're not paid media. (I also wonder if ad-savvy consumers can see through paid Social Media tactics such as those IZEA offers.)

Comments on Experience: The Blog: Why IZEA is Wrong for Absolutely Everyone: Brands

Interesting point and worthy of some discussion. ...

Would you wage the same argument against Paid Sear...