The New York Times reports this week on payola and product reviews on blog posts. While not entirely shocking, it discusses how some more popular bloggers, such as Colleen Padilla of classhymommy.com, are sent free products from companies hoping for positive reviews. "If she does not like a product, she simply doesn't post anything about it," the times writes of Padilla, whose site receives 60,000 visitors a month.
So... ClassyMommy doesn't give its readers the full picture. Sure, the Web site is helpful to parents, but it's sort of lying by omission, no? If a product doesn't pass muster, why is that so? What about products that aren't safe, and therefore get panned? And do its readers know that Padilla's reviews of Healthy Choice TV dinners are essentially sponsorships?
The NYT goes on to explain that the Federal Trade Commission is investigating this pay-for-play arrangement in blogs nationally, citing that consumers have a write to know.
I agree; I'm of the school that says free food always tastes better. And I admit to reluctantly, if briefly, engaging in undisclosed pay-for-play myself, when I was a staff book reviewer for Amazon. The company was under enormous pressure to become profitable in those days, and a book publisher had the bright idea of asking to pay Amazon to prominently feature certain titles for a certain length of time--known as "cooperative marketing" in the book business.
I agree; I'm of the school that says free food always tastes better. And I admit to reluctantly, if briefly, engaging in undisclosed pay-for-play myself, when I was a staff book reviewer for Amazon. The company was under enormous pressure to become profitable in those days, and a book publisher had the bright idea of asking to pay Amazon to prominently feature certain titles for a certain length of time--known as "cooperative marketing" in the book business.
We soon learned that just about EVERY book publisher was willing to fork over cash in exchange for a review and a placement on the site, with homepage placements at a premium, and spots on other book sections--such as health, which I covered--going for a few thousand less.
Amazon's marketing managers went along with the offer, but not without an uproar from the book reviewers. We countered that our readers' trust would be tarnished, that it was a penny wise and pound foolish approach to revenue generation.
In fact, one editor was so peeved, she faxed a reporter friend at the New York Times, who promptly wrote a page-1 story about the situation. The PR emergency that followed was a low point for many of us, career-wise, but the upshot was that management agreed to designate paid placements as such.
Amazon's marketing managers went along with the offer, but not without an uproar from the book reviewers. We countered that our readers' trust would be tarnished, that it was a penny wise and pound foolish approach to revenue generation.
In fact, one editor was so peeved, she faxed a reporter friend at the New York Times, who promptly wrote a page-1 story about the situation. The PR emergency that followed was a low point for many of us, career-wise, but the upshot was that management agreed to designate paid placements as such.
But one of the marketers who disagreed with this disclosure countered with this: The books that are so attractively arranged on tables in the aisles of Barnes & Noble are placed there through co-op marketing money as well. Same with the cereal that's on sale at the end of the grocery-store aisles. Shouldn't ALL stores disclose this to their customers? Or are the customers too happy to stumble upon titles and products that they like to care that they're essentially being advertised to, without their knowledge?
Photo of falling coins by Ian Britton, courtesy of freefoto.com.
Posts
