Are Social Media Rockstars An Endangered Species? Or The Future of Advertising?

Don't get me wrong--I couldn't be happier about Forrester's newest report showing that social media adoption has basically become "nearly universal." Definitely bodes well for me being gainfully employed.

At the same time, though, I can't help but notice that the whole social media rockstar thing is getting a little out of hand. As more and more businesses realize what Forrester's report highlights--namely that 51% of all online Americans have joined a social network and a whopping 73% are, if not joining, at least consuming social content in some context--they are whipping themselves up into a frenzy over the implications of this mass adoption. Suddenly there exist magical "Influencers"--regular people who are universally likeable and respected--into whose hands brands can place their products and these mythical beings will work their Twitter or blog magic and thousands of sales will be the result.

Or at least this seems to be their thinking, from where I sit. Take, for instance, Dooce. Just a regular gal....with 1,142,958 followers on Twitter. When Dooce tweets complaints about her new Maytag washer, this is what happens. OFFERS--plural--of free machines from other companies.

Now is it just me being bitter that I myself am not swimming in swag or is the deitization (is that a word?) of social media "influencers" getting to be a bit ridiculous? I mean, come on--companies honestly see her and others like her as so powerful that they are tripping over themselves wanting to get their product into her hands so she can tweet about it and huge sales will result? It's seriously starting to get a little crazy...I can honestly imagine how this washer thing played out. Dooce tweets her complaints about Maytag. Other washing machine companies, doing their social media due-diligence, are monitoring for mentions of their or competing brands. They see this opportunity to jump in and save the day and probably emergency staff meetings were held at multiple companies: ALERT! Opportunity to swoop in with a free washer and save the social media goddesses' day. It was probably like a hostage situation--a bunch of guys around a computer screen "Ok--quick--get a message to her NOW offering our machine for free! GO!" Waiting with white knuckles to hear back from her or--God willing--to have her tweet kudos and mention their brand's name to her million-plus followers. Many of whom will, naturally, go right out and buy a washer from this company merely because Dooce endorsed them.

Come on now. Is any one person's word THAT powerful? Apparently. At least she's using her powers for good, though.

The flip side of this coin is the sell-your-soul-to-the-devil thing where companies give a blogger a few gadgets to play around with for a few days and a trip to a trade show and expect to own his soul in return. In this case I'm talking about Chris Brogan, being ripped for CHEATING on his sponsoring company when, 8 months after his sponsored trip, he announces a partnership with the company he had a conversation with while on said sponsored trip. Now again--come on. Dude has to make a living. He did nothing wrong--didn't cheat, steal, etc--he struck up a conversation at a neighboring booth which, many months later, resulted in a consulting opportunity. What is about companies thinking that if they throw a blogger some swag they expect eternal gratitude in the form of a non-compete for actual paying business at any point in their lives? People can't live off the odd trip to Disney or a trade show, no matter how swag-lishious that trip may be.

My point? I'm not really sure. I guess it's that these truly are the days of the social media Wild West and it will be interesting to see how the whole thing plays out five or ten years down the line. Will swagging bloggers be a long abandoned experiment that ended up not generating any appreciable business for the companies that thought it would? Or will all journalism be bought and paid for and old-school advertisements a thing of the past? Is getting a social media superstar to talk up a brand the slam-dunk some companies seem to think it is? I guess time will tell.

Reverse Disclosure?

If you read this blog you know I'm big on transparency and disclosure--both because it's important to me and also because it's about to become very important to all bloggers when the FTC releases its revised guidelines later this summer.

Last night on Twitter I noticed a conversation between Danny Brown and Chris Brogan about disclosure, then today saw Danny had a good post up "Can You Have Too Much Disclosure?"

It got me thinking about something I've wondered about before: should bloggers have to worry about what I guess you'd call "reverse disclosure"--e.g. when raving about a product or company that they just happen to like should they say "my only incentive for writing this is my genuine enthusiasm for this product/company/service"? It sounds sort of stupid and tiresome but, what with the new regulations coming from the FTC, will it soon be necessary to reverse disclose to avoid being accused of not disclosing?

I find myself thinking about the concept of reverse disclosure a decent amount lately--maybe because I've become more attuned to the concept of blogging for compensation? Before I started reading so much about the whole disclosure thing I never really gave it much thought--call me stupid but I guess I never realized how many people out there were getting free stuff or being paid to post about products or companies.

I know the handful of times I've been given something free to blog about I've been so impressed with myself that I made darn sure to mention that I'd gotten the stuff for free. The fact that I'd gotten the stuff for free was, in fact, basically the gist of both posts. And in both cases, I wasn't exactly raving about the products; certainly nobody would ever accuse me of writing falsely positive posts. In fact, I'm quite sure that if I were to go solicit products to review, companies would probably steer clear of me, given my reputation for telling it like I see it and not sugar coating things.

The thing is, though, that just as I'm fine with being strongly negative about things if I feel it's warranted, I'm also very passionate about things I love. Especially on my other blog, I'm very prone to raving about how much I love certain books, websites, people and products. (Fair warning: I'm also very prone to using the "F" word, so consider yourself forewarned.) Again, nobody would probably accuse me of raving about a product and not disclosing some conflict of interest, mostly because I'm the most TMI person in the world and usually come right out with the reverse disclosure.

But what about people like Chris Brogan or Penelope Trunk, who companies are willing to pay big bucks to have them mention products or services? (I gasped out loud when I read Penelope Trunk's post about how she used to get paid $5,000 a MONTH to blog about Payscale.) Once the FTC starts peering over bloggers' shoulders a lot more, will people like that need to put reverse disclosures in EVERY post in which they rave about something they weren't somehow compensated for? As much as I'm all for disclosure, I have to say it might get annoying...but will it be a necessary evil?

Why "Sponsored Posts" and "Authenticity" Don't Mix

Here's the thing about sponsored posts: they are NOT authentic. Marketers think that they've discovered the way to customers' hearts and wallets through what Chris Brogan calls the "Everyman." That is, instead of paying actors and copywriters and buying TV spots or print ads, all you have to do is put your product in the hands of Joe or Joanne Regular and let them start the magic word-of-mouth train by blogging/vlogging/tweeting about it. SO much nicer and more genuine than real advertising, right? I mean, which do you trust more--a paid advertisement or a bunch of real people telling you their honest opinions about a product they've already used?

Well, in theory the latter; but only until you start poking around in their collective psyches--or, in this case, blogs. For instance, in a mommy blogger community I recently joined--specifically because I'm curious about this kind of thing--there was a discussion thread "Would you post a poor product review?" Out of 24 responses, only 9 said yes, and of those only 4 were absolute yesses. The rest hemmed and hawed, saying that they don't like to be negative or hurt anyone's feelings or make anyone look bad. One said she had once posted a bad review and the company who supplied the product contacted her and told her to take it down--so she did. The consensus of the thread was pretty much that if you discover you have something negative to say about a product, you should contact the company and see if they still want you to post the review.

Geez, talk about a sure thing. And don't think companies don't know it. They know that people love to get stuff for free--and the bigger/better the thing, the more people want it. And the thing is, they also know that for every person out there with scruples (say the 4 out of the 24 I mention above), there are 20 more who have none.

Not to go back to my blogging/sex analogy, but seriously...say you're a guy looking for sex and willing to pay for it. Would you want a prostitute who makes you feel like a king and fakes it artfully or one who's "authentic" and yawns through the whole thing? If the cost is the same why wouldn't you go for the one who treats you the way you want to be treated? Same for marketers wanting bloggers to generate buzz about their products: if there are millions out there who come right out and say I will not post a negative review because that's not the kind of person I am--of course you're going to send your stuff to those people and not to the ones who say right off the bat that they are 100% honest.

Where's The Line Between Blogging and Splogging?

First go read/watch this "review" then come back here.

Now, what was that--Chris Brogan and his daughter having a spontaneous love-fest about a $329 messenger bag or Chris Brogan doing a paid endorsement for the bag? While he does offer a "very special thanks" to someone for "connecting" him with the company that makes the bag, he does not come out and say, "I got this bag for free in exchange for blogging about it." In the comment section he says:

"Well, please understand that this isn't an ad as such. I wasn't paid to talk about the back[sic]. I was sent one for review. I guess one could say that might count as a payment, but I don't see it that way."

The question is, does the FTC see it that way? Is giving a blogger with a huge following a free bag to review ethical? Is accepting it and blogging about it without fully disclosing that you got it for free ethical? While you're thinking about it, go back to Chris Brogan's post and scroll down to the plug for the Thesis Theme for WordPress. Now, is that an ad? Or is it just him again expressing free love for a product? Does it even matter?

I personally happen to think it does matter. I used to read Chris Brogan's blog because I valued the content of his posts. Now I look at each post and/or badge on the page and have to wonder "wait, is this an ad?" It's like those spreads in magazines that look like articles or testimonials, but when you look at the top of the page you see "Paid Advertisement"--and ignore those pages.

Not to beat a dead horse or anything; after all, I've blogged about this before....but this bag review post really stuck in my craw.

Here is some more food for thought about sponsored posts. Here are some great links/resources from the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA).