So yesterday I saw some brilliant talks at the APG Battle of Big Thinking (highlights included Justin Basini’s Escaping the Matrix – some brilliant thoughts about conservation economics, fantastic turns from John, Jeremy & Amelia, plus a thoroughly worthy winner in my category in the fantastic James Mitchell). For anyone interested, my deck is up on slideshare, (although the eagle eyed will notice more than a little crossover with my Social Media 09 presentation).
The winner in the ‘Big Thinking in the Free Space’ was Claus Moseholm, the founder of GoViral, a “branded content distribution company”, who argued that nothing is truly free, but that the value of earned media was huge in comparison to bought media.
I wouldn’t disagree with any of this. At Naked we’ve spent many years working with clients to understand how to get the most out of their owned spaces (every brand touchpoint, from product to packaging, not just their owned ‘media’) as well as their bought media, to gain valuable advantage in the earned space. If you’re not familiar with the Bought / Owned / Earned model, I’d strongly recommend this excellent post by Daniel Goodall for a clear and succinct overview. Earned ‘media’ (I think media is a slightly misleading term as it suggests it’s just another media channel, but it’s a well-understood term and I haven’t yet come up with anything better…) is arguably the most valuable as it demonstrates trust in your brand, and that people are truly engaged with you (on their terms). So when you do something that gets positively talked about, discussed, shared and passed on, you know you’ve done something pretty good.
Or have you?
Now, we all know that the best thing for brands is not to have a social media strategy, but just to make really good stuff. Make really fantastic stuff and people will want to talk about it. Amelia and I have both talked about the importance of social ideas. Meg Pickard wrote a fantastic post about means, motive and opportunity in the earned space:
The echo-chamber of social media marketeers spends a lot of time thinking about the Means (ability, access, tools) and Opportunity (social graph, stimulus, habits, behaviours) for people to get involved in or pay attention to social activity online, but not nearly enough time thinking about Motive.
Why do people get excited and talk about stuff?
Because they care about it.
Because it’s good.
Because it’s worth talking about.I wish product makers and media owners would spend a little less time thinking about manipulating audiences, and a little more time thinking about making good things to begin with.
But we also know that brands are frequently reluctant to rely on the ‘make great stuff and keep their fingers crossed people start talking’ approach. They usually want to try and help things along, and make sure that enough people know about it in the first place, to give them the best shot of generating earned media. And we know that brands have long courted bloggers (and now Twitterers) with ‘social media outreach’ programmes to try and generate valuable earned media. PR is nothing new, and money’s always changed hands in some form, although usually through the exchange of goods and services rather than hard cash, When it’s done openly and honestly with full disclosure, I think it’s all above board – as long as the blogger is under no obligation, as long as they’re free to write what they choose (and not what the brand chooses) and crucially when they admit any involvement. Iain Tait’s completely open about wanting free T-shirts, and those brands who send him a T-shirt know what the score is – and most importantly, so do Iain’s readers.
But what about when the relationship isn’t one of courting and persuasion, of attempting to ‘earn’ through bringing genuine value? What about when the exchange isn’t one of value for mutual benefit? What if the earned media is really no different to bought media?
The CAP code, which regulates all UK non-broadcast marketing communication (excluding online), says that all paid-for editorial content must be strictly labelled as such:
23.1 Advertisement features, announcements or promotions, sometimes referred to as “advertorials”, that are disseminated in exchange for a payment or other reciprocal arrangement should comply with the Code if their content is controlled by the marketers rather than the publishers.
23.2 Marketers and publishers should make clear that advertisement features are advertisements, for example by heading them “advertisement feature”.
L’Oreal got themselves in hot water with the ASA for misleading the public when they failed to disclose that Penelope Cruz’s fantastic-looking lashes weren’t in fact exclusively the result of the mascara they were peddling, but were in fact falsies. L’Oreal now have to disclose to the public that Cheryl Cole’s lustrous locks are actually full and glossy due to the hair extensions she wears, and not just the shampoo she’s advertising – though the type is so minute that although the ad was cleared by the ASA, L’Oreal are still being criticised for misleading the public.
We don’t like being misled. We know that brands want to sell to us. We know that we live in a world of advertising. But we want to know when we’re being sold to.
So I find it utterly disingenuous for Claus Moseholm to extol the virtues of earned media over bought media, when his company misleads people by trying to disguise bought media under the guise of earned.
I got the below email from GoViral earlier this week, offering to pay me cold hard cash in return for posting a video for one of their clients on my blog – with the possibility to earn more cash for additional blogging, tweeting etc:
[ click to see full-size image ]
Like many bloggers, I get lots of emails from PR and agency people trying to get me to plug their product or service. Most aren’t personalised in any way, and don’t indicate any reason why they think I’d be interested in their brand, or why it would be something I’d want to write about – they’re normally just very generic mass mailouts. And this was no exception – except that I’d never before received such a blatant attempt to buy my endorsement.
Curious, I emailed back to ask how the whole bought-masquerading-as-earned thing worked. How much did they you pay bloggers? How did they work out how much to pay individuals – did they have a ratecard for an individual post or tweet, or did the amount vary depending on the level of influence of the blogger or site traffic? Did they insist on approving blog posts or tweets first?
And got this response:
[ click to see full-size image ]
So they have a cost per view budget for the campaign, and will pay me a stonking £300 for 10,000 UK views, and they have extra budget available for pretty much anything I’m willing to do to promote the brand:
We’re considering social media spread, branded twitter pages, anything like that will allow us to grant extra budget to you
According to the GoViral publisher guidelines, if you take their cash, you should “suggest [the video content] to the user using links, suggestions and featuring” and cannot “subject [GoViral content] to hateful or similar brand-damaging metadata, tags or similar” – although you can “feel free to do creative and funny things with the material, show spoofs of it etc”.
Nowhere in the FAQ or T&Cs does it say that you should disclose that you’ve been paid to recommend the content in question. It doesn’t say that publishers can’t disclose this information, and I’d be interested to understand how GoViral would (or do) deal with that.
When bloggers decide to feature advertising on their blogs, the banners or text ads are clearly marked as ads. What GoViral proposed is plain and simple bought media, pretending to be earned.
Are these blog posts and tweets genuine praise for the music video in question, or are they simply paid-for placements in disguise?
I don’t have a huge problem with the business model – I personally wouldn’t do it, and I don’t like the idea of blogging or tweeting to order, but I know it happens. If bloggers want to make money by writing about brands in return for money, fair enough I guess, as long as they disclose that they’re being paid (although as my good friend Tom writes, this is not a brothel: there are no prostitutes here). What I object to is how dishonest it is. There’s no way of distinguishing genuine earned conversations from paid-for ones. It’s totally deceitful. It’s exactly why people think marketers are a bunch of immoral cocks.
So I’m sorry Claus, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t sing the praises of earned media over bought, whilst at the same time making profit out of bought media pretending to be earned. There’s a distinct smell of burning underwear, and frankly, it stinks.
[ PS: if this negativity is all too much, check out the inspirational (and awesomely-naked Duke Stump on Bonfire Brands ]
Oh my dear…you woke up and smelled the humus!
very very very important post but one in which everyone in the interwebs business should know already – all ‘seeding’ and ‘viral’ companies (goviral, 7th chamber and the likes) are simply micro-media-buying companies that pay for their contacts for their space.
it’s the worst kept secret of the industry…
however, no serious blogger will take this dirty money – all the people i know will NEVER write about something they don’t give a toss about for some dirty £££
see you soon ;-)
Abso-fucking-lutely! What I think pissed me off more than anything was the fact that he had the gall to stand up on stage and extol the praises of earned, when as you say, it’s just a micro-buying network. Admit what you are – we all know that! Don’t stand up in front of the rest of the industry telling us one thing when your business model is predicated on another. Do what you do, but don’t claim it’s anything other than what it is ;)
Hi Katy,
Good post – bit shocked that you got an email blatantly offering to pay you to place content. I’ve heard it happens but yet see it myself!
I can only speak for ourselves on our blog, but I posted the video as I’m a genuine FATM fan & liked the video so posted it – acknolwedged that it was brand endorsed, but thought it was a bit random.
I can see the point of the business model, but agree – if people are being paid to promote something it should probally be disclosed, although I don’t think i’ve ever seen that happen?
Hey Luo, thanks for getting in touch! See, now this proves how much it devalues the authentic posts – you genuinely liked the video and posted about it because you liked it. But the fact that there are paid posts masquerading under the same guise means you’re all tarred with the same brush. Urgh.
GET HIM!
got him.
good.
Like TV ads which feature vox-pop testimonials to the virtues of their products, or web pages with comments like “This appetite suppressant really works, and it changed my life – Harry, Birmingham”: when you see a brand message portrayed as being delivered by a independent party, even the least savvy of consumers will smell deceit. Surely its only a matter of time before we simply assume that any commercial message we see in ‘social media’ has been paid for?
MrMat- yep, it’s shameful. But at least the people know they’re being advertised to cos it’s in the advertising break. I just think standing up at a conference and winning votes for extolling the virtues of earned over paid is pretty shitty!
I never assumed it was a dirty secret actually – I thought everyone knew about it anyway but that’s my naivety I guess. He probably still thinks it is earned media anyway despite the obvious flaw. Poor chap – he will probably have his little tail between his legs now…
Good for you Katy for burning your rather fetching underpants.
M
x
Holycow – yep I knew it went on, was just surprised how blatantly he was claiming it was earned when it was bought! And pretty disgusted that he ended up winning his section with his very seductive half-truths ;)
Cracking post.
I’m with Mark – I thought everyone knew it was paid. I’ve written about stuff I was asked to before, but it was purely on a trial basis/I was interested in the product.
Not a fan of underhanded tactics in any form. Well said.
Aren’t you being a bit absolute here? Paid-for seeding has a role to play to kick start real ‘earned media’. Some companies do it very badly – and some of those are mentioned here. Others are more interested in balance, seeding content to people to whom it’s relevant; and who influence other people to whom it’s relevant. Think you’re being a bit quick to damn an entire sector (and not one i’m part of incidentally) because of a few bad practitioners.
Jo – I’m being damning because the founder of the company battled in a planning competition in from of the industry’s heavyweights, and claimed that earned media was more valuable than bought media, which I totally agree with – except that his company subverts this by pretending bought media is earned media. I’m not damning the sector, I’m damning a company which appears to use shady tactics for outright hypocrisy at the BoBT. Although I still think dishonest practices are shitty wherever they come from…
POW! Nice work Katy
Not surprised that this goes on, and to be honest my real problem is with the lack of disclosure. Not just from the bloggers who GoViral are paying (which is illegal anyway under the EU Unfair Commercial Practices directive), but also to the brands they are selling this service to (and who may not know the legal technicalities).
While I wouldn’t act like this on my blog, and would refuse to do so on behalf of clients, I have worked with GoViral before and would be a lot more suspicious of doing so again.
(more info on the legals in Rachel Clarke’s Guardian article)
Never quite rings true that approach though does it?
Hmm. I was at BOBT. And I don’t think that’s quite what was said. I think Claus claimed that his business helps brands ‘earn’ media. I don’t think he claimed that every piece of paid for seeding counts in itself as ‘earned’ media. As I said, I think you’re being absolute and missing the nuance.
Hi Jo – agree that I don’t think he claimed that every piece of paid seeding counted as earned media. And maybe I am missing the nuance and prepared to be proved wrong when the video is posted, in case it’s my misinterpretation. But Brand Republic took the same takeout as I did, observing that Claus persuasively argued that
“if you create a viral film make it good enough so people will give you free viral media. Earn your place in the world on your own merits.”
Which I took to mean that it was about making good stuff that earned its place on its own merits – there was no mention of paying for views or similar. Now maybe he meant that the ‘paid earned’ helped to kick off the ‘earned earned’, but as he wasn’t kind enough to explain the distinction to the rest of us, which is why I felt he was being disingenuous. I may well have missed the nuance – I understand bought media as bought, and earned as earned. I’d love to understand more about how GoViral define these spaces, as I think I probably am missing this nuance!
Katy thanks for taking time to discuss my presentation and what we do at goviral in such details. As my message apparently didn’t come through clearly, allow me to clarify. Paid for content distribution can subsequently result in earned media space when the content is good. I therefore don’t see a reason for presenting paid placements as earned. Clients are paying for these placements in the first instance, so it doesn’t make sense – and are as you say yourself – not a viable business model. The message I tried to convey was that good content combined with paid for distribution builds an initial audience that can deliver earned media in certain situations. As the conference wasn’t about presenting what goviral does, but in my case about giving a perspective on the concept of free, I didn’t focus much on describing all aspects of what we do of course. Regarding the paid for placements our video player will flag that content is paid for/sponsored in order to avoid misinterpretations. The interpretations at Brand Republic actually weren’t in line with what I tried to communicate as well, so it seems like I need to speak more clearly in the future.
Interesting post, wanna talk about affiliate marketing?
Not to say that “there’s always something worse” but these companies simply do allow bloggers to have a bit of a revenue stream from their discussion boards. And so what if the blogger completely disapproves of the content, he has every right to write it out. Providing content to a blog does not imply that there must be glorification of it..Ive given bad reviews and Im still alive…
@Claus
Thanks so much for replying – very much appreciated. Agree 100% that paid-for content distribution can result in earned media if the content is good – it’s just about making sure that the good stuff gets a kick start so people see it in the first place. And if the video player clearly demonstrates that the content is paid-for / sponsored then that’s indeed very reassuring – do you have any examples you could show so that we could see this for ourselves? However it’s not so much the player that worries me – it’s the other aspects that I was offered payment for – the blog posts, tweets and suchlike. How would these be denoted as sponsored / written in return for payment? If I were to accept payment in return for writing about the content in question, would it be mandatory for me to reveal that I had been paid to write this? if not, would I be permitted to reveal that I had not tweeted or blogged this spontaneously, and that even if I agreed with the sentiment, that I was receiving payment to highlight this content on your client’s behalf? If there is full and frank mandatory disclosure, so that a blog post or tweet is very clearly denoted as bought media rather than earned, then my fears are absolutely allayed and I willingly apologise. However I wasn’t able to find any kind of reference to any sort of disclosure in any of your T&Cs or FAQs, suggesting that the aim was for paid tweets or blog posts to appear as genuinely spontaneous (ie earned) when in fact they were bought, which concerns me greatly. Could you provide some clarification as to how you manage disclosure for this sort of content? Equally, if I take payment from GoViral to write about a given piece of content or brand, would I be breaching the terms of our agreement if my blog or tweet was critical of the content or brand? The T&Cs suggested this was so, but I’d be grateful for clarification on this point.
Thanks once again for joining in the debate – would very much welcome your input.
@Giovanna
I don’t have any problem with bloggers making revenue from their blogs. What I do object to is when it’s not made clear what is advertising and what isn’t, in whatever form, whether that’s sponsored content, affiliate marketing, or any other kind of paid-for or revenue generating element.
So if I read a blog post which mentions a given brand, and that blogger has been paid to endorse that brand and doesn’t disclose this, then I’m very uncomfortable with this. Your point about being able to criticise brands who’ve paid bloggers is something I’m very curious about, as per my question to Claus. If a brand or agency courts a blogger with blogger outreach, then it’s absolutely the blogger’s prerogative to write a negative post, and there’s bugger all the brand can do about it – although I still believe that even if hard cash hasn’t exchanged hands, if a blogger has received some kind of product, service or other benefit from the brand, and they then go on to endorse that brand, that they should disclose the nature of that exchange. However when cold hard cash changes hands, in the case of GoViral, the blogger enters into a legal agreement – and I’m not clear whether the blogger is actually permitted by the terms of the agreement with GoViral to criticise the brand if they have accepted payment to write about it.
When you’ve given bad reviews, had you entered into a formal agreement with the company / brand (e.g. as in the case of GoViral) or had you simply accepted something by way of blogger outreach?
Hi Katy!
Thanks for the kind mention of my blog post on Own Bought and Earned Media :)
Clearly a video put on youtube along with the other approx 100 000 that go up that day is in danger of not getting noticed, so highlighting it (via a paid placement) does seem to make sense. I’ve always considered GoViral’s technique exclusively Bought Media, and my understanding was that it was essentially buying a highlighted ad space, especially on smaller niche, video repositories. So long as it is totally transparent – i.e. if it is well demarcated as “ad content” or “sponsored video placement” – that feels alright.
But asking someone to talk about something in return for money is where it gets very messy, imo. I’ve been outspoken on my blog about not paying to elicit opinion (http://is.gd/56T3x and http://is.gd/56ST2) and even argued against this in person with Jeremy Owyang at the Web 2.0 conference in March this year. So, like you, what really concerned me in the examples above me was the “additional budget available for posting, commenting, tweeting…”.
Even though everything is changing during this digital revolution, there is a good reason that, historically, editorial and advertising have always been kept separate.
great post.
It’s the cold hard cash that dirties it maybe? if humans are now the 7th (or is it 8th) mass-media then we have a price ;)
goods to the value is somehow less distasteful
ie have our product to use for a month and review – of course at the end of the month they never ask for it back.