The recent herd mentality on Twitter reminds me of the French mob screaming for aristocrats’ blood. Break out the guillotine! First it was Motrin, then it was the Matt Bacak smeering (I did think he crossed a line, but still the response was excessive), and most recently the portrayal of Chris Brogan — of all people — as unethical for writing an IZEA (formerly Pay Per Post)/K-Mart sponsored post.
Much has been said about the Brogan post, some by Chris, some by Amber Naslund. To me the fact that Chris got his chops busted, and other prominent bloggers like friend Aaron Brazell didn’t just shows you how ridiculous Twitter can be sometimes. The hangman-out-for-blood mentality just shows human nature at its worst.
Frankly, I understand the angst about Pay Per Post. It’s a loss of credibility. But the rebranded IZEA service is bit more high-brow, and in this case sponsored folks like Aaron and Chris with a $500 stipend to shop at K-Mart. It’s hard enough making money as a blogger, but $500 at Christmas time is no joke, especially in an economy like this one.
I am not saying take $15 for writing SEO pieces every damn day that destroy your blog’s credibility. Personally, hat’s off to the K-Mart bloggers for being good enough to attract that kind of sponsorship. Just openly state that it’s a sponsored post. No big deal.
Amber had a nice entre to her post:
..the underlying issue to me is this idea that social media mechanisms like blogs are somehow sacrosanct, hallowed ground. That there is no room for commercialism within the walls of the Almighty Conversation. That the only use for these tools in within the confines of personal expression, removed from a capitalistic context. That simply isn’t the case.
Regardless of how you feel about Chris getting a $500 sponsorship, to me the mass hanging and outrage on Twitter has gotten to the point where the community is starting to validate Andrew Keen’s Cult of the Amateur. There’s an increasing lack of common sense and a mad rush to bury people online. And that does not bode well for Twitter’s credibility as a source of mass intelligence.
As someone who has seen enough of these, I’m starting to get a) calloused to the cries of evil and b) question whether these events are actually hurting the brands in question, or in actuality helping them. I recently met Chris Anderson and he said to me all publicity is good publicity. Folks like Madonna would agree. In these cases, I am more likely to buy Motrin, I am now following Matt Bacak on Twitter, and I have more respect for Chris Brogan. The mob be damned.
What do you think?
Perhaps Twitter is the new place where the “people formally knows as forum flamers” now hang out?
Because of its “real time” posts and conversational nature it leads the way in providing a forum for people who previously would not have had a voice worth listening too.
This will always be the challenge with “social media” and “social networking” it requires people. Sadly, many people are not rational, sensible and do not deal in measured responses.
I have to ask though where did the comment “Twitter being a source of mass intelligence” come from?
It will always be a mass, however the users will dictate how it is used. Early Adopters beware, it may change beyond belief…….
Mike Ashworth
Marketing Coach and Consultant
Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, UK
Transforming Businesses with effective marketing
I agree totally, Geoff. There are actually studies being done about feeling bullied through social media platforms, which I tweeted about Dec. 10:
Univ. of Iowa expert says relational bullying hurts social status, common in Web social groups: http://tinyurl.com/63p4jm. Stop the bullies
That said, who better to make the business case for social media than Chris Brogan by modeling it? Viva la Brogan!
Mike: Great comment. That phrase was more of a depiction of TWitter as the ultimate community place to have a conversation, get intelligence, learn what people think, etc.
Linda: Thanks for that study. Very helpful.
Bloggers should be able to make money and find synchronous opportunities that work for them. What was off-putting is that Chris benefits by writing an overall favorable review and a prominent one at that. Ostensibly equity options are elevated in their worth when a company’s value and prominence is moved forward. Full disclosure up front is just that. It doesn’t mean putting it on another page for readers to find for themselves. If you DO do that then the least you can do is LET readers know in the article disclosure preface that it is so indicated on there with a link.
Assuming that viewers will dig for information is dangerous at best and lazy at least. You wrote the article. It’s your job to give all the fair and balanced information along with the article. Regardless of whether or not his equity options went up or will go up as a result of his prominent article is neither here nor there for now. Perceived transparency is the issue at hand. Readers are not researchers. In traditional media publications full disclosures are given at the time of any perceived conflict. They don’t just put the disclosures in the masthead and hope that by telling you it’s a sponsored article in the newspaper the reader will look through the bylines to try and find the conflict.
Where’s the journalistic integrity? Nothing has changed now that the venue is online. I get that Chris is much more than a journalist and is a one man show as he succinctly put it in a post on his blog, but first and foremost he’s a journalist if his primary professional medium is writing. Blogging is just short for web logging. If you decide to do it more than just casually for fun and start to gain monetarily off of it you are held up to the same standards as non-online writers are. It would behoove us to remember that in the ever changing landscape of the online world that standards still apply.
Well said! Any post where you compare the Twitterverse to a French mob and Andrew Keen’s Cult of the Amateur is bound to wake people up. The mob be damned!
Damien: Chris is not a journalist, nor is he even a paid blogger. He has his own consultancy at New Marketing Labs.
And where does it say anywhere that if you get paid you have to act like a journalist? Where? Does that cause Arrington to act like a journalist? Far from it in my opinion. Sorry, I have to disagree with you on what you think Chris’s obligations are.
In fact, Chris has no obligation to anyone as a blogger. How his community reacts, and whether or not he cares are different issues.
Great post, Geoff. I think the key here is to remember that it’s NOT a mob mentality. Rather, everything is on a case by case basis. Twitter is mob rule. When I hear about someone writing about a particular post or issue, I read it. I’m not going to believe that once someone says “Chris Brogan sold out” when he wrote his Kmart post is true and universal for anyone who writes sponsored posts. It’s just typecasting bloggers and setting unreal standards that prevents people from sharing news – no wonder no companies understand blogger relations! (how’s that for a stereotype?)
I believe in having sponsored posts once in a while. I think you’re right that it might be a different story if you were being paid off just to write about a particular subject every day, but that’s not the case with Chris Brogan. He has built up his credibility so there’s got to be a point for him to make. He’s saying that Kmart did a good idea, but he’s not become fanatical about it. It’s not that big of deal so lay off! Blogging is not entirely like the state of Illinois. It’s not all for sale.
You are right in as so much as he’s not a journalist and he has no obligations to anyone. That being said, if upon doing something if one isn’t up front each and every time a possible perceived conflict comes up then one’s integrity starts to come into question. It’s a standard to do so. Chris could do what he wants. It’s his life. But not being responsible to your audience is callous, cavallier and plain selfish. Without your audience there would be no article. Therein lies the rub. Do what you want at any cost because it’s your life or do what is upfront and transparent for others so your actions can not be misconstrued.
Truth translates. I get wary when anyone, journalist or not, is less than forthcoming with vital information at the time of need.
Hi, thanks for the link back. To be clear, as far as I am concerned if someone wants to make money from blogging, good luck.
I think doing sponsored posts over time erodes credibility, but I appreciate that we’ll agree to disagree here.
But yes, my main ‘angst’ was with payperpost. And I am not sure if it’s fair to say that the rebranding of Izea means the two are now completely different.
Of course Chris isn’t going to be taking promos on payperpost, he’s blogging royalty! But the fact is Izea is using the Kmart activity on its front page, and so is highlighting its whole product range – including payperpost – through it.
It’s still all part of the same universe or continuum as it were.
Brief response to the least logical guy I’ve ever responded to (Basile): I’m not a journalist. First error. I don’t profit if Kmart profits. Second error. I don’t really profit if Izea profits, unless someone gives them a few dozen million dollars, and then, I get a few hundred dollars (for shares advisors get). You could say I profit if Izea profits (but that’s pretty long term, and my kids can’t eat stock options).
There was no digging required. I put the word “sponsored” in the title, in the first and last line. So, that’s a pretty stupid point, too.
Damien – if you’re going to try and bring journalistic integrity to the web, maybe first try by going after journalists. Second, try finding better facts that someone might refute. Third, brush up on logic. I’m all done playing, amigo. Thanks for your attempt. Good luck.
Thanks, Geoff.
As someone who is a follower of Chris and fairly new to the social media realm, I find many of these past outrages a bit over the top. I know we all wake up and run to our twhirls, tweetdecks, and twitterifics, but we need to place things in the larger context. How many of the world’s internet users are on twitter? How many moms were not offended by Motrin vs. those on twitter? Because we are knee deep in it, it may seem like the world’s on fire. But it’s not. Lots of folks are worried about the auto bailout, not Chris getting a shopping spree from Kmart. Folks are concerned about mortgages, not some young techies lipsynching 80’s tunes in the Mediterranean. I appreciate twitter, but we all need to realize that just because twitter said so, doesn’t make it the end all be all.
There is no such thing as “mass intelligence.” That’s just a great concept for selling books. Twitter is what it is — a way to communicate something to a targeted group of people who have chosen to follow you. The fact that it is also used to sell stuff, or to create lynch mobs, is merely a side effect.
Dennis McDonald
Alexandria Virginia
http://www.ddmcd.com
Chris, I may have erroneously called you a journalist but it still doesn’t excuse your lax transparency. Your post may have said sponsored but it didn’t say how you are tied to IZEA. You may not benefit by a lot. By being on the board and receiving equity options creates a whole different scenario. If you can’t see how this is a perceived conflict and by not transparently disclosing this in the post along with the sponsored portion then I don’t know what to tell you. The digging I referred to was how others have to find your deeper connection to IZEA. Saying that the post was a sponsored review for Kmart via IZEA does not give me the full scope of your involvement with IZEA. Tell me where the flawed logic is in that. There are no better facts than the clear omission of your position with IZEA on your post. You or your kids may not stand to benefit much by this position but it is important enough to let your readers known up front where you exactly stand. My issue isn’t with the post being sponsored. It’s with you not disclosing your full involvement with IZEA on that post. By the way, truth and integrity are never a game. I’m not playing. I hope the one thing you take away from all of this is that there is no reason to not fully disclose something at the time of publishing in the spirit of transparency. If not, it’s your life, you choose how to live it. What you do and don’t do are the sum of your character. I wish the best for you in all your endeavors.
Damien I am troubled that much of your criticism of Chris seems to stem from inaccurate information. First, you claimed that Izea was on WOMMA’s advisory board. GeekMommy later pointed out that wasn’t the case, and you added that ’some guy’ told you they were. Then you repeatedly said that Chris had ‘options’ in Izea, which you said meant he had a financial interest in pushing Izea forward. Repeatedly, I asked you what Chris said about this when you asked him to clarify this. You never answered, so I can only assume that you never asked him. I would have assumed you would have, given that much of your criticism was stemming from your assumption that he did.
BTW, thanks to Chris for clarifying in his comment here. Seems like Chris could potentially make so little from ‘moving Izea forward’, that I fail to see how he could have possibly written that post with financial gain in mind. Another person attacked Chris for not donating the toys to Toys For Tot, which he clearly explained in his post that he DID do.
The last 24 hours has definitely opened my eyes to the motivations of many people, and Chris isn’t one of them.
Damien, you set an impossibly high standard if you expect a blogger, let alone a journalist, to disclose every potential perceived conflict with each and every post. That’s a ridiculous assertion, and you seem to be the only one making it.
And by the way, what perceived conflict should YOU be disclosing that causes you to take such a pejorative view of IZEA, KMart, and Chris Brogan? Maybe your second cousin’s brother-in-law lived next door to someone who got passed over for a position with IZEA?
My disclosures are documented clearly: http://www.chrisbrogan.com/about .
Are yours?
Geoff,
You linked to my post as a Matt Bacak smearing? Hilarious! Thanks!
You know, I don’t think the Chris Brogan story is anything like Motrin. Motrin was a problem created because they failed to understand their audience. Matt Bacak simply did what he has always done, but this time around it was noticed as something to ridicule, primarily because of Digg comment.
The Chris Brogan story seems so much more like a civil war than a lynch mob. There are plenty of folks who against pay-per-post who are simply expressing their dissatisfaction with the concept and Chris seemed to be primed for a target for whatever reason. (I don’t have a problem with pay-per-post as long as there is disclosure.) But there are other issues too. And the more people talk about it, the more complex they make it.
My thoughts on it will be more clear tomorrow, but suffice to say that Chris answered what was probably the most critical question to me, and I’m good with that. It was great of him to do so, especially because the answer was already there and I wanted to double check.
Where you an seem to agree about Twitter is that it is fickle, ripe with hypocrisy, and encourages pile on the popular behavior. But that is the way it is with pure democracies.
Sometimes they elevate greatness and sometimes they elevate evil. Sometimes they slay the villain and other times, they reenact The Fountainhead. All the time, they’re very dangerous.
I’d hate the same happen to Damien, who despite his admittedly passionate and aggressive responses, has raised several relevant issues that often get swept under. Besides, reverse targeting is only encouraging more of the same behavior, imo.
Good stuff, though, as usual.
All my best,
Rich
P.S. I should probably offer a disclosure, but I’m not sure where to begin and there probably isn’t enough space or time in the day to do so. ;)
Rich: More as an example of how it was the opposite of a negative, and how it probably benefited Bacak.
Dennis: Really, would you say the same thing about elections?
Geoff,
First, great analogy! The Twitterverse does indeed have the potential for mob-like behavior. And, like the more corporeal mobs before it, the Twitterverse clearly can turn on one of its own quickly, unexpectedly, and with a vengeance.
One of the salient characteristics of mobs of all types is their tendency to pull down anyone who, intentionally or not, sets themselves above the mob. Chris’s “sin” was certainly not (as many people have already pointed out) a lack of disclosure, or the breaking of an inapplicable journalistic code. In the end, Chris may have been guilty of no more than holding himself out as an expert on the mechanics of modern mobs. By seeking to profit openly from that expertise, Chris broke no “rule” whatsoever. However, he may have simply waved a red flag in front of a somewhat unpredicatable and envious bull.
Keep up the good work!
Mike
“Vive la Republique… du Buzz!”
Bloggers, like politicians, are people, not prophets. The issue isn’t so much that we set impossibly high standards (we should) but rather that we create unrealistic expectations.
Mobs are mobs. And mobs are social, with or without modern communication tools. Social media is just a digital tool that allows mob mentality to transcend the streets and make its way to cyberspace. Blaming Twitter or social media for mob mentality is like blaming the capacity to speak for the spread of racism. Ludicrous.
In every crowd, in every community, you will find your hot-heads and your bullies, just like you will find voices of inspiration and reason. Chris Brogan’s unfortunate encounter with an angry mob (angry at what, I am still not sure) has as much to do with Twitter as the French Revolution had to do with baguettes.
The litmus test is simple: As long as the conversation is authentic, as long as the blogger (Chris Brogan or otherwise) isn’t a mere shill or propaganda pawn for self-serving corporate masters, all is well for the brand he or she represents online, critics be damned.
People need to chill.
Great conversation going on here, by the way. :)
I think that although the three examples do share the fact they prompted a group to condemn them, there are some important differences.
The Motrin example seemed, in my opinion, to be a fair response by the people that Motrin was attempting to advertise to. For years advertising has patronised or offended various groups, but the outcry was normally limited to a letter or two in a paper, or a complaint to the Advertising Standards Association in the UK for example.
Plus parenthood is a particularly emotional subject – I get quite annoyed at the attitudes towards those who choose or can’t breastfeed, for example, which are reinforced by countless adverts (I’m guessing there may be some Government guidelines forcing babymilk suppliers to always recommended breastfeeding before their own product).
Matt Bacak was also foolish, patronising, and symptomatic of a growing intolerance of various people and groups using marketing as a way to promote themselves and various ‘get rich quick’ type schemes with a one page sales call via social networks. I’ve yet to meet an expert in any field who refers to themselves in those terms, let alone the number one person at adding people then deleting them when they follow back!
But in Chris’s case it seems to be a classic case of people putting their own views and presumptions onto what was actually written – for instance, that anyone writes is a journalist, or that anyone promoting integrity couldn’t also monetise what they do, or test a promotion at the same time.
Everyone has their own view and line on what they think is acceptable on their own website, and as long as any sponsored posts are disclosed, it’s down to the audience to decide whether or not they want to continue reading – not to attempt to hound the person in question.
Attempting to define what mythical rules any and all blogs should conform to is equivalent to defining rules across any medium or business – is anyone that picks up a pen a journalist? I think you’d find a lot of journalists (myself including when I was a paid journalist) who would be annoyed at the idea.
Is there a rule that allows for the variety between Chris, Darren Rowse and Jeremy Schoemaker, for three quick examples? All have different businesses, different ways of making money, and different rules and values that they follow – yet all three are bloggers.
Geoff, Chris -
From Chris Brogan’s recent post on all this: “For those of you who haven’t read The Cluetrain Manifesto lately, thesis #1: markets are conversations. Yep, a blog is a conversation. I mixed a market and a conversation.”
Agreed.
Thanks to Chris for relaying his Kmart sponsorship and forging ahead. His exploration enlightens we bloggers out there who strive to practice ownership, transparency, and getting food on the table.
The ease of publishing via blogging has given more than enough bloggers a crack hit of ego and the mob mentality that can occur seems like such a waste of time.
Bloggers and Twitterati need to get over themselves and figure out how they’re going to kick some revenue generating ass in the next 6 months and stop criticizing those with the motivation to do just that.
The internet has always had a kind of ‘Herd Mentality’, but Twitter just allows it to propagate faster than ever before. What’s unfortunate is that this herd often jumps on negative trends, because it can also be used for good. (See what Blog Action Day did for blogging.)
My hope is that we find a way to harness this energy and use it for good, and as more people point out to the herd (in posts like this) that it too quickly jumps on the negative bandwagon, we see that trend start to change as well.
People need something to do. Outrage is one thing to do.
Twitter offers a great service as a means of actual communication (as opposed to simply planting a fake gift on someone’s wall, or whatever), and for that I’m extremely thankful.
Matt Bacak? He’s the LeBron James of Twitter, but only for now:
http://skepteye.com/2008/12/12/dave-johnston-skyrockets-to-the-summit-of-twitter-in-indianapolis/
Chris, Connie, Mack,
I did make a misstep as to saying IZEA was on WOMMA’s board which was missinformation given to me late at night by someone who is not a trusted source from me. GeekMommy pointed that out and I corrected myself. I learned my lesson there. This is the capacity of a human being- to learn from their mistakes and admit when they are not on target. It was never my intention to personally attack Chris. I just saw a situation that we could all learn from and went with it. I wanted to move the conversation forward about transparency and full disclosure. I saw a situation that could benefit from discussion and did so. If I knew there would have been such a backlash to trying to discover what standards should be in place for bloggers I would have never pushed that button.
Mack, I never answered you because when you asked me I turned in for the night. That aside Chris’ intentions were never up for discussion with me. I never felt for one second that he intentionally meant to deceive anyone in the least at all. Asking how he benefitted from the board position or the equity options wasn’t my intention to find out. It was always how this omission of information is viewed by the reader is what concerned me. If I was led to believe for a moment that Chris could potentially be benefitting artificially by writig the article then so could someone else. Not everyone who comes across the article has the liberty or will ask Chris if he does benefit. They’ll just decide for themselves and move on. Here we had the luxury to uncover the details unlike others may have been able to.
Connie, I don’t feel that’s a ridicuolously high standard to set. Chris is an adult and should know when to disclose pertinent information. Asking someone to be completely forthcoming is a standard we should all expect. I don’t have any bias towarda Kmart, IZEA, or Chris and would have stated that to begin with. Maybe I’m alone with the standards I adhere to but if we let go of them when do we say enough is enough. We’re talking about important issues here concerning what should be in place online. I would think people would be able to disassociate the person from the situation to answer these valid questions. That being said, this whole situation stung really hard. I was only trying to flesh out answers and got nothing but attacked.
Chris, this never once was a personal attack on you. It was about full disclosure and transparency and where the standard should be. You just happened to be the one who brought that issue forth. I I ever came off as attacking you personally I’m truly sorry. I was only ever trying to move the conversation forward about blogging standards. But even in your last comment you fail to see my point that disclosing things in a separate document/page is not the same as disclosing these things at the time of reading. Even if you did not want to write out the disclosures the least you can do is link them in the preamble. If you were addressing me above as to where my disclosures are my answer is I always look to disclose any perceived conflict at the time of necessity.
This whole situation has opened my eyes as to how people can not disassociate a valid topic from making it personal about their favorite blogger. Also, shaded generalities come across as being truly hurtful when you know it’s aimed at you. Maybe I’ll think twice before I try to engage conversation again that concerns popular bloggers. Maybe I’ll think twice again before I get involved myself in trying to figure out acceptable use practices. I’ve started Social Media and Designer chats on my website to do JUST that, figure out these answers. I am anything BUT in it for just myself as my actions indicate. Believe what you may but my intentions were only to help standards on the web not myself. It’s truly saddening that it has devolved into a personal thing. This has left a bad taste in my mouth and I’ll think twice before I get pulled into a situation like this again.
Thank you all for this cold hard dose of reality. Lesson learned.
Geoff,
I know. That is why it is hilarious. :)
Rich
After reading the comments here, on Chris’ blog and Amber’s, I am convinced that some people have taken advantage of the situation and jumped in just to improve their personal brand (knowing how much you love that, Geoff). They must think, who cares about the integrity of the blogger, I’ve got a point to make that will make me look important and improve my visibility. Argh, it’s all kind of depressing.
Sure we all have the right and ability to share our opinions on actions of the leaders. However, sharing opinions is one thing, mass hysteria and condemnation is another.
“And that does not bode well for Twitter’s credibility as a source of mass intelligence.”
Agreed. And further, immaturity isn’t going to only hurt the mob. It’s going to hurt everyone who has worked hard to grow relationships, taught companies about social media and even those who have proven that social media can be used for good causes. Because instances like this point to the immaturity of few but overall influence the opinion of the medium.
How can companies be reassured about reaching out online if Motrin and Chris are (some) indicators of the response they’ll receive?
Geoff, just a few things, since you linked to my Motrin post. To clarify my position for anyone who may not have clicked on the link…I was in support of Motrin to NOT pull their ad campaign.
@RichBecker, I disagree with this statement “Motrin was a problem created because they failed to understand their audience.” Actually, they did understand their audience & had to had research to back up the campaign (this is common with consumer brands & to think that they didn’t would be plain silly). The campaign ran for 6 weeks without issue! In this case, a bunch of snarky mommies who had a ‘voice’ on Twitter, YouTube & their blogs made it *seem* that Motrin didn’t get it. They are a VERY minuscule population of moms in the world. From Kathy Widner’s point of view, they didn’t want to offend anyone & made a decision to pull it. Was it the right thing to do? Maybe/maybe not (see her comment on my blog). I respect Kathy’s decision as I was not in her shoes that day. But the day that traditional marketing campaigns are attacked and pulled is a sad day for marketing. You can’t please everyone and we need to respect that.
@DamienBasile, you know I think highly of you, but this comment is what made it an attack on Chris Brogan “But not being responsible to your audience is callous, cavallier and plain selfish. Without your audience there would be no article. Therein lies the rub.” His audience on Dad-o-Matic is NOT the same audience on ChrisBrogan.com. If his readers had no issue with a sponsored post, then that’s all that matters. And from a journalistic perspective, I will share with you that I have received TONS of editorial space based merely on the fact of the advertising dollars spent. People who don’t think this happens are living in a fantasy world.
Hey Beth,
Noted. Though I suppose I could say that the ad targeted baby-carrying moms specifically, which does not count all the moms in the world as you suggest. But I’ll defer to Motrin. They said they got it wrong despite your opinion. Under most circumstances, I agree with you about special interest groups banning advertisements and have written as much. I’d say more, but this is not my house and not the place for it.
All my best,
Rich
Lee: Good to see some top rank commenting here!
Beth: Of course , your post closely represented my view of the situation, thus my link.
Olivier: Oh, Olivier. Sigh. Experienced writers, and in particular strong bloggers, use metaphors to convey stories and experiences. It helps to illustrate an idea. Brian Clark, a.k.a. Copyblogger, is a master of this particular art form.
Just so we are one the same page, a metaphor can be defined as a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Or you could say it’s something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol. Both of these definitions are from dictionary.com.
In this case, the French Revolution was used because initially the mob arose when bread was short, or when the Estates Generale were screwing over the people. However; when Robespierre’s Committee of Public Safety — and their guillotine — took power the revolution became very bloody, and often at the behest and reactions to riots from the mob. The mob became illogical and feared, and could arise on just about any suspicion.
The metaphor here is that Brogan is good, the mob arose over suspicion, following a crazed mass mentality for blood. End of your writing lesson. And you owe me a baguette.
“question whether these events are actually hurting the brands in question”
It’s more so hurting the SM industry as a whole. We talk about credibility – the unrealistic expectations of transparency from this bandwagon of a mob is what’s hurting the credibility of social media. I’ve mentioned the word ‘Pedestal’ several times today and these people need to get off it (same goes for those during the Motrin scene). SM heads are no better than any other industry and in the end its business and I think we need to treat it as such and stop all the talking. We need to learn the business side of things as that is what’s going to help SM grow and become more accepted. Chris/Kmart/Izea is at the least a case study now but we should have learned first off instead of mobbing against.
What, people aren’t rational and rush to judgment? I do like the French Revolution motif you’ve laid down here. Quite fitting for the self-organized swarms that Twitter and the Internet enable. (see http://tr.im/2ad7 for more)
It’s almost worth it to create a site dedicated to these uproars, so we can begin to see what trends emerge. StormingtheBastille.com is open. Wanna pitch in for it.
@scottyhendo
I would hate to see social bookmarking become like high school (where you feel left out and are “picked” last for things)
A couple of thoughts:
What I think is ridiculous is the either/or, black/white, saint/sinner standards that some people (on both sides of this argument) use to judge others. You either have integrity or you have no integrity at all, you either make full disclosure or you’re trying to fool your readers, or (in Motrin’s case) you either are offensive or you did nothing wrong at all. Life is messy and rarely are things as clear cut as portrayed by people on either side of most debates.
I remember doing a study of heresies of the early Christian church and finding, to my surprise, that the heretics actually helped the church define itself and its religious dogma. The religious leaders hadn’t taken a position on many issues/beliefs until they were confronted by a position they disagreed with. People often define themselves by what they are not, what issues or people they are against rather than what they support. So while there was something constructive in all of this–people identifying where they stood on the issue of sponsored blog posts–the debate clearly had a negative tone. Such is the way of politics and debates on ethics.
I think the problem with all of this isn’t the discussion, which I think is healthy, but its velocity. Twitter accelerates everything to the speed where facts are not checked and people don’t wait for a reply or response to a question before answering it themselves. It’s only a “mob” because it acts without thinking and I think Twitter encourages instant reaction whether it is people questioning Chris’ integrity or others defending it.
What I thought was notable about the Motrin Moms case is not that Motrin pulled the ad but the speed at which the whole thing blew up and was then resolved (maybe 72 hours?). A week later, no one was even talking about it any more. And is it just a coincidence that these eruptions seem to happen on the weekend when people usually have more leisure time to respond to Tweets, write blog entries and the like?
I imagine that this issue will match the Motrin Moms’ timeline perfectly: provocative questions raised on Saturday, discussion percolating Saturday night, gaining steam until the issue explodes on Sunday, final thoughts & resolution on Monday, forgotten by everyone but the main participants by Tuesday…except for remembering the names of the people we disagreed with!
OMG, who cares? …just kiss and make up!
Great post! Anyway as Twitter is going more mainstream we are going to see new forms of abuses.
Hi Geoff,
In the off-line world, I’ve always worked hard to let everyone’s voice be heard but not to let those who scream loudest get a disproportionate share of the attention. Online, and especially on Twitter, we haven’t yet figured out how to do this effectively. This is clearly something our community needs to figure out so that we can continue to have intelligent discourse and debate the pros and cons of a topic without having the conversation hijacked.
Apparently Chris hasn’t seen Rain Man.
I only signed up for Twitter 2 weeks ago. I only started following Chris 2 days ago – and not because of this – I only found out because someone had linked to something in his blog. I found that he had useful info to share and so I followed him.
As for sponsored posts? I can’t be herded. Too often. I can think for myself. More often than not.
I read blogs to get different ideas, perspectives, opinions. Doesn’t mean I take any of it as gospel – no matter who who wrote it. Most people have a unique perspective, bias, and/or reason for writing what they do – just like I do!!! That is why I filter. With my brain. It’s kinda useful for that. It’s not always good at it..but still…
And, I don’t care what Twitter says but maybe that’s because I haven’t been around long enough.
And how different is a sponsored post from selling affiliate stuff? Seems to me, not much.
I’d be sad if the web turned into one big sponsored post too, but his blog, at this point, seems to be original content.
What’s the big deal? This is still a free country (I think). He’s a big boy. It’s HIS blog. He can do what he wants. I’m a big girl. I can hit the back button.
And what is this Motrin Mom’s thing? I’m a Mom. Should I be offended?? Late adopters miss all the good drama.