19/09: Advertisers and Bloggers-Black and White-Right and Wrong

Because this is a longish post I've split it, just click on the link to read the full monty. I have what I think is an interesting tale to tell and I'd really like to hear your opinions. Names have been changed to protect the guilty/innocent. If you're sitting comfortably, then I'll begin.........

Our hero in this tale is a blogger, just like you and I, or at least similar. Our blogging friend decides to try and earn revenue from his blog, and researches the numerous ways to start bringing in some money. With time, his diligent quest for knowledge and his hard work do pay off and soon he begins to see some results. As the blog gains in popularity he finds himself able to steadily increase his rates for things like advertising. The Blogger is honest about his revenue generating and tells his audience all about in in his clear 'disclosure policy'.

Enter Advertiser A, who is actually a representative of a conglomerate of advertisers, a middle man or ad broker if you prefer. They tell our Blogger that they would like to help him make more money and are very interested in advertising on his blog. The blogger receives this news happily, and agrees with Advertiser A that he will certainly consider working with them. He assumes they have read his blog and are thus well aware of his advertising and editorial policies, which, although voluntary, he believes in quite strongly. He presumes that any offer they make him will have been carefully considered and matched to their projected results based on his blog's status and position in the grand scheme of things.

After 'reviewing' said blog, Advertiser A makes our blogger an offer. It's not a great offer in monetary terms, but maybe, he thinks, that by agreeing to work cheaply there might be real potential to increase his advertising partnership with Advertiser A once he has proved that they are getting good value for money for their customers. With this in mind, he decides to look more closely at the offer and what is required from him.

The first thing he notices is that they start to refer to their offer as a "trial run" but are vague about its duration or what is actually on trial. This makes our blogger wary because with "trials" you have to know what you are expected to deliver. Presumably if the results of the trial run do not meet the advertiser's desired results he will be dropped like a hot brick. He revisits his opinion on working for such poor financial compensation as a "loss leader", and starts to wonder if maybe it will just be a "loss". Ever the optimist however he decides to read their entire proposal.

His initial impression was that he was going to be paid to deliver some good quality content - sponsored, but nonetheless relevant and well researched. He believes this because it is what they intimated in their promotional blurb. As his policy states, he would declare any such directly sponsored posts at the start of each one. Delving deeper into the conditions he realizes that Advertiser A does not actually want this at all. In fact, Advetiser A wants rather a lot for the money he is offering to pay to our blogging hero. You will write X number of posts they say, for which we will pay you X pittance each. Each post has a minimum length requirement (not overly onerous until our blogger considers the cost per word). The more he reads, the more the blogger feels uncomfortable, and, not a little peeved. Does Advertiser A think he is a moron? Well, he reads on regardless, quite keen by now to see where it's all heading.

Advertiser A instructs that each of the posts Mr Blogger writes will have to include one link. Just one. He assumes they will tell him what anchor text they will require and where to point them......but no. He then discovers that he must pick a category or categories from a list provided by Advertiser A, and agree to post the links they give him. It would seem that these could be for almost anything, such is the very broad description of each category. But wait, he thinks, aren't they going to give me this information before I agree to their offer? Silly blogger. Of course we're not say Advertiser A, you tell us which broad categories are acceptable, we'll then provide the links we want promoted and you integrate them naturally into your writing. We don't care what you are writing about as long as it complies with our wishes, length and format wise.....oh, and did we mention that you must write these posts within a time frame specified by us. We didn't? Well, you do, and that's not negotiable. Fail to do it and we won't pay you your slave wages at all. The deadlines are pretty severe and our blogger begins to think it's all a bad dream or a joke perhaps.

He wonders how, even if he could stomach the pitiful cash offer, he could possibly work this way and still remain true to his published code of behavior. These are no  more than paid links after all, not even really a sponsored or paid post. But, unlike a text link for which someone has paid and for which he would feel under no obligation to specifically disclose, he is being asked to disguise these links within an apparently 'normal' everyday post. It feels somehow wrong to our beleaguered blogger who begins to see the harsh realities of advertising and that for some advertisers, anything goes, and, if it works, the end justifies the means. By insisting that he places these links into his posts, Advertiser A gets a permanent link that stays in the blog's archive until such time as the blogger either removes the link or takes down the post. This could be months or even years of advertising, and, let's not forget valuable inbound links for literally less than pennies. Although Advertiser A does not specify how long the links must remain live, doubtful blogger imagines that their demands will be around about the indefinitely mark. He considers what he charges for a simple annual, monthly or weekly ad and compares it with Advertiser A's offer. This takes about one fifth of a second.

So, where did our blogger go with this? Did he crumble and take the pennies? Did he negotiate a better price and 'sell out' to his capitalist weakness? Did he ignore his published disclosure and "fake" some lines into his normal writing schedule? Did he take the money and take the ads out as soon as the cash was in his account?

Were the Advertiser's wrong? Was their methodology sharp practice or just canny business? Were they chancers of the highest order looking to exploit any and all bloggers desperate for some cash? Are they just being smart by relying on inexperienced and easily bought bloggers, knowing that if they put the bait out there they'll get the bites even if their offers are little more than scraps?

Publisher or advertiser, you have to wonder just how many times this happens every day. Does it matter? Should the blogger have walked away or taken the deal? What would you have done if you were our hapless hero?  There's probably a moral in all this somewhere and I know what I think, but what about you folks out there? You are the bloggers and advertisers, do you condone or condemn these things? Bloggers, would you have been tempted by the promise of money? Would the amount have even mattered? Advertisers, would you have been happy to know how your advertising budget was being spent? Do the blogger's ethical standpoints lose weight as the prices go up? Is it even really about anything as highbrow as ethics or is it just about fair compensation for publishers?    

If you've been a reader of my blog you probably have a good idea of my views, but in this instance what matters are your opinions. Bring them on..