"To expect me give my labor for free when you have deliberately passed on paying for advertisement on my site is tacky, rude and, quite frankly, insulting."

So wait...you'll only talk about something if someone PAYS you to do so? That seems wrong. It seems to me like you're just being treated with respect--like a journalist. You were told about the project--that doesn't obligate you to write about it. Are companies obligated to buy ads to every news outlet they send press releases to or do outreach to? Of course not, and we wouldn't want it that way.

If this is the face of the new blog movement, then I'm sticking to the mainstream media.

Emily, you didn't read what she wrote - she'll gladly give free exposure to a campaign that isn't paying for adds on other liberal blogs, but if they're spending money on adds on other blogs, they shouldn't ask her to do it for free.

Sounds perfectly fair to me.

Amen, sister!

Huh?!?!

In English please. I have read what you wrote five times and have no idea what you are talking about except that someone wants you to do something for free that you feel you should be paid work.

Yes and no. Clearly what the author is talking about is much more than simply a note telling her about a new product that she can either talk about or not. This sounds like she was brought in because this new outfit needed the help of liberal causes, and she did her bit, and then found the product/service advertised elsewhere, in a place that didn't do a thing to embrace their initial outreach.

IMO, that's sucky. Assistance goes both ways in the blogworld, and if you can't help your friends out with a little of that marketing budget, then it shows what you really think of said friends.

That said, there's also an inference in the diary that says she expects to be paid for her support, which is similarly questionable.

Ultimately, it's all about the nuance. It's easy to feel stung by an ad buy that never happens, even if it's hard to express why properly in print without sounding mercenary.

You tell it like it is, sister! LOL

DAFOAM: the problem is that the people involved were trying to be cheap - trying to sucker someone into giving them free advertising even though they'd already paid for it elsewhere. It'd be one thing if they wanted help spreading the idea _in addition to_ paid advertising, but to try to con a blogger into doing it in lieu of paid advertising is more than a litle rude.

well, it looks like the call is online. I just listened to it, and I didn't hear them say that they didn't have any marketing budget. I assume this is the one you're talking about? please tell me if I'm wrong!

http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/1431

Sean, I would never ask anybody to pay me for their support and I take offense at your interpretation.

It's that there is a tendency with a lot of organizations, especially progressive or progressive-friendly ones to cry 'poor'. "We have no money, help me", blah blah blah.

You know how Markos talks about politicians looking at the netroots as an ATM? This is basically a version of that.

Wait, so, did they explicitly tell you that they had no other media exposure? Did they ask you to promise publicity in exchange for information you couldn't get elsewhere? Did you end up writing about it, or did you deem it not worth your time and effort?

If this is in reference to the call linked above, it seems to me to be the equivalent of a press release. They reached out to you and it was up to you to decide if the project was worth a few column inches. Frankly, I find there to be a world of difference between a blogad and an actual well-written, analytical post in terms of exposure for worthy projects.

If a political candidate you supported asked for backers to blog about the campaign and also paid for TV or online ads, would you not talk about something you were interested in just out of spite? What about something like the ONE campaign to end global poverty? Is that not a worthwhile cause to blog about just because they also happen to have a media budget?

I think it's a positive sign that groups are trying harder to reach out to bloggers and respect them as opinion makers in a similar way they do traditional journalists. If you're only interested in product placement, that type of thinking is not going to persist and expand.

By the way, "exploitation" is misspelled in your original post.

I used to take the view when I was a print journalist that if someone was buying ads for their product or service it was an implicit admission that it wasn't worth writing about voluntarily. I certainly refused to write stories that were basically puffs for products that *ought* to be the subject of paid advertising, if only to encourage them to pay up.

But having said that, I wouldn't consider it unethical or impolite if an advertiser also chased editorial space: writing by a newspaper or site's editorial team is *always* going to be more effective than an advert, but its content isn't guaranteed.

So in this case it really came down to the manner of the approach and what they said the purpose of the call was. If they were straight-talking and said "we need all the help we can get to supplement our meagre budget and we value anything you can write for us", well there I can't see any objection, even if they were spending money elsewhere. On the other hand, if they were vague and woolly and created false expectations and didn't give all the information, then problems come in.

You see, on a newspaper you have an editorial department and an ad department each fighting their turf, the one trying to squeeze the maximum income with the other fiercely defending independence. Ethical questions and noise-out-of-joint moments tend to be spotted early and dealt with before they have a chance to blow up in people's faces.

But a blogger works alone - they are their own ad department and their own newsroom, and any clash of interests between the two is something they have to figure out for themselves.

With results like these.

I'm going to speak as a marketer here.

I do both press releases and advertising. Sometimes, the blogs and other sites that I advertise with choose to give me additional coverage. Sometimes it is to thank me for buying advertising, sometimes it is because they think I am doing something neat and interesting. Sometimes I get press coverage in blogs, news sites, or publications that I don't advertise in.

Advertising dollars are limited, for everyone. I and every other marketer have to make the best choices we can on where to advertise and hope to get some additional publicity if we do something cool.

You, as a writer/blogger, need to make decisions on what you are writing about. If your answer is that you *would* have written about them if they paid you, but won't because they paid other people and not you, then your credibility is somewhere with Armstrong Williams.

If you want credibility as a writer, then the decision of what you write about should be independent of whether or not there is an ad.

If you are trying to sell advertising, the best way to do it is to build readership

You tell 'em, Liza. Why should you blog about new approaches to progressive causes without getting paid. Only a sucker would write about something just because they believe in it. Ask Armstrong Williams.

#####

To Which Liza Responds :
If you think this is about payola or pay-for-play, you're an idiot.

I am co-owner of a Web development company and I know exactly what Liza is talking about. Even worthy organizations aren't immune to trying to take advantage of working people. It is our job to not let it happen.

By the way Liza - I found this blog as a link from DailyKos.com and I am so glad I did. You have a new fan.

What you are suggesting is very much frowned upon in "old media". There is a virtual chinese wall between advertising and editorial. The purchasing of advertising is not supposed to influence editorial content. In practice this is not exacly the case, but in purchasing advertising, if you were to suggest an overt quid pro quo, you would engender some very serious disapproving glances. Maybe you're piercing the veil. I'm leaning toward a conception that the pay to play ethic is exactly the sort of thing that makes the current bunch of hypocrites in power so venal.

Emily, you didn't read what she wrote - she'll gladly give free exposure to a campaign that isn't paying for adds on other liberal blogs, but if they're spending money on adds on other blogs, they shouldn't ask her to do it for free.

It seems to me what's going on here is that the same entity is working both sides of the journalistic office. In an actual newspaper, you have different people in charge of ads vs. content.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with people trying to interest you in something without buying an ad. It's looking for two different things. One is displaying an ad on your page, the other is getting you to write about it. You were being treated like a journalist and they tried to spin you; welcome to the big time.

The way I see it, people pay to advertise where they want. If they don't buy ads on my site, then they don't. It's their choice, and it has nothing to do, either way, with whether I will write about something or not. Sometimes they buy through the Advertise Liberally Network (or at least I assume so as I will see the same ads on other sites in the network). But I often see ads elsewhere that are not on my site. Should I feel bad about it? Should I blacklist their cause?

I've not hesitated from writing about something because of ad buys on my site or elsewhere. I suppose it's a bigger issue for professional bloggers who eat off that money. Ads on my site don't pay that much. But I'd like to think that my decision on whether I write about something is not based upon how they spend their money on my site or elsewhere in the blogosphere.

it really doesn't seem like something to cry about. so, they paid the DailyKos for an ad, but they never offered to pay you. i'm not being harsh, but this blog is NOT the dailykos in terms of its influence.

i agree with Lee Amon, marketers are trying to make the most of their money, if they divide up a list of media into those they want to pay and those they want to pitch their product/idea to, in the hope that they will garner a mention, then what is the problem? it seems as though the only problem is that such a strategy has bruised your ego (and i thought it was just boys who got upset about who had the Biggest X or the Biggest Y)

if you feel hurt, then don't bother covering it. i think writing about your hurt and disingenuously not mentioning the company (but making enough hints to identify - a la Valerie Plame!) is immature. we all have our personal and professional knockbacks - we don't all feel a need to try and strike back in the public sphere - you have made yourself look whiny and small-minded in the process, and that may not be a fair reflection of your true character.

Jason Kennedy's comment is well made. Surely, you aren't a small minded, whiney person, Lisa.

I too am here via Daily Kos, link! That link annoyed me back in the Ohio election stealing events...he didn't address it for DAYS! Never had my full confidence since!

I have one suggestion to all Liberal sites: DO AS THE REPUBI'S DO: UNITE ENERGY AND EFFORTS!

Millions of brush-fires and no conflagration! Unite sites, co-op costs.

Is it possible?

If you think this is about payola or pay-for-play, you're an idiot.

Liza, with all due respect, you're an idiot if you don't see the impropriety in what you are advocating. Also, if the above post is any indication, you are a terrible writer. I can't imagine why you think anyone would pay you for your words.

I think there is a line, that if they had crossed, would make me agree with your point Liza.

If they had said specifically, "We think our idea is a great one but we simply have no marketing budget for this project. We can't afford any advertising for the project and we hope that you will assist us by getting the word out."

If they said that and then you found their blogads on some site I'd totally understand you're being pissed off. But according to your post that's NOT what they said. YOU said, "In other words, I thought they were not spending any money to advertise this project."

Well that makes it sound like it was your interpretation and not something they said explicitly.

There is nothing wrong with trying to get the word out with a conference call and hoping for some free mentions. Its the modern day equivelent of a press release. And organizations send out press releases while spending money for advertising (even if its a small budget) all the time.

If this is the site we all think it is, its a labor organization and they've been dealing with advertising/marketing for a long time, way before blogs even existed and they're just using the same approach they have for decades except using a more modern means (conference call instead of press release and blogad instead of newspaper ad).

Hey there.

There's an old Jewish joke -- wouldn't surprise me if it had equivalents in other cultures; parallel evolution and all that. Goes like this:

The old village Rabbi is the one you'd go to if you had a dispute with a neighbor and needed it adjudicated.

So one day these two characters show up and the first one lays out his case -- and the Rebbe, totally bowled over by the presentation, says, "Clearly you are right."

But his wife, hearing this, says, "Whatta you meshugeneh, you can't decide that! You haven't even heard the other side! You must hear both sides before you decide this case."

So the other guy lays out his side of the story, and when he's done, the Rebbe, totally overwhelmed, says, "Well, clearly YOU are right."

And his wife of course totally loses it, and yells, "You can't decide for BOTH of them -- you have to pick one side!"

And the Rabbi says, "And you, too, are right."

You're in a situation here where it's entirely possible that all the players are "right."

Those-who-must-not-be-named (I suspect I know who but will respect your desire not to publicize them further, tho I think you're being silly about that) are trying, with the usual budgetary limitations of pretty much anyone that's not a big corporation, is trying to publicize their little contest.

They spend what they can on some blogs -- and then try to get the viral thing going with other blogs, too. They obviously can't afford to put an ad on EVERY single blog out there; what are we, up to several milliion, I just read?

You, reasonably enough, don't like NOT being one of the Chosen, and get resentful.

so tell me: what are they supposed to do?

What are you supposed to do?

You want to further progressive causes when and as you can -- but you also do need to get paid for your time, effort, expertise -- and the recognition of those that you've gotten by the placement you've earned so far, and are attempting to grow.

It's a conundrum.

I don't see any easy rules for you to decide when to give freebies and when not to -- there's an inrherent tension in the position you've put yourself in by going "pro" with your blog. Good luck resolving that tension as you grow.