On 12/29/06, Rick Schummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First I will say I have never accepted a dime for ads on my Web site, never > blogged after being > "bribed", and have not made up my mind if this is something right or wrong. I > do know disclosure is > an absolute requirement if it is in play. I have not even loaded Vista yet on > a Virtual or real PC. > No one sent me a free laptop for Christmas, I bought my own, Vista capable - > running XP Pro.
Rick: Sorry to hear you were not among the "lucky winners," but let me say that I have never had any doubts as to the honest truth of your writings in books, magazines or blogs. This can be an ethical slippery slope. (And take it from a guy who's fallen down that slope a few times <g>) Magazines that write reviews of products usually have a code of ethics which dictates that reviewers are not to be paid or given free materials in exchange for a review. Big "J" Journalists consider this an absolute rule; some trade publications are more lax. It is not in a vendor's interest to take back a review copy, so they often ignore this rule. I've reviewed a few pieces of software in my day - xCase and DynaZIP come to mind - and I bought copies of them for commercial use. > There are two other points of view on this topic: > 1) Paid endorsements are not uncommon in marketing. Just watch your TV for > more than 5 minutes, open > any newspaper, heck - even open you yellow pages book if you still have one > around. Even someone > like Dan Marino is endorsing some weight loss program these days. All are > getting something to push > a product into your face. > There's nothing wrong with paid endorsements. The problem is disclosure. TV ads show "Paid Endorsement" on them, as newspapers clearly mark advertisements. With bloggers, it's more tiresome. I know I regularly read bloggers like Doc Searls and Dave Winer, who have to keep repeating "I'm on the board of xyz.com" or "I made a financial investment in abc." Some have gone to the tactic of adding a "Disclosures" page to their blog and just add a "see Disclosures" link when they feel it necessary. > 1) Microsoft did not declare a review had to be written, did not even ask the > potential reviewer to > say something nice, and did not declare they even had to accept the "bribe". > If a $5k laptop arrives on my door with a note "no strings attached," I am going to have a more positive view of the vendor. > 2) Microsoft takes a risk as do any company doing any marketing. To > paraphrase something Whil put so > eloquently once (or maybe twice): when it comes to marketing, nothing works. > But we all try to do > things hoping something does. Microsoft is trying out the "new media" as are > a lot of companies. Much as it pains me to say this. Microsoft has done nothing wrong in this act. They are a vendor and they are trying to influence people in the market whose opinions are followed. The "blame" and I don't even think it should be that strong, is at the feet of the recipients. Each should add a "Microsoft tried to buy me off" entry to their blogs. That's fine. Disclosure is the key there. > Or is this another opinion you are forming because you really dislike > Microsoft and by default it is evil? That's a separate discussion <s>. Microsoft may be evil, but we know you're not. > My mind is open. That's cool. There's nothing wrong with vendors showering you with free stuff. You just need to disclose it. My disclaimer page is at http://www.tedroche.com/blog/?page_id=2621. -- Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
