1. alan herrell - the head lemur on April 8, 2005 08:20 AM writes...

Rolling On Floor Laughing My F**king A** Off

2. Janet on April 8, 2005 05:58 PM writes...

I think you'll find we will participate in many forms of marketing - including traditional sponsorships, as any good marketer would.

We believe in aligning ourselves with lively discussions about using technology wisely as marketers - which is why we signed up to sponsor FeedFest...

My comment about the irony of the situation was this:

You and Jason refused to listen to Marqui's point of view (read the chat portion of the debate- you guys discussed headset technology and other things that I refuse to mention every time he had the floor).

I was reminded of little boys playing foursquare and continually changing the rules.

I hope the next set of discussions are more serious and that the participants have more respect for each other. I think it's really time for blogging to grow up, and if we're part of the process, so be it.

3. Shelley on April 8, 2005 06:11 PM writes...

Stowe, you really did lose a lot of credibility with this.

You have said people shouldn't be paid to deliver content based on sponsorship. But then you participated in an event whereby content was delivered...based on sponsorship.

Marqui didn't just generally sponsor a conference -- it sponsored an activity.

Where is the difference?

4. Eric Rice on April 9, 2005 08:04 PM writes...

There's still an uproar? Heh.

5. Stowe Boyd on April 10, 2005 05:43 PM writes...

Janet - I didn't talk about headsets. I think that was Jason. I tried hard to *not* sensationalize the debate, and to respond to the arguments that were being presented by Marc and Stephen. Marc and Jason at times were over the top, but that's their characters. I don't think it was like 'little boys' changing the rules. To the extent there were rules (were there?) I don't think I tried to change anything. I simply presented my viewpoint, and argued in a relatively moderate tone.

Shelley - I have said that people shouldn't accept money to blog about products. Marqui sponsored Feedfest, which is a multiweek online event, and someone suggested (either Alex Williams at Corante or the folks at Marqui) a debate about Marquiism. Alex asked me to participate, and I said yes. I was not paid to participate, nor was Jason, although some tiny reward may trickle through Corante's finances to me in some byzantine way, just like advertising revenues trickle through to print journalists in a conventional media company. So again, the apparent irony falls flat. I am happy to debate the con side of Marquiism at any time. I have written dozens of pieces against it, without any direct support for doing so, and will continue to do so. Marqui's sponsorship of a debate about their own dubious marketing approach, and then their seemingly calculated attack on us for participating in something that they wanted to take place is just more sensationalist mumbo-jumbo, and an attempt to push the discussion away from the real issue. Once again, the idea that I have lost credibility is off target: the implication is that we should prohibit Marqui from participation in normal media sponsorship, just because we disagree with them about other activities they are involved in. Mostg importantly, the point that is being lost is that we debated "Marquiism" -- the marketing approach involved -- not Marqui, the company, it's motivations, products, or plans. And just because people conflate the two doesn't make them the same.

6. Shelley on April 10, 2005 06:34 PM writes...

I agree with what you said about Marc and Jason and being over the top, and I can acknowledge that you weren't paid directly by Marqui, but Corante was.

But to have a debate about a company's actions, sponsored by that same company casts a rather sticky glow over the event.

You've told webloggers that taking money from Marqui casts doubt on their credibility. Making a statment such as that then casts your own actions into a very strong light of examination. Like Caesar's wife, you have to be beyond reproach.

In the end, if Marqui wanted to become known and increase its Google presence, it succeeded. If it wanted to generate interest in using the product, well, no, I don't anyone came away with wanting to use the product. I don't many people came away even knowing what the product is, and this is where Marqui will take its hit in the long run.

As for weblogger credibility, as we've seen, credibility is cumulative in weblogging. So you've not really taken a hit, and neither has the webloggers involved in Marqui. Not for this specific activity.

7. Stowe Boyd on April 11, 2005 08:56 AM writes...

Shelley - Let's pin this down. I have stated that I think bloggers should not take money to blog about a company or its products. As I said, I have written a lot about the rationale for that, and I won't recap here, in a comment. I have *not* said that bloggers should not take sponsorship from Marqui for conventional marketing. Marqui is a sponsor of Feedfest, and wanted to sponsor a debate about Marquiism -- the pros and cons of that approach to blog sponsorship, which is a significant issue in the blogosphere. I don't view this as a discussion about Marqui's corporate actions, per se, although they might view it that way. I am concerned about the principles involved. I am happy that they wanted to have such a debate, and that they are participating in more or less conventional marketing: namely, sponsoring an event. This is no different than us holding a real-world conference -- which Marqui would be free to support -- and having a debate there. And once again, I am not being compensated for taking part, except in the most remote way; as I said, like a print journalist getting compensated indirectly by ad revenues. And the sponsorship of Feedfest has no relationship, whatsoever, with what I am blogging about at Get Real. Your efforts to equate the debate and my actions around it to the blog shills who accept money in exchange for writing about a company or a product are just wrong.

8. stavrosthewonderchicken on April 13, 2005 01:31 AM writes...

It seems to me to be an arbitrarily fine line to draw between 'accepting money in exchange for writing about a company' and 'taking sponsorship..for conventional marketing'. I would draw the line, if I were a line-drawing fellow, far to port of both activities.

If the discussion is about personal monetary compensation from blogwhoring in its many aspects, the point has been missed, I reckon.

9. Shelley on April 13, 2005 03:11 PM writes...

Stowe, you're judging your actions based on your assumptions and saying that I'm wrong and you're right. Well, this is good blogging practice, but I have to disagree.

The only reason I've even belabored this point is you have been quite harsh on those who took money to point to Marqui. At least, I think it was harsh.

You've coined a term, Marquiism, and said the debate wasn't about the corporate Marqui but the concept of Marquiism, and therefore this is different. It's as if this gives you enough level of removes so you aren't tainted by the fact that Marqui, the company, directly sponsored a debate about 'Marqui types of sponsorship', as a form of blogger action--Marquiism.

So I will agree with you, and am then inviting Marqui to sponsor me to discuss this convesation and Marquiism in general in my weblog, and know that I don't fit your interpretation of 'shill'.

Janet, are you there? Contact me, please.

10. Stowe Boyd on April 13, 2005 04:32 PM writes...

Shelley -

I don't think I am splitting hairs. Marqui is not sponsoring me to blog about anything, here at Get Real or elsewhere. They sponsored Feedfest, which I was not really involved with, except as a debater, for which I am not being compensated. Yes, funds trickled into Corante from that sponsorship, and some tiny fraction of that may someday trickle to me, but it wasn't because I joined in the debate. I would get the same 11 cents from it no matter what - whether I participated or not.

Note that it is *not* Marquiism to accept sponsorship money from a company for event sponsorship, and then share the podium with them. That is a common practice. Note that we never once plugged Marqui or its products: we simply argued about the practice of Marquiism.

The real debate that is being lost -- which Stavros pointed out earlier in this thread -- is about bloggers being paid explicitly to blog about products by companies. Your ongoing effort to make the case that my arguing *against* Marquiism in a debate at a Corante virtual event is some way equivalent to taking money for blogging about a company or its products. It is not.

However Marqui has become so self-obsessed with Marquiism that they act like they are the same in some way. Perhaps thats because so many of the bloggers being paid by Marqui have opted to blog about the controversy, and Marqui has accepted that as satisfying the terms of the agreement?

But my point is this: I am not attacking Marqui, but this form of marketing. This is the difference between an instance of a class of things and the class of things itself. Conflating them together is sophistry.

And, once again, that does not mean that Marqui shouldn't have a perfect right to participate in more or less conventional marketing, despite the fact that I disapprove of Marquiiism.

11. stavrosthewonderchicken on April 13, 2005 08:46 PM writes...

I may have been excessively gnomic there, above, and my own point was lost as a result. I wasn't so much saying that the real debate is about bloggers being paid to write about products.

In fact, just the opposite -- I meant to say that focusing on that phenomenen alone misses the larger and (to me) much more sinister and distressing colonization of the blog space by corporate interests, which has the same corrosive effects of cash that we see anywhere else.

Inevitable, certainly. We've been talking about it for years. But it's certainly something to be vigilant about, and my suggestion is that saying 'X is OK but Y is not' (where X='money in exchange for writing about a company' and Y='taking sponsorship..for conventional marketing') when talking about all of this may just be a trees-and-forest problem.

But I am quite probably missing nuance and a history to the conversation, as I am wont to do.

And I am a terrible crank when it comes to my loathing of marketing and advertising in all its forms, I admit, so grain of salt, perhaps.

12. stavrosthewonderchicken on April 14, 2005 01:53 AM writes...

Er, reverse X and Y. That's what I get for posting before my first coffee.

13. Phil Wolff on April 14, 2005 09:23 PM writes...

When I first heard about it I felt all icky inside. But two things make feel better about this promotional strategy:

A. Upfrontedness and Transparency. Everyone involved disclaimed away so readers wouldn't be mislead. This is called trusting readers to make up their own minds. This lets me interpret Bert as being frank and Ernie as a blatant blognosing.

B. Moral Relativism. Applying norms of one culture (journalism) to many others may not be appropriate. After all, one person calls the police over the same experience for which another pays dearly, and one person's prayer is another's blasphemy.

The blogosphere is a huge place and if a someone wants to pay me to write about Gummi Bears or the Oakland A's or sex with Gummi Bears, then that's between me, my sponsor, and my readers. So long as no third party is harmed in the production of this blog (apart from some unnamed Gummis) then all's fair.

I think calling paying-bloggers-to-write-anything-about-my-product by a variant of the sponsor's name is just mean. Accountable, but cruel. Perhaps you could have named it after the marketing VP who approved it, or after Marc who ran with it, or borrowed a word from radio: payola.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola#Payola