Mark

Allow me to comment by way of analogy…

In the 1960s, there was a series of much-loved British comedies called the Carry On films. The actors, despite their local fame, were notoriously badly paid, so it was not unknown (in fact it was tolerated) for them to supplement their income by involving sponsors. Not only would Sid James, who was one of the leading men, write whisky-drinking scenes into the script, but he would also replce the bottle supplied by the props department with that of his sponsor. No one really noticed; no one really cared. We got our film, Sid got a few extra quid from Johnny Walker.

My point is that some people can get away with it, some people can't. I'm not going to go into the 'rules' and ethics of social media monetisation. Not because it isn't important, but because it depends on the person in question, their situation (eg whether they declare an interest) and their relationship with their audience.

Interesting point as always Mark, and the reason why I continue to read each of your blog posts, despite the Google ads on the right

Carry on blogging…

One fun side-effect of my time in the space is that I provide interesting fodder for blog posts looking at me for what I've done and who I am, etc. I'm often grateful, because they give me someone else's mirror to hold up.

Though I don't really cop to the "celebrity" status, I have most certainly come to a level where I'm on a few more people's radars and minds. But that also comes with a lot more opportunities for criticism.

I'm not in any way apologetic for experimenting with models for sponsored posts. My job is two-fold: to help big companies figure out how to interact on the web, and to help bloggers and personal media makers learn how to sustain themselves now that many people seem to be in need or work or at least supplemental income.

Because I'm neither a journalist nor a professionally-trained PR person, I'm willing to step over all the invisible lines to figure out what works and what doesn't. Despite some of the purists feeling that Kmart/Izea was somehow wrong, Kmart reported that they were very happy with the project, and there were hundreds and hundreds of readers who participated with the post I had up on Dadomatic, and thousands overall.

So, of all the things you wrote, the one that really intrigued me (because I'm living it) was this:

"Is it possible to be a statesman AND a folk hero?"

That's the crux, eh? Because I have a very active community. I have lots of people who I've cultivated their friendships and trust over the last several years. I guess that's the folk side. But as things are getting bigger and bigger, how do I not make the mistake my ancestors have done, and fall into the trap of "forgetting" the people who I love?

That's my focus, if you want to know. Should I make some loot? That's not on the table. I'm working for my family. When the blogosphere decides to come and pay for my family's school clothes, they get a vote.

But can I sustain the level of community love and affection? That's my big goal.

i make $ from pimping out products too, but i have a few rules.

1. don't pimp outside of your "silos" (my silos are anything red state/package-goods worthy, food, bacon, liquor, guns, politics, etc).
2. don't be a shill. even if you're pimping out something for $. ppl need to be able to trust you. see rule #1
3. don't dilute your personal brand. your personal brand is why companies contact you.

if you don't follow these rules, you may lose some credibility with your audience and the brands.

Yup, at the end of the day, it's all about the money. We prove this over and over again. This is just another example.

Oh, and for the record, making money's not a bad thing. Without that motivation, the infrastructure that is enabling us to even have this conversation wouldn't exist.

Mark:

You mentioned the need for standards. I suggest that instead of standards, perhaps accepted guidelines. Standards imply control and we know that trying to control anyone or a message is not possible. Guidelines are self-imposed and seen as acceptable best practices.

When you said certification, my insides churned. Usually a governing body runs a mandated certification program, often state governments such as nursing boards or teaching agencies. Associations run optional certification programs, such as CAE (Certified Association Executive) or CPAs. (Regarding CPAs, in some places both the American Institute of CPAs and a state governing body runs it.) Do we really want a government mandated-approved blogging certification?

However, I think you’re on the right track. I believe that in an increasing hyper-connected world, people need to develop and refine the skills to shift from a focus on information as such to learning to judge reliable information, it source and the sponsors behind it. I think we need to shift from memorizing information to finding reliable sources. Then the audience would be the judge and jury about bloggers that were using acceptable blogging practices and those who weren’t.

Just my thoughts…

PS – I'm with Jeff Hurt above re: my reaction to the idea of "certification." I agree that accepted guidelines would be much more palatable – both to provide publishers with a benchmark and to educate "consumers/readers" regarding what is acceptable behavior, and what is not.

@jasonfalls beautifully written comment, Jason and a key idea about the really exciting time we live in. Yes, there is an audience for everyone. For the first time in history! Mankind has access to free, global, instantaneous communication. What do we choose to do with this power?? We are participating in such an incredibly important moment.

@Mark – I wonder if everyone would scramble, or if there's a large contingent of independent "renegades" who'd abstain from being part of any organized effort … even the establishment of benign promotion guidelines. Interesting idea, though. I'm sure we'll see someone try it before too long!

The question cannot be, as you say, "How do you monetize and keep your audience and integrity intact?" Such a question, as it applies to the social media industry, is generally and normally a call out of disingenuous intention and, more often, hidden, unarticulated, and darker motivation.

Sounds weighty, doesn't it?

Seems didactic, and morally self-satisfying, but usually, masks a hollow meaning and, on the contrary, a heavy dose of misunderstanding and maybe even double-speak.

Whatever question you want to pose and whichever sacrosanct-infusing mandates and rules you wish to explore for social media, you must clearly state — surely you must know — that social media and the web is an industry, with its own market, its own set of marketplace participants, and one that entitles those individuals who work in it with equal rights to the responsible pursuit of happiness and liberty as all other industries enjoy.

Start there. Then, and only then, start articulating moral pronoucements. Thanks for the chance to comment, and I appreciate it.

Mark – your commenters are an interesting crew, and Juan Lulli certainly stirs the pot with the best of them.

The pregnant question is whether social media is an industry like any other. It may be, the jury is still out. There are people who write and speak and consult in the Web. 2.0 space with no discernable bone fides other than their own celebrity. For them, this is a living — they've gathered followers, offered opinions, given advice without any foundation other than their own assertions. I use social media therefore I am.

The prospect of professional determinants — of objective standards of online behavior — would have a chilling effect on their business model, unless they are the ones to determine the standards.

Perhaps they would be good stewards, adopting standards that protected consumers of their art and science, or perhaps they will attempt to make policy that restricts competition. We have no modern template for social media as business. The era of self-published broadsheets gave way to broadcast, with its capital intensiveness and regulatory framework.

This is logical: Social Media will become regulated as a consequence of its growing influence. That may mean licenses, that may mean prior restraint and new applications to the libel law. It surely will involve blogging as a form of commercial speech, with restrictions on what can be said in posts about products, services, and second-party comments.

We have moved past caveat emptor in much commercial speech — as social media matures, it seems inevitable that we'll see some form of regulation. And that might bring about the development of standards of behavior quickly.

"But there are also thought-provoking criticisms out there from seemingly intelligent, well-meaning people. What’s going on?"

Perhaps these people found themselves falling into the "Do as I say, not as I do" category. That's sure to get people in an uproar.

Rather than begging people to buy a book about how to game the meritocricy by *using* pseudo "friendz," how 'bout an honest book like "The Cult of the Immature Wrongly-Empowered Sell-Out Amateurs Who Are Corrupting Commerce"? Too long?

Bottom line: "Trust Agents" is a Wiley Publishing marketing scam pure and simple. There's little there there. There's no expertise. It's opinion about a topic the authors have little experience in. Note: " Prior to roles in the media and events space [i.e. blogging and such], Chris had over 16 years of telecommunications experience in wireless and landline technologies, including enterprise software and hardware experience, project management expertise, and applications/solutions engineering experience." He's a tech guy posing as a makerting/PR expert!

For those here that apparently need a dose of adult guidance, here, let me boil it down for ya: Using people is wrong; Using "relationships" is immoral; Creating a pseudo religion to use relationships is a social pathogen.

For Christ sake. Praised?! This empty fuck and the legion of those who prop him and others like him up in social media should be horse whipped. Jesus. Get a grip.

- Amanda

The best "guideline" a blogger can have is full disclosure, and the best quality control we can exert is to vote with our clicks and pocketbooks.

Chris is Chris. Follow him or don't. Buy his book or don't. At least he's telling you what he's doing. Unlike many others in the marketplace (or the inside the DC beltway, for that matter).

Worth will be judged by the price people are willing to pay, to gain MORE value from something they already feel provides value. It's not a whole lot more complicated than that.

wow mark, having fun i see. we should all suggest to amanda that we prefer to remain professional. take the school yard trash talk someplace else.

here is my two cents. thanks to everyone for the exchange.

Personally, I’m tired of this conversation. It is the same conversation that has taken place since the beginning of commerce itself. The fact that social technologies now allow everyone to be involved with the conversation doesn’t make the issue any different.

Currently, it’s a conversation that is talking place in the vacuum of social media itself, by the very participants who are envious of each other’s successes. Chris Brogan wrote a book. Big deal. He was able to leverage his brand to sell a bunch of copies and make some money. No one forced anyone to buy it.

He however, is the first self-proclaimed non-journalist, or professionally trained PR person, who has turned his blogging efforts into a successful business model. Exactly what every member of his “tribe” hopes to accomplish.

So what’s the “thought leaders” knee jerk reaction to his success? We need to implement some industry standard; we need rules…off with his head, but nicely.

Relax. Stop thinking all consumers are idiots. The same technologies that allow everyone to participate, also allow us to educate and regulate. If it turns out that the people who purchased his book felt betrayed, they will not buy his next book and you will be hearing from them. Believe me, Chris will not be retiring on his proceeds from “Trust Agents.” He is obviously smart enough to understand why his tribe supported, recommended and purchased the book. He will harvest the lessons learned and contacts made from its journey, repackage them and sell them to you again. God Bless America.

Many folks are looking for a bedrock to build the foundation of social media marketing upon. It's not surprising that many then hang on the every word of people like Brogan. Teacher, guru, evangelist, trailblazer. Whatever label you choose, most people are looking for some sort of guide to follow.

When that guide, be it Brogan or Israel or Jaffe, seems to go off the path they've been telling the rest of us to follow, many are quick to assume they are lacking integrity or they've broken a trust.

The debate that ensues is good and everyone involved can usually learn something. Some ignore the indiscretion, some jump to their defence, some lose faith and some others find it for the first time.

The fact is, there are detours to take, new routes to imagine and flat earths to navigate. We need brave souls like Brogan to step off the path once in a while, scrape his knee and live to tell the tale so the rest of us are spared the pain or, better yet, have a new path to take.

@doctorjones

"Relax. Stop thinking all consumers are idiots."

That, from a comment above from David Beznau, has led me to see a defining point. That the web and social media represent a marketplace. In this marketplace are millions of citizens, producers and consumers, professionals and practitioners, buyers and sellers, etc. Particularly because of the transparency social media fosters, we the people — whether we be producers or consumers or anything in between in this space — are capable and equipped with the know-how to sense a loss of equitable and reciprocal value in commercial exchanges that occur in this marketplace. We know who are trust agents are. Generally speaking, the market sees no erosion in reciprocal value with Chris Brogan. Penning a blog on "loss of integrity" and attaching it to Chris Brogan is, at the very least, peculiar if not suspicious in its intent.

Hi Mark,

I'm pretty new to the blogging world – and this is definitely one of the most personally interesting posts I've seen so far.

From my own limited experience I'd say ( as others have) that Chris Brogan is pretty upfront about his activities – and I see absolutely nothing unethical with his marketing methods/ presentational practices. He's developed a great audience – and basically it's his right to put present whatever to them. After all, they're free to leave, voting with their feet ( or clicks or whatever)

The idea of a ruling body setting shuddering standards and (almost inevitably) cashing-in on certificates to well-behaved good boy bloggers … seems oppressive to me – and a threat to the wonderful freedom of speech that the internet represents.

Why should people complain if they don't like the path that Chris may (or may not) be taking ? Wouldn't it be more positive if they just followed another path? There's plenty of them.

Or they could even start a path of their own perhaps!

Best wishes from Hamburg

Will

@Juan As far as I know, you have never read my blog before. Certainly you have never commented on it or engaged with me. I have taken on many provocative topics usually because I don't know any better. I just write about what interests me.

I put a helluva lot of thought and work into this particular post. I would ask you to look at the body of work and get to know me before labeling anything about me as "suspicious."

If you really think this article was about attaching a "loss of integrity" to Brogan, I give up. Can't argue with that. I think I have been clear on my intent.

I hope you give the blog a fair assessment and return as a freqeunt contributor, Juan.

I learn something every day.

A few thoughts: I don't think there's a social media industry. I think these are tools.

I do think there's a social media movement, but that the tools aide this movement, they're not owned by the movement.

Know what it is? Hippies at the end of Woodstock, and I don't mean that in any derogatory way. It's that moment when people realized the movement and the methods weren't married. They'd had a kid, but that was it.

And yet…

Thanks for everything today, Mark. Your post and this commentary was a shining part in an otherwise bleak day.

A number of other SM bloggers seem to be (increasingly) promoting their firms so Chris is by no means alone in self-promotion. But I don't think he's the first to 'sell out' if he has (which I can't say I feel right now). I'll put up with some self-promotion in exchange for fewer personal Tweets (e.g. just got off a plane…) and to stop the 6, 7, 8 or 9 Tweets in a row. Spread 'em out; 3 in a row is enough. Let somebody else have a say!

Since Chris is openly acknowledging he is paid by some of the people he writes about he is covered under the government's possible intervention into paid content on blogs and other social media.

As an online writer who makes part of his income from blogging, I understand the allure of money and other freebies being offered out there. But it can be something that eventually costs more than readership if the FTC gets involved.

Regarding the regulatory question, the FTC and Congress are already invovled and looking at ways to deal with Social Media. Secondly, privacy agencies all over the world are also paying attention. Regulation is coming, fast.

From a totally personal point of view, Who's to say what's "right" or "wrong" from a marketing perspective. If there is full disclosure, what difference does it make what anyone says or does. It's all personal preference. If it works, Chris will be deemed a hero an visionary, if it doesn't, he'll likely come up with an angle and still be seen as a hero and visionary. But, at least he's trying to do something (and seemingly quite well).

The use of celebrities or seemingly unbiased users as pitch people has been a tactic for ever. Why should anyone expect this change.

I loved Chris' Woodstock analogy earlier in these comments. Free love, until they had the baby. Isn't that when "love" ceased to be "free" as well?

@ Juan – apology accepted

@chris. I agree that there is not a social media industry (yes = tools) but there is a blogging industry that is growing in importance, profitability and number of participants. Whether we self-regulate (as I suggested) or the FTC gets involved, there is critical mass and it seems likely it will be getting attention.

@everybody else – thanks for your zeal and extraordinary insights.

I think the bigger question is how Amanda Chapel managed to limit his/herself to just the one F-word in his/her comment. Wonders will never cease…

The "muse" gave birth to art. Art became a commodity in some ways, yet still exists in its original muse inpired state. Is blogging art? Some is. Was blogging birthed by muse? I think so. Andy Warhol literally sold prints of "$" painted in his "Factory" by students while captivating the aristocracy of the industry. Cool that we're in the midst of an evolving artform.

I stopped short when I came across this post in my Twitter in box today, and I'm amazed at the sheer volume of time and energy people are willing to expend criticizing someone who is successful. Full disclosure: I follow Chris on Twitter and have met him in person in Boston. In my 30 years in business and government, I can truly say he is one of the most genuine and nice business people I've met along the way. I hesitate to use the words authentic and transparent, because somehow these words have been co-opted by the social media community, and it seems like using them here makes them less…authentic. I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that Chris is pretty direct about his paid gigs or that he has written a book. He'd be a poor business person if he didn't promote his business. Chris has been blogging since it was called "journaling" – 10 years in social media is a very long time. It has always been my understanding that Chris runs a business, and like any smart business person, he uses all of the tools available to him to make a profit in his business. It would be blast if people could all just hang out all day on "The Twitter" and do all of this commenting as a hobby; that someone actually makes a living doing it is a good thing. His methods might not work for everyone, but there is plenty of room in this space for all sorts of ideas and philosophies, and hopefully, productive discussion.
Instead of expending energy speculating, criticizing and judging someone else's motivation and success, I wonder if the efforts of Chris's critics would be put to better use being more "business-like" and professional in advancing their own businesses. I'm appalled at some of the negative comments, especially the ones that seem like personal attacks.
There's an old fishermen's theory that goes like this: if you have 12 crabs in a basket, and one tries to climb out, the other 11 will kill themselves trying to pull him back in, rather than using their energy to get out too. Seems to me like this basket full of crabs is spending a lot of energy trying to pull one of the good guys down, rather than expending it on something useful, positive and productive.

This country has chosen capitalism. It may not be perfect, but it is what it is. Mr. Brogan has to participate in that to feed his family so that he is not draining money from the federal government. So, if someone has a problem with him, I wonder if there isn't a solution to their problem that lies closer to themselves? We don't need guidelines as much as we participate in improving our own judgement about who we listen to. Let the market decide about his book and value. I'm reading it and yes I paid for it and it has some good points in it. Some of it I will remember and some of it I will forget. But it takes some courage to put a book out there and I always give a writer credit for that.

The past few comments have turned into a fan page for Chris. That's fine. It's an open forum, but it really has gotten off topic of the social web's maturation in the areas of monetization, leadership and professionalism.

Perhaps by using a popular figure like Chris as an example (and if you really read the post, a POSITIVE example!) this was unavoidable. I think the angle worked because he is plowing new ground and taking the most flak for it. It's interesting to me to see what that flak says about us, the social media channel, and where we are heading.

Still, I'm proud of the conversation this has generated. I've learned a lot and have had many, many positive comments about this dialogue. As one person wrote, this article, and your comments, turned the conversation away from self-congratulations and "social media is awesome" to a spotlight on "what's next?"

Thank you so very much to all who have taken the time to comment.