Blogging Dilemma: Are Sponsored Reviews Ethical?

Posted by Mihaela Lica as Public Relations

If you're new here, you may want to sign up for email alerts or to subscribe to my RSS feed.

First: don’t forget about the writing contest. It’s still running and, although I have enough quotes from excellent writers, there are chances that we’ll need even more writers in the future and building up a good writers database seems to be a sensible thing to do. Now to the topic of today’s entry.

There’s a lot of controversy when it comes to sponsored reviews. We have pros, we have cons, and we even have the middle way: a “maybe” followed by a few “ifs.” We have disclosures to justify the presence of sponsored reviews on our pages, we have disclosures at the end of a sponsored entry or at the beginning, and we even make special categories for them. There are bloggers who consider sponsored reviews unethical – mere an unfair manipulation of the consumer’s mind, especially when it comes to reviewing products (like face creams, iPods, etc). Others speak against this advertising practice because the review will almost always contain a paid link and links are used for SEO purposes.

I am an online public relations expert. My job is to make a business known and for me sponsored reviews are a great tool: both for blog monetization and for building buzz for my clients. I find programs like V7 contextual (which sell contextual links with no disclosure whatsoever) more unethical than sponsored reviews, but I’ll come clean and admit that yes, I’ve recommended this program for a client and the results were not what we expected. But this is not about V7 contextual. This is about real sponsored reviews. The PayPerPost type. The Bloggitive and Blogsvertise type. Tools that help the writers make an extra income and give advertisers a boost (sometimes not really well deserved).

My experience with paid reviews is quite positive. To my surprise some of the people employing these tools really pay for genuine feedback. If a blogger will be allowed to add a “rel=nofollow” in the review, we’d have no problem about the links and we’ll still be able to give good feedback to the ones who pay for our opinions. From a PR point of view this is what any advertiser should look for in a paid review: the honest opinion of the reviewer, which is valuable feedback that will help the advertiser understand what to do to improve a website, service and product.

What I would like to know is: what’s your take on sponsored reviews?

Amazon.com Widgets

17 Responses

Michi

June 24th, 2007 at 1:25 am
1

I think that sponsored review are fine IF they are disclosed as such. I admit to using things like that on my blog because it pays a bit and sometimes I get the opportunity to learn about really interesting things. However, I won’t work for anyone that won’t allow me to tell readers that the post is sponsored and to be honest about the company/product/service. I don’t feel like lying to people and making them think that I endorse something or think it’s great if I don’t.
Diogenes

June 24th, 2007 at 8:56 am
2

There is no harm in doing declared ’sponsered reviews’ in this material material world.
Simonne

June 24th, 2007 at 10:17 am
3

Sponsored reviews can be very useful, both for the reviewed company and for the readers. The reviewed company gets insights from potential clients, and finds out ways of fine-tuning their services or their communication. The readers may discover useful things they did not know about. I discovered many good services by reading paid reviews on blogs. Yet, bloggers should disclose the sponsored reviews and they should try to be honest and objective.
Lillie Ammann

June 24th, 2007 at 11:42 am
4

I have no problem with sponsored reviews if the sponsorship is disclosed. But I generally take them “with a grain of salt,” especially if they are just vague accolades about what a great company it is.

I respect you because I’ve read sponsored reviews you have written that offer valuable critiques for the company being reviewed, and sometimes they take your advice and make improvements. Many bloggers who write sponsored reviews, though, don’t seem to contribute much more than a link and a little rambling about the subject.
Mihaela Lica

June 24th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
5

Michi, I was expecting such an answer from you. I’ve read your reviews and I noticed that you choose what you really like. How can I tell that you really like your topics? It’s your passion! You are an amazing writer.
Mihaela Lica

June 24th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
6

Yes Dio, you are right. There is no harm, unless the blogger lies about his/her feelings towards a product/service/company. Then it is wrong because it’s deceiving the readers.
Mihaela Lica

June 24th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
7

Simonne, your words match exactly my feelings on this matter. Many companies pay heavy money on reviews to understand how the market really feels about their products and how to improve their services/brand. Yet the amount of meaningless reviews is stunning. Most of the reviews I read are keyword rich blabs about a service or website, with some links where the anchor text makes less sense than the whole content of the review. I have a problem with these links. The blogger should have the freedom to link however he/she wants. Or we should just stop calling the reviews “sponsored reviews” and start calling them “paid contextual links” or something like that.
Mihaela Lica

June 24th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
8

Lillie, I was expecting such a comment from you. I admire and respect you a lot too. You are one of the most ethical bloggers I know. It’s a honor for me to have your respect.
You point out a very important aspect of the reviews. Writers should do their best to give honest opinions and help the companies that pay to improve their services. Unfortunately not many bloggers care enough to really review a site. And I think this is lack of respect for the readers and for the paying company.
Baxter Tocher

June 24th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
9

Mihaela, thanks for taking the time to comment on this subject over at The Far Corner.

The problem I have is that even those reviews which have been paid for, yet are reviewed in a negative light, just make me feel a bit uncomfortable. Would the blogger have drawn the product to our attention at all if there was no payment changing hands? Most likely not.

I’m happy to write a good review of any software I use and feel can recommend to others, with no payment attached to those reviews. Likewise for any internet service I feel is useful.
Mihaela Lica

June 24th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
10

I understand your point, but that’s the whole purpose of paid reviews: to introduce a product/service/company to the public. And this way is way better than trhough TV commercials which just praise the product. To get paid for the time you take to review a product is more than fair. After all, time is money.
Baxter Tocher

June 24th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
11

You’re talking to someone who doesn’t buy anything he sees in adverts

I don’t disagree that you should be able to be paid to review a product or service, but if it’s so obvious, it becomes a turn off for me. When I see “this is a paid post”, I don’t read the article. And if I see too many on the same site or RSS feed, I simply unplug from it and don’t go back there. And, assuming I’m not the only one who does this, the reviewer gets their money, and loses their readership. I guess it’s about the blogger’s motivation. Is it about money or blogging?

Word of mouth means much more to me. Think of Linux, for example. And word of mouth is how all the successful so-called web 2.0 sites have managed. Heck, has Google even paid for advertising anywhere?
Mihaela Lica

June 24th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
12

I’ll be really brief: yes. Google paid. A lot. And it still does.
And yes, Linux paid.

Trust me.
Baxter Tocher

June 24th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
13

Ah, well. I’ve still never seen an advert for Google, or Debian Linux. Or AMD processors, when I think about it.
Mihaela Lica

June 24th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
14

I am sure you mean a sponsored review not an advert. For an advert you just need to scroll down to the footer of my site and you’ll get two. “make your PC more useful. Get the free Google Pack” and “This site recommends Google AdSense for targeted ads.” Google runs its own adverts in ads by Google, those AdSense bloks. Their commercials are everywhere online. The reason you don’t see them is because they are too obvious. They don’t need to pay for reviews, but they do pay for press releases and all possible buzz. Their PR campaigns are different, and function better because they have more funds and they know the market enough to employ the most effective tools. The moment they give away a free tool they “pay” for buzz. Payments are different. They could be prizes, they could be free ebooks, free software etc. We could debate hours on this issue but the conclusion will be the same: they all pay for buzz.
Sponsored reviews are a good solution for small businesses. Those businesses that cannot afford to give away free tools. Sometimes for a business giving away free stuff is more expensive than a few well targeted paid reviews.
Baxter Tocher

June 27th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
15

No, I meant a proper advert rather than a sponsored review.

Mihaela, I run AdSense too. But my point was, to my knowledge Google, Debian Linux and AMD have never “advertised” in the accepted sense of the word, i.e. in newspapers, on television, in cinemas; in other words, in the mass media. I’ve never seen an advert for them there. I may have been lucky, but I’ve never seen any advertising for them on any web pages, other than the little “ads by Google” thing. Though I take your point that that’s “buzz”.

But as far as I know they haven’t splashed onto the really pervasive places where the vast majority of the public would see them. (If they have, let someone show me a scan from a magazine with a high circulation figure!). And I know they don’t need to pay for sponsored reviews. If they did, I’d not read them and go read something else.
Mihaela Lica

June 28th, 2007 at 7:07 am
16

Oh, I wish I’d still have that magazine where Google run its ads in Germany to scan it for you! It’s called “COMPUTER WOCHE”

Even in the “STERN” you feel the “Google touch” every once in a while. I told you, everyone pays for advertising. It’s just a matter of what and what you can afford. These giant corporations you talk about do use traditional advertising. AMD video commercials and one with the “google touch” plus an Linux
Yes, they ALL run traditional ads, in the MEDIA. And yes, a simple press release counts too.

Enjoy.

Mig
Baxter Tocher

June 28th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
17

I stand corrected on my comment about them not advertising.in the media.

However, if they don’t advertise in the media HERE (I’m in the UK), you shouldn’t be surprised that I’ve never seen them. And if they DO advertise here, they’ve obviously wasted their dollars as I’ve never ever seen one of their ads. These are all new to me. (And, trust me – I do have a television!) So I agree with the comment that you made on my blog we are just wasting our time.

(Oh, and incidentally – I still don’t see any Debian Linux, only Red Hat, which is a commercial distribution!)