The (Positive, Enthusiastic, Subsidized) Critics of the Future?
I try not to do too many navel-gazing, whither-the-future-of-criticism posts, but today's New York Times feature on bloggers paid to do sponsored posts promoting products is the sort of thing that gives me the heebie jeebies.
In a nutshell: successful bloggers can now earn income and freebies by doing posts and videos for advertisers like Healthy Choice, Blockbuster and—and now they're getting into my house—TV shows. The bloggers get paid; the advertisers, in a cluttered media market, get marketed to an engaged audience through someone perceived as trusted and "real."
The defense of the bloggers in the piece is that they identify their sponsored posts and don't praise products they don't genuinely like. I'm willing to believe that. It still gives me the heebie-jeebies.
Media critics and journalism watchdogs usually focus on more insidious, hidden forms of influence and conflict: payola, hidden corporate connections, bogus or planted reviews. That's understandable: transparency in sponsorship lets the reader judge, and a hidden bias is the most dangerous one.
But hidden, sinister promotion deals are not necessarily easy to pull off; hamfisted product placements can look cheesy; and out-and-out scams can blow up in an advertiser's face. I'm usually of the opinion that transparency is the best disinfectant, and that as long as someone discloses that they've been paid to write something, the buyer can beware.
I have to wonder, though, about the effect of this practice on the larger ecology of reviewing—not only, or even especially, of arts works, but foods and toys and electronics and the whole world of stuff-you-buy. If a blogger genuinely likes a certain stereo, say, and blogs about it for free, with no one editing his or her copy, nothing dishonest has happened. If a blogger genuinely likes that stereo and blogs about it, with no one editing his or her copy—but is paid to—nothing dishonest has happened. At least literally. No one has told a lie about the perceived merits of the product.
What does happen, though, is that you incentivize a certain kind of writing. I am willing to believe that most people are not evil; that even for money, bloggers like the ones in this article will not lie. They are free to like Healthy Choice, and they are free to hate Healthy Choice.
But they can only get paid for liking Healthy Choice. (One quoted blogger defends the practice by saying, “I don't blog about a product if I don't really like it.” That's exactly the point: you dislike it, you don't blog about it.)
Does that mean you lie? No reason it should. If you are honest, then you write honestly. But—you do have more incentive to write positively. The incentive is to find those things you like—genuinely, honest-to-God like—and focus on those.
Maybe, in fact, it is in your nature to believe that people should focus on the positive. Maybe you sincerely believe, to your core, that there is enough negativity in the world, and that the world needs more writers who celebrate the things they love. Very well, then: you can get paid for following your principles. And someone with the opposite set of principles cannot, at least not in the same way.
I realize I may be overstating this. Maybe any writer, to have credibility, has to be willing to say what he or she likes and dislikes. Maybe enough negative reviews will get out—from dissatisfied customers, free of charge—that the truth will out.
But if there's more incentive on one side of the equation, then I have to wonder if this isn't a way of creating a more seller-friendly blogosphere, without having to turn anyone into shills (and thus sacrifice credibility). After all, no one is being asked to lie. We're just asking for more positive honesty.
In the meantime, I'm going to get in touch with Bravo, and see if they're willing to pay me for a negative review of NYC Prep.
-
1
I hope writers take a stand and do not accept advertisement money just because it pays well. It should be in line with the mission of the blog.
-
2
Interesting, I guess its just more reason to read more than one blog for an opinion if one cares that much. A note saying this was a paid review would also be nice too.
.
JP: Isn't the swag you get with shows is kind of the same thing? I mean, its certainly not money and you're not obligated to write a good review, but what if a heist show sent out coins, would that be payment?-
2.1
@yogi: I think it would be similar if the swag were contingent on a positive review. It's the element of incentivizing only positivity that gets me.
Or, another hypothetical: say I were totally free to write a positive or negative review of HawthoRNe. But if I wrote a POSITIVE review, Lifetime would also send me $100.
But I would totally have given a thumbs up review in exchange for a bottle of HawthoRNe Vicodin.
-
-
3
I have to say this does not bother me all that much. Maybe growing up listening to radio announcers tell me how much they like one particular bed store or restaurant or whatever puts me of a mind that the reference is a for what it is worth variety.
Transparency tells you that is what you are getting. If you are at Time.com you don't have to worry about it, but at KNBR (SF Sports Radio Leader) think twice. It is going to happen as the web provides so much flexibility as to commentary. That is what it is great at, so embrace it and learn to consider the source. -
4
Maybe blogs exist to counter the cynicism and negativity of professional critics? Maybe they took it to heart when their mothers said that if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. Maybe you're jealous that you have to watch every awful show that comes along and bloggers can choose what they write about. I don't mean to pick on you, but critics have a reputation for being mean cynical people. They even made a show about it.
-
5
@lhillberg: That's a good point about the radio announcers. It also always really chapped my hide. Paul Harvey was telling you the news 10 seconds ago and now he's talking to you in the same voice about a new and fabulous product that he, personally, adores. It would take me a few seconds to switch gears from "valid and actual information" to "shilling for some product." That was purposeful, and I always thought it was deeply disingenuous.
This issue came up about a year ago on Ctrl-Alt-Del when I realized that the author, who writes comics and blogs about various video game stuff, was being paid to sing the praises of some fancy bean bag. At first, I thought he just really liked them and I was like, "Huh, they sound kinda cool." Then when he began to laud the company in earnest and (at great length), I realized it was obviously a product placement instead of a user review. This meant that I couldn't ever trust anything he said about a product ever again, and thus have never read a word he's typed since. I used to care what he thought and it influenced some purchases of mine. That's all done now. Pretty sure I'd feel that way about anyone writing 'positively incentivized content.'
-
6
It seems there's a sketchiness around the TV critic business these days.
One critic whom you link to writes so obsessively about Comic-Con, weeks before it's set to commence, that by reading her work you'd think that was the *ONLY* thing that's been happening in the TV world the past month and a half. And she's moderating a panel and presumably attending Comic-Con for free. Is she essentially getting compensated to be a public relations shill for Comic-Con? It's hard to tell these days.
Another critic that you link to is good friends with several TV actors and TV creators and TV personalites. He even brags about being in the same fantasy league with them. So what happens when he has to write a review of their work (which he has)?
I understand that TV critics sometimes have to wear the reporter hat, too, but shouldn't there be some kind of professional.
My point is that well-regarded TV critics aren't always ethically in the clear.
-
6.1
I *think* I know who you're referring to, but I don't want to assume, so I'll just respond generally.
Re: Comic-Con--I'm pretty certain that no moderator is paid to attend Comic-Con. Press do get passes to it for free, like they attend numerous other conventions, expos, sporting event, etc., for free if they're covering them. News orgs pay for travel, lodging, etc., for reporters on assignment, so I don't know that getting into the event creates a sense of indebtedness (since your employer would otherwise pick up the tab anyway).
As for making friends: yeah, that's a hazard of a lot of journalistic beats. (I tend to be more on the side of keeping distance, but that's easier for me because I'm an unlikeable bastard anyway.) I would think you'd want to disclose that, which it seems the critic you refer to does--that is, I assume, how you know about it.
Anyway, overall, you're absolutely right: "mainstream," "traditional," "full-time" journalism is full of conflicts; I would never want to claim that it's not. (I have to write about HBO and TNT shows even though they're owned by the same company as TIME; I've blogged about Morning Joe's Starbucks product placement, etc.) I don't want to make this the righteous, principled professionals versus those wicked bloggers, because that's not what it is at all.
-
-
7
Claques have applauded in theaters for thousands of years. Shills have posted Letters to the Editor in Time magazine for decades. Of greater concern to me are physicians who take gifts or trips from drug or medical device companies. Caveat emptor, indeed!
-
8
Can't disagree with you in the least James - only posting positive reviews is logically equivalent to not posting negative reviews. That is not neutrality in any way, shape, or form.
Furthermore, the FTC should indeed demand that online ads be treated the same as reality-like television & print ads - labeled with the same "This is a paid advertisement" legalese that appears in their subtitles and subscripts, respectively.
Of course, the real issue is that people are ignoring the review lessons Consumer Reports learned decades back - acquire everything with your own funding, and review nothing in a vacuum - everything is reviewed in comparison with similar products.
- poniewozik Loved the season. Mrs Tuned In wd have put u on the main list RT @boredtodeath Thank u for incl us in Time's Top 10. We'll take hon mention. - 3 hours ago
- poniewozik @carr2n Virgin is the best, LAX-JFK - 4 hours ago
- poniewozik Did NPR interview abt multiscreen multitasking. After, automatically reached for iPhone in pocket. Like don draper wd have for cigarettes. - 5 hours ago
Most Popular »
- Best of the Decade: Sci-Fi Movies
- "How Will Dave Ever Make Fun of Sex Scandals Again?"
- Is Harry Reid Burning Out?
- How Will Obama Pay For Stimulus 2.1? (or 3.0, 3.1, whatever you want to call it)
- Why Wells Fargo isn't paying back TARP
- CNN Poll: Man Made Global Warming Takes a Hit
- The Health Reform Abortion Wars, Part Deux
- War of the Supermen: Q&A With Matt Idelson
- Economists Growing More Wary of the Senate Health Bill
- Quinnipiac: Obama Gets Bump on Afghanistan
- The Truth Behind the Leaked Climate-Change E-Mails
- Mexico Witness Protection: Corrupt Program, New Killings
- Tiger Woods Must Face His Fans' Moral Outrage
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Taiwan: World's Lowest Birthrate Could Affect Society
- Creating Jobs: Can Obama Government Boost Employment?
- How Strong Is the Evidence Against Amanda Knox?
- U.S. Doesn't Know Where bin Laden Is; Time to Let Go
- Humanure: Goodbye, Toilets. Hello, Extreme Composting
- Study: Parents' Sex Talks with Kids Happening Too Late
Quotes of the Day »
RSS