RSS Feeds
Facebook
Twitter
Ask the Readers: How Much Money Would it Take For You to Compromise Your Principles? Print
Friday, 9th January 2009 (by J.D.)This article is about Ask the Readers, Marketing, Psychology, Real-Life
There was once a man who became a vegetarian. Because he believed that all living creatures have souls, he swore he would never again consume animal flesh. For three years, he ate only vegetable matter. People offered him money to eat meat, but he steadfastly refused.
“Will you try a turkey sandwich for $2?” a woman asked one day. “No,” he said.
“Will you try this hot dog for $20?” a little boy once asked at the county fair. “No,” he said.
“Will you try a piece of steak for $200?” asked his mother-in-law at her 70th birthday party. “No,” he said.
“Will you try a piece of ham for $2,000?” asked his wife on Christmas Day. The man considered it for a moment, but then he shouted, “No. I am a vegetarian. I will not eat meat!”
One day a crafty gentleman appeared to him. “Will you try a piece of bacon?” the gentleman asked. “All you have to do is tell me what you think of it — and then tell your friends. If you do this little thing, I will give you $20,000.”
What did the man do?
Have you ever wondered how much money it would take for you to compromise your principles? I’ve thought about it, but I’ve never really been tested.
Today I was tested.
A major U.S. company offered to purchase advertising on this site. That’s not unusual. What’s unusual was the money involved and the method they wished to employ. They were offering to pay an enormous sum in order for me to provide “advertorials” — to promote their product under the guise of a series of blog posts.
Though Get Rich Slowly generates revenue through traditional advertising and through affiliate sales, I’ve always refused to provide paid posts. Maybe I’m performing mental gymnastics, but for myself, there’s a difference between earning money when I recommend a product of my own accord, and earning money by posting an article for which I’ve been asked to be a shill.
I’ve spent the last two days laboring over this decision. I’ve talked with friends and family. I’ve talked with colleagues. I’ve sought sage advice from every corner. And I’ve considered a variety of creative solutions:
- Have another blogger write about the product, and split the money with him.
- Write about the product and then offer all of the income to you, the readers, via some sort of contest. (I really liked this idea.)
- Write about the product and donate all of the income to charity.
I cannot deny that I’ve been sorely tempted by this proposal.
In the end, however, a problem still remained: by accepting the offer, I would be allowing an advertiser to direct my editorial content. And if I did this once, then what about the next time? Where would I draw the line? Would there even be a line? All of the solutions left me feeling a little bit dirty, and I didn’t like it. The only way I could feel clean was to decline.
Instead, I submitted a proposal that says, “Hey. Get Rich Slowly is one of the biggest personal finance blogs on the internet. It’s good to advertise here. Give me the money and I will take down every other ad for a month. You can have all of the ad space.” Again, maybe I’m performing mental gymnastics, but this doesn’t make me feel dirty. I’ve accepted paid advertising on this site since day one. The only thing different about this would be the order of magnitude.
But it’s unlikely that the advertiser will accept my counter-proposal. It’s not what they’re after.
Posting an advertorial isn’t illegal or immoral; it’s just against my personal principles, and conflicts with my vision for this site. But if I had been offered a million dollars, I’m fairly certain we wouldn’t be having this conversation. My principles would have vanished. I would have eaten the bacon — and then I would have told you all how great it tasted.
Have you faced a similar dilemma in your own life? Have your principles ever been challenged by money? What did you do? Were you happy with your decision?
January 9th, 2009 at 5:55 am
I hear your pain.
The only time in my life as a writer/photographer that I’ve intentionally destroyed negatives was when I had a large cash offer for some powerful images I’d shot in the midst of a tragedy. Oh, btw, the offer was from the New York Times. Would have changed the course of my career.
Problem was, I felt that these particular images didn’t belong in the newspaper. They were too … um … intimate (not sex; death).
I said no.
And I’ve never regretted it.
January 9th, 2009 at 6:09 am
For me, I’m glad you didn’t take it. I like my ads along the side, where I know what they are. (Which is why they want to get around me by purchasing the content space.)
For you, I’m sorry they didn’t offer you a million. Then you could start a new blog telling how you invested your million-dollar windfall!
January 9th, 2009 at 6:17 am
I love the solution you came up with. Would you have been able to go along with it, if you loved this company and what they stood for? Or was it just the thought of, in a way, having to pretend and talk up this company to us? I considered pay per post at one time, but I wasn’t able to fake my enthusiasm enough to get approved - I had to create an introductory post that raved about the site. I didn’t know anything about it, so I guess I was kind of dull. Besides my BlogHerAds let me know I needed to create a sister blog for this type of thing. I don’t recall having been tempted by money in this way in my life, although I do face moral situations where I have to make a decision involving money. For example, I am known for not “overlooking” an extra payment from a contractor - yes, the one that proceeded me would just keep mum about it. Or maybe she really didn’t know, the record keeping was atrocious, invoice numbers weren’t even used when I took over! It is good to have an intact moral base within. I meet too many who don’t, it seems to be less and less common. Off my soapbox. Thanks again.
January 9th, 2009 at 6:22 am
Doing advertorials would also have been a bad business decision in the long run. Your blog’s cred would go down by the majority of readers who are smart enough to notice and traffic would also likely decrease.
January 9th, 2009 at 6:29 am
Regardless of the outcome, I’m just inspired by your willingness to be honest with me, the world and yourself. This is something that’s really hard to do.
Thanks for inspiring honesty.
I had a situation where a client asked me to sell a mutual fund and i forgot to do it. It was a huge amount and as a result of the delay in taking action, the client lost $16,000. It was 100% my fault.
I guess I could have tried to make up some story but I just picked up the phone and told the client what happened and ate the loss. I actually felt really good (and broke!) because it was the right thing to do. I hesitated at first before calling the client. I really didn’t know what to do and I flashed on ideas on how to get out of it but in the end I was very happy I made the right decision.
January 9th, 2009 at 6:29 am
Good for you.
I’d only caution you about taking too much of a relativistic approach to this issue (”I’m not condemning others, it’s just not right for me”).
It is wrong for anyone, and not just because of how it makes you feel. And it’s a little different from the vegetarian, because of your relationship with your readers.
Why? Because in good faith you offer your blog as an independent view of your content. It’s an issue of trust.
This goes for anyone who doesn’t say, right up at the top of their content, “I’m being paid to say what I’m saying.”
When you violate trust, even implicitly, it becomes a moral issue. It has to do with lying.
You chose not to lie, even covertly, even if you could get away with it. That’s integrity.
That’s a moral choice, not an emotional one (although it has emotional reverberations), and as such, is true for everyone. If someone represents himself as unbiased but actually has a bias, he is lying. Lies can be unspoken. And that’s immoral.
If every private person held himself to these standards (and they are objective, though perhaps subtle standards), we would have more luck asking public persons to do so as well!
So good for you.
January 9th, 2009 at 6:35 am
J.D., I think you made a good call on behalf of your readers. I’m sure you’ve seen it, but there’s some industry research that suggests that *unidentified* advertorial content erodes reader trust if/when they learn of it.
However, you might consider the example of the Fug Girls, who have recently accepted advertorial content, but with rules. It’s all presented in a black-framed box (a completely different look from their design standard), and they pledge at the top to notify readers when they are presenting advertorial content. It’s also tagged and titled as a sponsored post.
http://gofugyourself.celebuzz.com/go_fug_yourself/2009/01/test_peoples_choice_sponsored.html
(I note now that the black frame has been removed; I wonder if that was at the sponsor’s request.)
Anyway, as a print journalist at a small paper, I salute your ethics, and I appreciate that even identifying the posts as sponsored still takes your time away from, um, legit editorial content.
Still love the blog, still respect you.
January 9th, 2009 at 6:36 am
There is another way, which is to label the blogpost ‘advertorial’. Either you or the company can write the blogpost. This way it’s clear that it’s a paid advertorial, not your personal opinion. This is the way I handle proposals like this, I have several (dutch) websites with a lot of visitors.
January 9th, 2009 at 6:37 am
I strongly think you’re on the right track, there. Newspapers have (allegedly) kept a thick wall between the business/advertising decisions and the editorial decisions. Accepting payment for a blog post crosses a line that calls into question every product you recommend. We would have to start asking ourselves your motivations. Does he really like this product, or did he get paid?
You made the right call, even if it was a tough one.
January 9th, 2009 at 6:38 am
Congratulations. I may not always agree with every article but they are unbiased (from corporations) opinions. Those unbiased opinions support free thought and discussion without the intent to motivate the readers to an inherent contridiction of the blog’s purpose. How can you help someone get rich slowly when draining them of cash on unneeded commercial items all for your personal gain. Again, congratulations!
January 9th, 2009 at 6:39 am
I would consider it to have been fine, possibly a good idea, to have done the article but with a disclaimer at the top explaining that it was paid for by the company. You need not have lied during the article, just given an honest overview of how their product worked. Obviously if the advertisers wanted you to lie through your teeth about how great the product was even when it wasnt, then that’s a slightly different matter.
January 9th, 2009 at 6:40 am
I write for another website for a small fee of $100 per article. Usually I write about any topic I choose. I was requested by my editor to write an article about a general topic of interest, but he specified that I should interview employees from a certain large advertising sponsor and get my information from their press releases on the subject.
Since I am in medicine I absolutely would have rejected any request to write about something that was related to a pharmaceutical company, no matter what the pay, even for a million dollars, but we have to keep our standards higher in medicine because bias from drug companies affects patients’ health and can even be a life or death question.
This company was merely a provider of educational services, so I ended up accepting the request, though I made a point of not writing the article in such a way as to try to promote the company’s services. I still feel a little guilty about this article because of course I was mentioning the company’s name in conjunction with the people I quoted, and thereby advertising for them in a way, but then again the site features ads for their products and so I didn’t feel that it was any secret that they were a sponsor and had probably asked us to interview them for this article. I believe that when there is a conflict of interest such as this (where you are trying to provide an unbiased perspective in a piece of writing but cannot because you are being sponsored by a company who stands to profit, you should make a published statement with the article that makes clear the nature of the relationship so that readers can draw their own conclusions about bias. This is how the medical community does things for research etc. To apply this to your situation, I don’t think it would be wrong to write about something at a company’s request and be paid for it as long as that was explicitly stated and you were able to apply some sort of objective analysis to the product you were discussing. Caveat emptor, as long as the sponsorship is plainly stated.
I do know physicians who take money from drug companies and donate it to charity, but I don’t think this is a good solution in the case of medicine because by listening to their spiel (what you get paid for), you are consciously or not being influenced and therefore could prescribe someone a drug that perhaps is not indicated or would not be the best drug for them. However, unless you believe that you could be negatively impacting the lives of others by promoting a product that would perhaps affect their finances negatively, I’m not sure this is the case for your situation.
What if you got offered a lot of money to be a spokesperson for ING Direct let’s say, and go on TV commercials and tell people to buy the product? Would you have done that?
January 9th, 2009 at 6:43 am
J.D., I’m glad you didn’t take it. I’d have to agree with cb @ #3. Your readers might notice, especially if the company really isn’t all that great, and your readership would suffer. I’m sure you’d still get search engine traffic, but this sort of thing really could affect your credibility - especially among other personal finance blogs if it’s not a great company.
If it were a great company, it might be harder to tell and people might not notice as much. It’d be like writing about Vanguard a lot. We know they’re a great company, so no one would think that’s suspicious. But if you suddenly started writing about how great private equity is and that everyone should invest in it, we’d know something is up.
Either way, thanks for sticking to your ethical standards!
January 9th, 2009 at 6:44 am
I think the if it was for a product that you really would endorse on your own, and if you make it clear that you were writing a paid-for-post, then I’d say it would be fine. Your readers do trust you, and they do want you to make money — you provide a great service to us. I think if you were upfront and honest with us (and yourself) about it, your readers would support you.
January 9th, 2009 at 6:49 am
What does it benefit to man if he gains the entire world, but loses himself?
January 9th, 2009 at 6:54 am
You would be deceiving your readers and tricking them for your monetary gain. And how would that make you feel over time? How would it change your character and your self-respect. It’s kind of like selling your soul down the river. For myself, I know that I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night knowing that I was secretly taking advantage of a whole lot of people in a way that they were unaware.
You’ve done the right thing. You’ll make your money - but not in this way.
Now you can change the name of your blog to:
Get Rich Honorably.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:01 am
Mrs. Accountability wrote: Would you have been able to go along with it, if you loved this company and what they stood for?
This is a fantastic question. I don’t know the answer. What if this were an advertorial for the Mini Cooper? Or for comic books? Or for bacon salt? I’m sure it would have been even more difficult for me to decide.
RE: labeling advertorials or sponsored posts
I did consider this. But it wasn’t really so much another option as a necessary component of any option I might choose to implement. That is, I felt like I’d want to identify any such paid content, regardless of how I handled it, so it wasn’t another way out really.
Even this morning, I still don’t know if I made the right call. I mean, from the point of my principles, I did. But are my principles right? I turned down a lot of money.
And I guess that’s my point. Until you’re actually faced with the choice of taking the money or standing by your principles, you don’t really know how you’re going to act. I’ve always said, “No paid posts. No way.” As if it were that easy to make the choice. but when it happens in real life, and the numbers are big enough, it’s not easy to make the decision at all.
Finally, I should point out that the thing that finally tipped the scales for me yesterday was my ongoing discussions with financial planners, and they’re continued obsession with “compliance”. To me, this became a notion of “compliance” with my readers.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:01 am
It’s a tough issue, and you certainly chose the harder path for now.
I hope I’m not being naive in this praise for Consumer Reports magazine (or Consumers Union, I suppose the company’s called) but this is exactly why they accept no advertisements whatsoever. The products and services they test are also acquired through normal means, not provided by the manufacturers.
In the end, for the most part, Consumer Reports seems to be the most trusted and respected source of reviews and analysis in our country; and this is why. Others, like Car and Driver in the automotive world, are fun to read, but they always seem to like everything they “test.”
So in an ethical sense, you’re definitely choosing the higher ground, not letting the trust waters become clouded with outside influences.
But practically, what you’re doing is simply further defining your business model. You’re turning down the easy money now, and hopefully you’ll be rewarded for this choice in the long run because readers will come to respect your word as that of an independent source rather than a writer/spokesman hybrid.
By all means, you should certainly do your best to capitalize on this premium that your writing has versus the words of other bloggers. I agree with you that it’s not necessarily wrong for other writers to be product spokesmen in disguise, but conversely you should certainly make it very clear that you are offering a superior product.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:06 am
FYI for GRS readers….Suze Orman’s new book is downloadable for free from Oprah’s website. Oh, and I wasn’t paid for this!
Good call on the advertorial JD, that just sounds decietful and a “slippery slope” to me.
Just curious though; would you accept money from a product that you’d previously endorsed (without profit) to do an advertorial for profit?
January 9th, 2009 at 7:06 am
p.s. I’m sometimes reluctant to post pieces like this that might be taken as self-congratulatory. Even this morning, I hate that it this can be read that way. My intent is not to pump myself up. It’s to discuss the nature of how money can corrupt personal principle. In a large way, I think our current economic crisis is a result of this problem. I’m interested in the philosophical nature of this question, not in adulation.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:09 am
J.D.
A very inspiring post to say the least. Like the others who commented above, I believe you made the right decision and most difficult. One thing that comes to mind when reflecting over the decision you made is: What goes around, comes around.
Congrats.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:13 am
J.D. –
I think that your response back was a very good one. You have a very well known financial blog and many products would be extremely lucky to get the number of “views” that you can generate.
Take a look at the following article to see what I mean: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081230/0352103250.shtml. It’s not unheard of to have paid sponsorship since the content being created is meaningful and draws a faithful crowd.
The Gaming website Penny Arcade has also always had a strong voice in their advertising. They will only promote the games/companies in their ads that they feel warrant the attention.
Landon
January 9th, 2009 at 7:14 am
@Leila: Very well said.
J.D., I understand why you are hesitant to condemn others who might do this, but Leila is right. There is a very clear distinction between paid advertising and editorial content. Or, at least, there should be. No mental gymnastics required to come to that conclusion. We read your blog because we trust you to give us honest information. We know what paid advertising looks like and we know the difference. Thank you for having the decency and good business sense to make the right call. And thank you for being so transparent about it. I hope if I am ever faced with such a choice that I am able to make the right call as well.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:20 am
@Ryan (#18)
When I first started this site, there was a period where I considered being completely ad-free, just like Consumer Reports. In retrospect, I’m glad I didn’t do it. For one, it’s allowed me to quit my day job and do this full time. For another, I feel like I’ve found a balance with advertising that I can live with.
Over the past two days, I spent a lot of time with Chris from The Art of Non-Conformity. He’s taken a different approach that has allowed him to remain advertising-free. He produces “value-added” products of his own to offer to his readers. For example, he’s writing a series of $40 e-books. I’ve read two of them, and they’re great. He also offers other products. By doing this, he’s able to avoid outside advertising, create additional content, and still make money. He’s hoping to go full-time this year. I think this is a brilliant solution, and it’s planted a seed in my brain. Could I do something like this, too? I don’t know. But it’s worth considering.
@Sue (#19)
Another great question. I sort of answered this earlier. I don’t know what I would do if, say, ING Direct were to ask me to do something similar. I do know how I responded to one similar recent request.
FNBO Direct is a big advertiser at Get Rich Slowly. It’s a good bank with a good product. I’m paid when people sign up for an account. I’m willing to mention FNBO from time-to-time in places where it’s appropriate. In December, though, they were doing a huge push for sales, and their ad rep called to ask if I’d do something to promote their site, such as write a post just about FNBO Direct.
This situation is similar to the one I’ve described in this post. An advertiser is suggesting I make a specific editorial decision. If I had thought of this myself, I might have done it. But because it was requested by the advertiser, I did not.
I’ve mentioned before that I struggle with what to do when PR companies send me information to write about, or when the CEO of some tech startup wants me to profile his company. We’ve discussed that in the past, and you all convinced me that I should simply write whatever I would normally write. If a good idea comes from a PR person, so be it.
But what if these people were paying me? How would that change things?
This is yet another example of why I say money is more about mind than it is about math. If it were just about math, I would have accepted this offer without question.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Good for you!
I have never been really, really tested that way. I suppose I did join the military, dispite my opposition to the Iraq War, because I needed a good job (there were many other things I hoped to get out of military service, and I’ve gotten most of them), and I’m staying in because I can’t get a civilian job that will pay me this much, and I’m living pay check to pay check already, but I don’t think that is the same kind of situation. I betrayed some of my principals because I desperately need something that I don’t know how to get anywhere else. Its not a large amount of money, its a job. Still, you would never see me doing anything like you saw Lyndie England doing, that’s pushing the betrayal of principals too far. No matter how much money was offered to me (or how high ranking the officer was who “suggested” I do it), there are still certain lines I will not cross.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:23 am
I’ve had to deal with this. I’m a freelance writer, and I was offered $15K to do easy PR work for an organization whose mission was good overall, but which included a piece that most people would recognize as discriminatory, and which made me uncomfortable.
Even though my work would not have touched upon the issue that made me uncomfortable, I wasn’t sure I could support their work. I wrestled with this decision for days, and came up with many of the solutions you suggested, including donating a portion of my fee to the organizations that fight this type of discrimination.
In the end, I couldn’t do it. It was extremely hard to turn down the money, but I’m glad I did. Other assignments came in to fill the gap, and I never had to worry that I had compromised my principles.
You did the right thing. You do great work, and you’ll have other, better opportunities in the future.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:24 am
Your general question about what one is willing to do for money is a good one, and one that in some everyone who works for someone else faces every day. When office workers first were given internet access, everyone had to create limits on how much time they surfed the web during working hours. The statistics seem to be that lots of people are willing to accept payment for hours they aren’t actually working for a company. Similarly, anyone who works as in independent contractor paid by the hour has the temptation to pad the bill. those examples aren’t quite the same as being offered money to do something you feel is unprincipled, but the effect is the same, one has to make a decision about the morality of accepting money…
January 9th, 2009 at 7:27 am
I’d eat a dead beetle wrapped in dung for $5. If someone paid me so they could control me - that’s like mental kidnapping. I think you did the right thing by choosing to keep your free will intact.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:28 am
As far as I’m concerned you made the right choice, the only choice really.
Passive ads are a neccessary evil but to personally shill a product or service for pay under the guise of a legitimate post would instantly break all trust between you and the reader. People come here for legitimate advice, once the legitimacy line is blurred there is no turning back. IMOHO of course.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:28 am
I applaud your principles. I enjoy your blog entries for a relatively unbiased view of personal finance issues. If you had done your “sponsored blog”, it would have probably come across as fake, and it would have turned off many of your readers. Good job!
January 9th, 2009 at 7:28 am
Hi JD,
I don’t think anyone answered your question directly yet, so I will tell you how much it would take for me to sell out: $2 million dollars. Or at least I hope I would be strong enough not to, up until that point.
The reason being, it would have to be enough to retire instantly. $2 million at a modest 5% return produces a $100,000 revenue for the rest of your life.
Even still, there would obviously be contractual obligations beyond that payment. The buyer would probably want to get a series of articles on their product which would likely be desired in between some legitimate posts you would NOT want to write (c’mon, you’re a millionaire sellout now!).
Either way, I, like the others, applaud your decision.
~Chris Gammell
January 9th, 2009 at 7:28 am
This is one of those questions, what would Consumer Reports do? I look upon your (and a few similar blog sites) as providing honest and unpaid-for opinions. If you can’t provide that, then the blog becomes useless to me.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:31 am
Sorry to monopolize my own comments section like this, but I’ve literally been thinking about this for 48 hours now. It’s a lot of money. (On the order of Erin’s dilemma above.)
Here’s another grey area: I heard the story the other day of how when blogger Steve Pavlina published his book, he sent it to hundreds of other top bloggers on the condition that they review it. He didn’t care whether they gave it a good review or a bad review, he just wanted them to review it. When I heard that story, I thought it was fantastic, and I filed it away for when I publish my book. “What great marketing!” I thought.
But now I think, “How is this different than a paid post?” I mean, I do think there’s a difference, but I can’t explain why. Yet if I look at it objectively, it seems like the same thing, except the compensation is 1000 times smaller in this case. And maybe that’s part of the problem. Maybe the larger the compensation, the more conflicted I become.
Publishers send me books to review all the time. On Tuesday, I’m posting my review of the new Motley Fool book. It’s a glowing review (I love the book). But this was a book that the publisher sent me, not one I bought myself.
How is this different?
Ah, this whole thing makes me recall fondly my college philosophy class. These are exactly the sorts of things we’d talk about at 7:00 in the morning MWF.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:31 am
That truly is impressive, J.D. I feel like I am have rarely been tested in this arena. I hope I would make the same decisions you have in similar circumstances. Commendable.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:34 am
This is a tough decision I’ve pondered on my own blog. I have plenty of advertising on my site but I’ve also rejected hundreds of dollars worth because I don’t agree with the business I’ve been asked to promote.
Would you ordinarily promote this business or is it something like a payday loan company which you abhor?
January 9th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Though admittedly not the point of the post, since this is a finance site, I couldn’t resist:
This was also probably a good financial decision. As you said, this is a popular site, and you can make plenty off of normal advertising, because you have a strong following. However, the sudden rise of “Product A by Company X is wonderful”, “Product B by Company X is wonderful”,…would be pretty easy to spot. I’m always leery of any product recommendations that don’t disclose the author’s relationship with the company, and I tend to unsubscribe / unbookmark sites when I stop trusting the author. You loose readers, and your most engaged readers go first.
It threatens the most valuable asset you have as a blog writer- loyal readers (which is why the company made the offer, they want your loyal readers). So the financial decision becomes, how much money do you make off of normal advertising minus how much of that would you loose from readers not visiting anymore (over the long term) vs how much they offered (short term).
I’m guessing regardless of the amount, you made the right financial choice because big companies don’t get big by making offers that lose them money. If they did offer you a million, it’s because they realize access to your readers is worth that much or more. Whatever they offered, it’s equal to or less than the value of the assess you already own.
In that way, the vegetarian metaphor is a little flawed - that’s purely a matter of principle vs money, because the vegetarian doesn’t gain financially by being a vegetarian - being a vegetarian doesn’t sell normal ads. Though there is definitely a strong moral component here, don’t forget that there’s also the chance of losing money over the long term in lost readership by taking the offer in the short term.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:40 am
I get this all the time. I’m not sure why.
I always respond back telling them I will do it, then I tell them what the terms are for advertising on my site.
I think it is overtly presumptuous for someone to contact a service provider to advertise on the service and try setting the terms of the ad rates.
I mean, can you imagine what the NY Times would do if someone asked to run a full-page ad and then laid out how much the would pay? Give me a break.
None of the persons wishing to advertise on my site have ever accepted my advertising terms.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:44 am
I think the difference in the Steve Pavlina example is that people may consent to review his book, but they don’t have to like it or disguise the deal. I personally am very glad you turned down this offer — and I think it is a very real benefit to you as well. I stopped reading another blog when it became obvious that the blogger was being paid for “product placement“ in the posts, and not coming clean about it. It destroyed his credibility for me. Your reputation is your most important asset. It’s built on not only the content of your articles, but your principles. If we know we can trust you to be aboveboard, not to hide secret deals or promote things you’ve been paid to promote while claiming to be objective, that puts you a notch above a great many pundits. If you were giving seemingly objective advice, but actually shilling for a company that paid you, what does that make you? A double agent. Like one of those investment advisors who tells you to buy So-and-So Fund without revealing that he’s actually paid by So-and-So Fund. Except that in that case, the lack of fee lets us guess that he’s paid by what he sells — in your case, there would be no way of guessing that you were paid to promote a company. But when it came out, it could shred your reputation. J.D., I think you dodged a bullet. More power to you for this impressive decision, and another reason I’ll turn to GRS (and any books you publish) above many other sources.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:44 am
I totally feel for you. It’s really easy to say what you would and wouldn’t do for money when it’s only a hypothetical. When they’re actually standing there with the check, well, it’s an awful lot harder.
It’s also easy for me to say I turned down a lot of money, because this happened almost a year ago, and everything has turned out fine. Hindsight being 20/20 and all.
I suspect this will not be the only opportunity like this that you will get. I wonder if there are other ways you could offer some sort of compromise. I also wonder if the company willing to pay you might have other ideas about how you could make some sort of partnership work so you don’t feel like you’re compromising your principles.
Good luck!
January 9th, 2009 at 7:44 am
Thanks JD.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:44 am
Advertisers have a clear and unmistakable bias and being paid to mask someone else’s bias as your own opinion without disclosing that is dishonest at best.
Frankly, had you taken the offer I would have stopped reading.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Advertorials that aren’t disclosed are a slimy way of advertising and I attempt to distance myself with any type of publication that has them. The great thing about the web initially was that you could read average people’s opinions regarding goods and services. You knew they were telling the truth about a product and how it held up or if it was worth the purchase price. Now that business has gotten involved, you AGAIN have to second guess everything, just as you do when reading magazines/newspapers. Why can’t companies concentrate money spent on advertorials with creating compelling products that people willingly want to purchase?
January 9th, 2009 at 7:55 am
He sent a stack of books but no paper. I kept waiting for the material to arrive so I could type it up. I asked the middle man (mother in law) several times where the paper was but got no answer. It took quite a while for it to dawn on me that he expected me to write the paper, too.
I was raised with morals so high that… well, it took a long time for it to cross my mind that someone would even propose that I write a paper for them. And to think that it was an ADULT, a working person going back to college for a further degree, who proposed this - I was disillusioned by the world a little bit. Especially since (irony coming) he was getting a degree required to become a guidance counselor.
Since I had accepted the assignment so long ago and it was near the date due, and since I was confused about whether I should have known what he implied with his offer (but now I believe that man just operated in a circle with lesser values than my own), I went ahead and grudgingly wrote the paper, vowing that it was the first and last time I’d ever do that for anyone. I made a point of doing a very mediocre job, as my passive-aggressive way of taking out on him the fact that he had rooked me into something I did not understand that was immoral, to boot. Of course, I could have said no upon realizing the terms, and possibly today as a more mature person I might do that. But as a young person living under my mother-in-law’s roof, I just held my nose and did it.
I heard back later that he was pleased and got a B on the paper. This was an eye-opener for me that the adults out there I assumed all had high moral standards don’t necessarily all share the values I was brought up to believe in.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:10 am
JD, I am convinced that there is currently a bubble going on in the financial blogosphere where a number of bloggers are trading their reputations, page rank etc… for easy money by advertising for payday loans, ambulance chasers and the like. In my view this is unethical when they are simultaneously posing as promoting frugal, sustainable habits.
Perhaps I’m naive in thinking that, in the end of the day, good and honest writing and advice will win out.
Also, when you are given a book or product to review, and disclose that you did not pay for it and did not make a deal to only talk about positive things, I think that’s all fine.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:12 am
It’s completely different from getting a free book. That is a standard practice in every industry. Movie critics, theater critics, book reviewers - none of them pay for the products they review. As consumers, we know this and we understand that’s how it works - and has always worked. (As an aside, I think that if theater critics had to pay the $100-200 for a broadway show that the rest of us do, they might be a bit more judicious with their praise of some shows.)
But advertorials are an entirely different thing - there is no way that being paid a truckload of money to review a product would not affect your objectivity. Even if it didn’t, there would be no way for your readers to know whether they could trust your opinion. There would always be some doubt in their minds, because of the money. Once that lack of trust gets into their minds, it can’t just be segregated by putting a black box around the paid posts and labeling them “advertorials”. You made the right decision - no question.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:12 am
And that’s why I follow your blog.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:15 am
I think there are a few other issues, however, worth considering. One of them namely is what your circumstances are. Let’s say you had five kids and one of them needed surgery and you were struggling under the weight of the cost. Would that influence your decision? Would it be wrong to take that money when you clearly have an obligation to your family?
I think it isn’t often as simple as saying, “That goes against my values.” In life we are presented with gray situations where one choice is not necessarily wrong, and you are forced to prioritize your values. In your case, you obviously didn’t NEED the money, it was more a question of how badly you WANTED it, so it was really a choice of personal comfort.
But what if you really NEEDED the money for something like health care or extreme life circumstances? Of course, I hope it never comes to that. But in a harsh economic climate like this one, many people are forced into this exact dilemma as they are laid off, lose their health care plans and their pensions, and suddenly find themselves unable to take care of not just themselves but their loved ones as well. And then the real question is, can we blame people for sacrificing some of their values to uphold others?
January 9th, 2009 at 8:18 am
I think you did the right thing. You were clearly uncomfortable with the offer of there wouldn’t have been so much thought. I think you were kind of in a lose lose situation since either way you were going to wonder if you did the right thing. So better to go with your morals in that case.
I don’t know how much I would sell out for. Way less than a million. WAY less. But I don’t have nearly as much at stake as you.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Here’s what I do… On my personal blog, I don’t accept paid posts or even reviews because it goes against my advertising contract with BlogHer. But I do accept straight advertising revenue. I have another blog, which is a review blog. I do indeed have paid posts and reviews… But my one stipulation is that I post what I actually think. So - if the person is buying a positive review, I decline. If I can say what I really think, then I do it. If I had been placed in your position - on my review blog since it would have been an automatic no on my personal blog - I would have been inclined to say yes, if and only if, I really liked the product genuinely. If not - or I was only ho-hum, I too, would have had to decline. I don’t make broad strokes, I do take it on a case by case basis. But if I get that “feeling” I have to decline - it’s a personal integrity issue.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:31 am
JD, your blog is more akin to a news site than a lot of other blogs. If it wasn’t, you’d soon run out of material and the posts would get stale. I think this news angle is one of your greatest strengths and a reduction in impartiality would definitely harm your equity, since impartiality is implicit in the journalistic approach.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:31 am
I think you’ve found one of the greatest business concepts. Honest dealing. This is why I got out of the real estate agent business shortly after I got my license in a second state (I live close to the state line). I made $3000 by the second month, but found there was back stabbing between the agents and I realized that about 80% of the agents are really unecessary and cost homeowners thousands they need not pay. I went to a $6.00 an hour job. My boss decided to sell her home. I told her to use a lawyer, not a real estate agent. She didn’t believe me and signed with a friend. Surprise, she wasn’t happy within a short time. Dumped the agent, found a lawyer, a buyer and saved thousands. She moved to far away to be my boss, but we’re friends. It hurt my bottom line, but I haven’t regretted it. Honesty is an underrated gem.
Pat yourself on the back.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:31 am
Maybe is better to get rich slowly with traditional ads! Congratulations for this excellent blog!
January 9th, 2009 at 8:34 am
If you said yes, you would be violating the No.1 principle of journalism ethics, and yes, you are a journalist.
It would compromise the integrity of your site and would make your readers question everything you have ever written or would ever write. Not worth it.
Tell them to send a press release and cross their fingers.
I have worked in journalism for many years. My first job out of college was for an unethical magazine company in New Orleans that made me write advertorials that were not marked as such. It was awful.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:35 am
I guess I am of the opinion that this is your blog, your content and your space on the web. If you have the opportunity to maximize your earnings then I say go for it. Particularly since you offer this great advice for free! I doubt an occasional advertorial would drive away thousands of readers. At least, it wouldn’t bother me.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:37 am
That being said, if you were completely up front… and just how up front can you be and still get the deal… by saying “I’m now being paid to write this blog post and say this company is good, regardless of my actual opinion” we just might give you a break. We might still come here and read comments and add our own. As long as you didn’t lighten up on the real content.
I don’t know. My car magazines started a new trend where they’d let GM buy several high gloss pages, and there would be glowing “reviews” of GM cars. And in small print, it would say “Advertisement”. Or “Special Advertising Section”. I felt rather betrayed. I had read through half of this, wondering why the editors suddenly found themselves so in love with GM cars that had only warranted mediocre praise previously, before questioning it so much to look around for some sign that it wasn’t legitimate. And when I realized, I was really dismayed. I don’t want to get that feeling while reading something on your site.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Different magazines have “advertising content” that may look like an article all the time. It’s really an advertising page, and you can only tell by a small line on the top with the text “advertising section” or something similar.
The magazines (or newspapers) that accept this kind of advertising that “looks” like real content lose some of the value in their brand, even when it is marked. You have to wonder how desperate they are for money in this situation. What else would they do?
Don’t dilute your brand. Stay the course. Don’t post “advertising content” along with regular content, even when marked.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:43 am
I hope they offered something that was above and beyond your wildest imagination because it’s gotta really be worth it.
Unlike in your vegetarian example, the reason this site and your voice hold value is because it’s honest and genuine. And, as the its title implies, this blog is all about building value and wealth over the long term rather than giving into the temptation for large one-off payouts.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:43 am
As a daily reader of your blog, I really appreciate that you did not accept the money and start offering advertorial content.
Ethics aside, these sponsored posts (and I’ve seen other blogs I enjoy do them in obviously identified, ethical way) are so much less interesting to read. I always delete them.
What makes your blog so compelling to me is the honesty and ego-less way you write. And advertorials do not have that some feeling.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:46 am
You did the right thing and the ONLY right thing. Advertising disguised as editorial content without clearly stating that it is a paid advertisement IS unethical, and against all journalistic ethics. I wish more bloggers who suddenly proclaim themselves professionals on a par with those who have studied journalistic principles would understand this. It degrades everyone who blogs to accept money or goods and, in turn, promote them without making it clear that a transaction has taken place that benefits the writer. It’s called conflict of interest.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Chris Brogan has an issue like this as well that caused controversy. I think if you are direct with the readers that the post is being sponsored by the company then you are not deceiving anyone. People can choose to read or not, I don’t feel it’s wrong.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Interesting dilemma. I just read IdeaVirus (free PDF at http://www.sethgodin.com/ideavirus/01-getit.html) and it seems you’re a “powerful sneezer.” Thanks for all your candor!
January 9th, 2009 at 9:02 am
There are some fantastic comments here. I want to put the little grey box around all of them, but then it’s just a game of Sneetches.
I love the comments from Christiane and Frugal Dad. They do a much better job of articulating what I mean by personal principles. Some people might call this sort of reasoning “situational ethics”, and maybe they’re right.
But as these two have pointed out, my decision would probably have been much different if I weren’t now financially well-off. If this were four or five years ago, if I were still $35,000 in debt, would I have taken this offer? I’ll bet I would. If this blog had a different focus, might it make sense to take this offer? I think it might.
That’s why I say that I cannot think poorly of others who choose to do this. They have their reasons for making their choices. I have mine. I exchanged e-mail with another blogger this morning, and he gently pointed out that I do a couple of other things that would violate some peoples’ principles (and may, in fact, violate my own).
Anyhow — great discussion. You guys are awesome.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Luckily I’ve had many strong examples in my life of The Right Thing to do. But that doesn’t mean the line doesn’t get hazy when you’re on your own.
In my line of work, we’ve had many car dealers offer us considerable compensation if only we would give the cars they were selling an unconditional clean bill of health. My employer and I refused,”If it’s a good car, we will say so. But if it has problems, we will disclose them.” Loyalty to our customers and our principles matter more than any business we could generate with dirty dealing. I’m sure we’ve been hurt by it financially, but the loyalty and praise we have received for honesty is well worth it.
But a situation like yours is much more agonizing; you have much to fear, including a much higher liklihood that you’ll be blackballed further down the line. But sticking to your guns is all you can do–you need to be at peace with yourself, not some pinch-nosed advertising executive.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:03 am
With the FNBO comment you stated that you may have written the post had you thought of it before being approached by the company. What if you did think of it first? What if you wrote the article but then contacted the company before posting it in an effort to elicit funds? Unethical? I do not think that advertorials inherently destroy credibility so long as there is disclosure of fee for services in the article.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:03 am
I don’t want to be a comment-hog, but responding to Christiane’s post… I am a writer and I am considering writing things I don’t want to - but this is fiction, not journalism, so no one will be misled and there’s no moral dilemma in this case, just a matter of how much I can personally stand. It would be sort of like a fine musician writing toilet paper commercial jingles for some paychecks. I’m just agreeing with her than when money is tight, people might drop their standards. What I mean is that I will write insipid short romances - which I was already doing for small amounts of money until the company behind that just stopped paying us as of this year, not answering the phones, not returning mail, etc. (While others are due something like a thousand dollars it’s about $150 I’ll probably never see) So I’m moving on to company B where I’ll do the same, in shorter format, but with scenes that gross me out to have to write (nothing obscene but let’s say not exactly tasteful either) and I’m going to be doing it because the price (substantially higher than the pittance company A was paying) is right. If money were not a concern of mine I would definitely not bother.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Also, I wanted to note that there’s a diversity of opinions here on whether it’s okay to do an advertorial or not. I think that this is a clear indication that there’s not and absolute right answer for every person and every publication. There’s a right answer for me and Get Rich Slowly, but that might be different for Frugal Dad, for example.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:06 am
We still need to buy stuff, and figuring out what to buy is time consuming. So I don’t have a problem purchasing on recommendations from trusted sources. Saves me time.
I would do something like this under these conditions:
1. Most important: I am allowed to tell readers the post is a paid endorsement. If the product or service is valuable, the sponsor should be proud be mentioned as a sponsor. If they’re trying to get “under the radar” forget it.
2. My personal philosophy and editorial POV aligns very closely with the business purchasing the exposure.
3. The money was enough to radically accelerate my retirement goals. Just paying the rent is not nearly enough, not even close. I may be easy but I’m not cheap.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:09 am
I can’t say you did the right thing because readers want bloggers to struggle financially. We’re disappointed when people make it — maybe it’s jealousy? So you might have done the right thing, but I also wish you lots of money.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Also, writing good advertorials is very difficult; its quite an art.
David Ogilvy presents some excellent examples, and I believe Claude Hopkins does as well. The advertising was transparent, but the education content was high.
I would actually like to learn this skill and would be willing to write a short one for anyone interested for testimonial reciprocation. I’ll switch on email updates for this comment.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Where can I pay you?
Keeping your integrity like that is awesome.
Often, podcasts that ask for money get a few bucks from me (ie This American Life).
If you had a subscriptions page, I would donate. Just have a link with this story and a pay pal site or something. I don’t even want anything to be different for the “subscriber”, but you gotta call it something besides a donation because IT’S NOT.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:13 am
This totally caught my eye. As a vegetarian, who has not been a vegetarian her whole life, I honestly don’t know what I would choose past the 2,000 mark. I have credit card debt I am working hard to payoff, and I guess it would determine, for the most part, how much impact my choice would have. Would it be a piece of bacon that was on it’s way to the garbage? Than probably. Would it require ordering a steak that was waiting to be ordered–was I creating further demand of meat? I would REALLY have to need the money. (FYI–not a super strict vegetarian–I eat meat when I travel out of the country to experience other culture’s food, but lacto-ovo otherwise–I haven’t had meat (knowingly) since September 2007 in France).
However, I do something that some may consider stupid with my money.
I buy gourmet foods. Organic, local, artisan, whatever. Although I realize the organic issues are debatable, I would much rather put my money toward the purchase which has the better chance of being healthier and making my world a better place. I buy eggs from only a few distributors whom I can check out and see the quality of life of the birds who produce their eggs. Same goes for the milk and other daily whenever possible. Yes, I realize there are no guarantees, and I hear about the “buyer beware” all the time from my doubting counterparts. I have a hard time shopping at chain grocers and prefer the local coop. I am also paying for the experience of shopping. I happen to love grocery shopping, cooking, and eating, and love to “invest” well it it. It is hard to find some vegetarian items in big stores (soups, yogurt, cheese), and for me I feel that the chain supermarkets are often very detached from their food products. In the future, If I felt differently about eating meat, you could guarantee I would seek out the best meats available. I grew up around parents with horrible diets who were so detached from their food, and their health has suffered from it (yes, I realize that their lack of organic purchasing didn’t cause their obesity). They were also detached from their money. Those happen to be the two things I focus on the most when managing my household. I have chosen to drastically cut back my dining out (from $300 to $50 a month in the past year–on average) so I am able to treat myself with gourmet groceries.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:17 am
After reading the article again it seems that two points are brought up. One is whether or not advertorials are okay? The other is integrity. It seems that people are on both sides of the fence on the first issue, but the scary thing for me is that there are comments stating how the answer could change based on your financial circumstances or the amount of money offered.
Maybe I’m overreacting but I see this as a poor reflection of society. If an amount of money can change one’s moral or ethical opinion on a subject then I have a problem with that.
I would not have any problem with you doing advertorials on your site, but if you came out adamantly against it today and then changed your opinion tomorrow because you were offered more money I would be disappointed (though I’d still probably continue to visit the site).
January 9th, 2009 at 9:18 am
you are just a traitor to capitalism if you didn’t take the money. ;o)
anyways, with advertising you are bound to eventually skew anyways. once you go down the road, you might is well go all the way down to the end. bottom line, principles are good if you don’t have to abide by them, and those that do are normally poor because of them or too wealthy to really be affected by them.
I would have done it for a $1.05, because I’m in the mood for a Taco Bell soft taco.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:19 am
As with # 46, that is why I follow you JD. For me, as I struggle with my own definition of “rich” I can see what a dilemma it can be.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Hi-
I hope you get rich off of advertising. But, I hope that you never sell editorial content, since that would be the last of me as a reader. It is wrong.
Regarding reviews: I would not accept anything for free. They are determining the discourse by what they put in front of you. I recommend deciding what you are going to review, and then buying the books.
As a physician, I have a lot of companies who would like space in my brain for their own profit. Over time, I have come to believe it is my job to say no in a pleasant way consistently. It took me a while to get to this approach, but I am so glad that is where I am.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Also, JD. I think that being honest is the key. We cannot judge anyone one person’s financial situation, and maybe money would help out some people even if they took a controversial offer. Hitmen and other jobs where it would harm the life of another are not okay in my opinion, but I am willing to consider something risky and controversial, but be honest about it, if it would provide for my brothers (I have two grown brothers with autism–and my parents have left no money for their care).
January 9th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Back when I was a young engineer working for a defense contractor, one of my duties was to verify that our product had completed a contractually-required “burn-in” period. This meant that the electronic device had successfully operated with no faults for 72 hours straight. When it finished, I signed the final paperwork.
The products rarely failed burn-in, and ones that had no previous trouble almost NEVER failed burn-in.
One month, the 72-hour period fell right at the end of the billing cycle. If the full 72 hours were allowed to elapse, the product would have to be credited to the following month’s sales. My boss’s boss took me aside and asked me what the chances were that this tube would fail burn-in. I said it was unlikely, as it was a trouble-free device. He then told me to sign the paperwork so it could help with a tight billing month.
I said no. He became angry and implied that this would have bad consequences for my job. I was 24 years old, and believed he had the power to fire me. This was BIG money to me, my entire salary was at stake. I said no again and told him this: “My father taught me that the only thing in my life that I truly own is my good name. My signature is a guarantee of that good name, and I won’t spoil that for your billing problems. If that means you fire me, then so be it. My good name and I will find another job.”
I was shaking violently as I said this. It was the hardest thing I’ve ever done, and it terrified and enraged me. But I didn’t lose that job, and I think that manager treated me with more respect after that.
Was this a stupid thing to do? Maybe. The chances of the device failing were minimal. I risked at least the wrath of my management, and perhaps my job over what amounted to about 50 hours of “fudging” it. Our customer was the military, and one little fraud added to the system wouldn’t even show, right? But this was about me, my values, and my boundaries. Risk, gain, loss, fear: these are big deals, but not as big as integrity, shame, self-worth.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Take the money out of the equation. Would you have written about the product/service because you thought it would be beneficial to your readers? It doesn’t matter if the pay is $0.01 or $2 million.
I think you are already in a sticky web with your info above about FNBO. If you need a extra cash one month, do you mention the bank more? I’ve seen their ads on this site, but didn’t realize you receive money if people sign-up for an account.
Why not put a box on the upper, right corner of the blog which shows your sponsors. If you want to accept pay for writing an ad, then disclose that fact. You could also add a discloser at the bottom of your posts if you receive sponsor money from any of the companies mentioned in the post. For example, if you mentioned FNBO in a post, then at the bottom insert “DISCLOSER: FNBO is a sponsor of GRS.”
January 9th, 2009 at 9:34 am
The problem is it’s a lie. This has countless repercussions. For instance, if you’re a free-market capitalist, a lot of economic theories are based on the fact that consumers make logical decisions about what they consume. In a world of convincing advertisement, a company with a lousy product but phenomenal advertising abilities (or lots of money to convince the few influential people who need money, cough*watch out JD!*cough) is the one that succeeds and literally stunts human progress by leading the public with flashing lights away from something that is genuinely better for them.
This may seem trivial for small things like chap-stick and ice cream, but the problem is everyone is on the train and it happens all over the place and people, inappropriately influenced by biased adverts, make rash decisions like buying that brand new sports car on credit or eating the less healthy food.
Then it spreads and spreads and eventually the entire US or globe is over consuming and you run into the problems we face today: resource shortages, environmental degradation, obesity epidemics, on and on and on.
It even infiltrates our political system. 90% of all elections in the US are won by the candidate who spent the most money on his campaign to convince people he/she is the better candidate.
Now - you may think that the thousands of dollars would benefit you a lot, and they probably would, and the detriment to others may at times seem small… but it adds up. You do it and then the next guy thinks it’s ok too. Then you’re not only betraying your readers who come here for honest reviews of products, but the readers on the other websites who’s authors/owners are compelled to compete or include your action with others to gauge morality. Everything is interconnected. Everything.
The line needs to be drawn, and I commend you for your current decision. I sincerely hope you don’t change your mind.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:39 am
I think you did the right thing. But, obviously it’s still very much on your mind. Here’s a key to whether or not a decision is the right one for you … does it FEEL right? I mean when you consider doing it, do you get excited? do you feel like smiling 24/7? or does it make your body start reacting in terrible ways? queasy stomach, sweating, heart palpitations, inability to sleep … Most likely, it’s not the right decision for you if it does the latter. Always trust the “gut”!
Shirley
January 9th, 2009 at 9:45 am
If they offered you $20 you’d say no way.
If they offered you $20,000 you’d think about it for a few days and then say no way.
If they offered you $200,000,000 what would you do?
Some principles are for sale and others are not. If they’re for sale then you just need a high enough number to complete the deal. If they’re not then no amount of money will change anything.
Personally, I would wholeheartedly endorse a chocolate bar for $200,000,000. No amount of money would have me endorse a new torture device.
Thinking in the extremes helps clarify where you stand.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:50 am
I had to make the decision of whether to do pay per post and decided that it’s not for me. I don’t judge other bloggers who decide to accept them, we all have to pay the bills. I’m happy to put up ads where readers can decide for themselves whether to click or whether to ignore. But there is a definite difference when CONTENT is really an ad in disguise. The ads are off to the side and are clearly ads, no one can claim they were duped. I do write content posts about banks and credit cards and other financial products, in all cases they are products that I feel have something to offer my readers.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:51 am
If the ad material wasn’t offensive to you, I have a third option to suggest: instead of *secretly* blogging about the product, offer to have an open and frank discussion with your readers about it, with no guarantee on the scope or tone of the response.
If it’s a product that some readers *might* be interested in, have them provide some giveaways (or discounts/rebates). All responders get an equal chance at it/them.
If it generates buzz then the company gets their money’s worth. If everybody hates it then they are getting invaluable feedback. You get the ad revenue and generate lively discussion. Everybody wins.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Wow! What a difficult decision and highly interesting discussion.
Here’s my take on it.
There is nothing unethical about you writing an ‘advertorial post’ if it is somehow (clearly) disclosed as such.
Trying to hide an advertorial as a regular post could lead to lots of problems. If you do that, you are violating the expectations of your readers.
If you come out beforehand and disclose that you will be writing advertorial posts you may be able to manage expectations ahead of time, thus allowing you to have your cake and eat it too.
Of course, that is a risk. You could lose readers and reputation, which could impact the other income streams from your blog.
Personally, I think you’ve worked too hard for too many years to build up what you have and unless you are ready to cash out the risk of damaging future income opportunities likely outweighs this current offer. I don’t know, unless it’s like a 6 figure sum or something?
Lastly, my opinion of pay-per-post blogs is quite poor and I don’t subscribe to any. Perhaps that’s just me, but I think it kills any potential trust and there are just too many other blogs out there to spend my time reading the pay-per-post shills. Again…that’s just me.
Cheers and best of luck, JD!
January 9th, 2009 at 9:55 am
JD what would you have done if a blogger offered to BUY your blog from you for the same amount of money, so that s/he could write promotional articles on it? Your situation is extra difficult because if you had accepted the offer in real life, you would be having your cake and eating it too: not only would you have the money, but you would still be able to write the blog as if nothing happened.
Personally I’ve been lucky to never have had to deal with your situation. Right now in my “cold state” I would tell you in a second that I would have refused the offer. In my “hot state,” I’m sure I would have to rack my brains a bit more.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:58 am
As a long time reader of this website I’m glad that you’ve had the prescience of mind to decline the offer.
One of the major reasons I gravitated here (and have stuck w/ it since) is the simple fact that you offer genuine, honest, and helpful money advice. At it’s core I believe it’s the reason you’ve been so successful in an industry that is often anything but (as recent times have shown).
As soon as you betray that ‘genuine’ quality to your readers and yourself you may start to have problems. The mere fact that you decided to disclose the temptation and ultimately share your decision with your readers is proof positive that my impression was right all along.
Thank you.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Hi J.D. I think that if the product or service is something you really do endorse, money or no, and you’re allowed to promote it honestly then I believe that’s perfectly ethical, providing the readers know it’s an ad. For example if “XYZ Financial Planners” contacts you and asks you to promote their products and after doing your research you find they have a lot of good things to offer, it would be perfectly ethical to accept money from them in order to promote something you really do like.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:01 am
I’m glad you didn’t take the deal J.D. You have been a brand with integrity. I’m a loyal subscriber and trust the information on your site.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:02 am
FWIW, I think there is a distinct difference between the “I’ll send you my book if you review it” and “We’ll pay you money if you write posts promoting our product.”
The difference is in the book case you’re free to express your own opinion, good or bad, only the topic has been selected. In the case of the advertorial, you’re being asked to disregard your opinion and promote the product regardless.
It’s the freedom to write something that disses the product in question that makes the difference, in my opinion.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:04 am
standing on principle means that it doesn’t matter if it is 10cents or $2billion
January 9th, 2009 at 10:05 am
What they wanted you to do wasn’t advertising, it was endorsement - covert endorsement.
The thing is, your product is objective endorsement - of ideas, products, media streams… all kinds of things.
What they wanted to do, for the enormous amount of money, was make you into a liar - destroy your credibility.
Assuming you’d never want to use that credibility again - say, if they paid you enough money to retire in comfort AND if you did not particularly care about what all these strangers on the Internet feel about you, it might be a good deal. But if you do actually care what the strangers feel about you, or if the enormous amount of money would NOT have made destroying your product worthwhile… …you made the financially correct decision.
Thanks for writing about it! It sounds like a very interesting experience!
January 9th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Another thing to point out - Most of the commenters here are glad about the decision you made. Most here don’t want the advertorials (or they at least want to know when your post is or isn’t one.)
That should be a clear indication of what you should do.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:17 am
JD, this is a classic example of situational ethics.
One of the critical components is, I think, that you considered your answer before giving it. Knee jerk “NO! I have my VALUES!” or “Sure! Where do I sign?” are equally shaky (ethically speaking) because you’ve not considered the situation, its consequences, or the impact it could have on your credibility.
I think that some here are right that you could have given a disclaimer and written the article for pay. I also agree with others that you made the right choice.
As with life, perhaps the cool thing isn’t so much as the decision itself as it is the journey to it.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:19 am
January 9th, 2009 at 10:22 am
I’m reminded of the Simpson’s Episode Homer vs. Dignity where he had to make a similar choice. Well he got offered the million dollars to do something a lot worse.
There’s a famous Winston Churchhill quote about negotiating price. It’s a little bawdy, so I’ll leave it at that.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:23 am
I would not have a problem with anyone doing a paid or sponsored post on their blog, as long a few things were done:
1. Post is noted as a sponsored or paid post.
2. Users are still able to comment on said post.
3. Blogger is not advertising or promoting anything the blog owner is morally or otherwise opposed to.
I think blog owners have a right to make some revenue from their blogs, especially if they’re doing it full time as you are JD.
I think the only reason I would be opposed to these is if it was done on the sly, without noting that it was paid - saying “I love this product, buy it!” only because you’re being paid.
I have rejected ads for companies I despised (ie; payday loans) even though they’ve offered me a lot of money (for me). I just wouldn’t feel right advertising some products.
If it’s a morally neutral product, or one I would personally use, I have no problem whatsoever advertising it - or doing a sponsored post. The caveat is that I would clearly mark it as a sponsored post, and allow comments and etc on that page.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:27 am
If you want to sell your writing, write a book, or charge $1/month for access to an ad-free version of the blog (although, since you have an ad-free RSS feed, this might be a tough sell). These are ways in which *I’d* be willing to support your writing.
I have a problem with the advertising industry in general, though. I think it’s a bit of a plague that encourages a lot of destructive behaviors among people, while at the same time filling our world with visual and sound pollution.
I think you did the right thing, and I know I’d have been disappointed to find out you were accepting money to pass off other people’s opinions as your own.
If people want to pay you to tell us what *you* think, that’s OK by me, but if people want to pay you to tell us what *they* think, that’s not why we read your site.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:34 am
What would be wrong with writing the advertorial and clearly labeling it “Advertorial” or “Advertisement” and have that work stand separate from your own?
That’s what newspapers have done for a long time.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:41 am
First off: You clearly said you couldn’t find a way to feel comfortable with it — always obey that. You’ll always be glad you did, every time.
On the question in general though, philosophically, I find that my different principles are different for me. There are some things that I would not budge on for all the money in the world. There are other things that I budge on all too frequently.
The challenge in life is two-fold: 1) try to continually “push up” your “price limits,” and 2) focus on the things that are most important first.
For some of the most important things in my life, the prices are already “the world is not enough,” e.g. walking away from my wife. But most days I’ll go over the speed limit for free - you don’t even have to offer to pay me. There are lots of things in between those two extremes, things more important. Over the years I have made progress at raising my “valuation” — it’s harder to get me to make some mistakes now than it used to be. This is the progress we need to make in life, to raise our thresholds in the important places.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Thanks for not doing it.
Those types of posts are usually boring. The web is big enough if your readers sense uninteresting posts (or sheer advertising), we’ll find other places to go.
I think Luke in number 83 has a creative suggestion, though.
I don’t think it would have been immoral to do so, but it would have violated your own principles (which you alone established for this site.) It makes it easier for you to sleep at night if you’ve not done that.
I think one of the differences between a book review and a product is that the book is sent to you (probably) with the idea that you will (probably) do a review, but without some sort of contract.
As to the guy who said that the bank has a deal with you if we sign up. I think that many advertisers on the web all over do that. It has to do with weblinking, etc. (I don’t see the ads, cuz I have an ad blocker that apparently works.)