Blog
Advertising: “Post Our Article”
A couple days ago, I posted about what I’m calling “post-our-post” advertisements: companies offer to send articles to bloggers, which the bloggers then post on their blogs.
The first email I received was only questionably horse-related, so I didn’t give it much thought. Yesterday, I received an email from a horse-related company that I have always heard good things about. My personal opinion of the company has dropped as a result.
The email I received was informal. Like the first, it said something along the lines of “I have these articles you might be interested in, on these topics.“ Someone less suspicious than I am probably wouldn’t bother to check the sender’s email address, and might not have realized the proposed articles were coming from a company with a vested interest in the suggested topic.
I am a suspicious git, and I noticed. I emailed back and asked point-blank what the benefit for me was.
Bonus points: the representative responded quickly (on a Saturday, no less). They were honest about the content of the article (it would reference their own products, and other products—especially if the other products worked well in conjunction with theirs. And then I got some marketing speak about building a resource of health articles and blah blah blah.
Not buying it. If this was the case, why didn’t the first email I received say so? Why didn’t the first article have the company’s name and the representative’s contact information in the signature as the second email did?
Here’s the thing. If the company had built a knowledge base of articles on their own site and sent me an email saying, “Check this resource out. Here’s what we offer, here’s why we offer it; if you think it’s useful, would you post a review on your site?“ I would have done it in a heartbeat. If the articles were as balanced and neutral as the company representative is claiming they are, I would have had no problems with giving everyone a heads-up about a company-run knowledge base.
I vehemently object to being asked to turn my blog into a knowledge base FOR the company. No matter how neutral and balanced the company thinks the articles are, they are written by people in the company, for the benefit of the company. Either they are selling the company’s products, or they are selling the company’s reputation. Either way: selling the company.
Now, the next logical response is “but there are sites out there that post third-party reviews all the time, and this is a sort of third-party review.“ Yes, and no. Running a review site is hard, hard, hard work. The site is made or broken on the editor’s reputation, and the editor’s reputation is made or broken on the quality and fairness of the reviews. I don’t know any good review site that would post an article written by the product’s own company, unless the company had paid for advertising space.
I do know good review sites that will accept products for review and include quotes and extracts from the company’s pitch in their review, which is fine. The company’s perspective is counter-balanced by the reviewer’s stance. That’s why I would review a knowledge base posted on the company’s site, but I won’t post an article written by the company on my site. There has to be an editorial stance in there; you don’t just post what the company says and pretend like it’s neutral.
If the company really wants to break into the blogsphere (which I suspect is partly what’s going on here), they need to rethink their approach. They need to try building a relationship with bloggers instead of using them for marketing space. Build a resource, let bloggers know it exists, and let the bloggers respond to it in their own words. If the resource is good, the response will be good. Want product reviews? Pick some high-profile bloggers and send out products. I love product reviews. If products showed up on my doorstep, I’d review them. I’ve done that, actually (not with horse-related items, but I did run a site that did periodic product reviews, if someone pitched something especially interesting).
I really am not totally against advertising or relationships between bloggers and commercial entities; I’m just against companies that try to take advantage of bloggers, which is what I mostly see happening.
Off to write an email back to the company now, with the gist of this post in it. It’s unfortunate, because the company really does have a good reputation, and this tactic makes me think twice about them.
« Olympic Equestrian Events begin Olympic Eventing: Cross Country »
Comments
Well, I’m waiting to name them until the conversations with them wrap up one way or the other.
I never email companies to tell them their advertising techniques backfired, so it’s a measure of how disconcerted I am by this company in particular engaging in this sort of tactic that I bothered.
I really thought they were a better company than this; now to see how much they care about the fact that their marketing backfired on at least part of their audience.
How much does one voice matter, anyway?
On Aug 9, 2008, greyhorsematters said:
I think you are absolutely right to disregard the advertising ploy by this company and any others who may try it. Unfortunately, I’m afraid there will be some bloggers out there who aren’t as suspicious as you and may fall for this company and other companies trying to get free advertising on their blogs. I’m with you too on the product review aspect, if companies want a good review send out some products.