I agree with your post, but offer a quick addendum as it applies to our Baby Blogapalooza . . .

- We actually didn't offer all the bloggers a discount, just a few.
- We did explicitly state we didn't want posts about Design Public or our products, just about "kids, decorating, and design". We wanted this to be a fun event, with interesting enjoyable posts. And we wanted authenticity - posts about Design Public would turn off the reader.
- We made it clear to the bloggers that posting about the event on their sites wasn't expected of them. I left it up to them to post about it if they liked what was happening.
- We are a small company - five people - and I knew we couldn't afford to actually pay people to write on our blog. So in exchange for their efforts, I did offer a small discount to a few bloggers to get things started. The majority wrote me to sign up after the event began, and I didn't offer anything to them other than our sincere thanks and the promise to mention them in our monthly newsletter.

I agree with your assertion that more disclosure is needed in blogging, but I think our event worked because we took a backseat and let the bloggers write what they wanted.

Thanks,

Drew Sanocki
Co-Founder, Design Public

Thanks for the comment and the additional information, Drew. Just out of curiousity, did any of the bloggers purchase, with or without discounts?

no -- not yet, anyway.

Tonja, I didn't mention it because I didn't take the discount, and I don't intend to. My sole reason for participating was to get extra traffic, not 20% off a new desk.

No one at Blogging Baby did, either. WIN's ethics guidelines even require that we give away all products we receive free for purposes of reviews.

I was NOT offered any discount. If I were offered a discount, you betcherass I would have taken it (1. I can't afford that furniture at retail and 2. I'm no fool), and I would certainly have mentioned it. It would have been nice if you contacted me to clarify this before making the presumption that I was doing something "unethical." Ethics in blogging is matter that I take very seriously. It is for this very reason that I don't advertise on my blog nor do I mention products even though my mailbox is full of people that would like me to.

I would also like to clarify that I did not contact Design Public, they contacted me.

And, I would also like to say that I was honored to be contacted by them and would blog for them again.

Thanks for the information, CityMama. Drew from Design Public did clarify that only some of the bloggers were offered a discount. Ethics in blogging is still something that's being mapped out and it's fascinating to watch it develop.

If you had any ethics whatsoever you would have top posted a retraction, and offered an apology. You clearly did not research this accusation at all, and your fumbling attempt to cover your butt was inadequate and pointless.

Velma,
Some writers were offered a discount in return for their writing for that project, and that relationship was not fully disclosed on either end. And Drew from Design Public says above that he agrees with my post. The post explored the topic but did not accuse anyone of being unethical.

This is an interesting post. It startled me because I guess it never occurred to me that my entry for Design Public might be seen as advertising for them. I'm a freelance writer, and I've mentioned on my blog other pieces I've written. Did I mention that I was compensated for them? Well, no, but wouldn't people assume I had been? So why should it be different for blogging?

Bloggers often take themselves way too seriously? Ethics? Seriously?

They weren't writing about Design Public products they were writing about their experiences with design and children. In fact, in each of the pieces I read there was no mention of Design Public merchandise.

Also, CityMama and the 'ethics' of not having advertising. I just vomited in my mouth.

Tonja - The title of your article says *Full Disclosure.* Why don't you fully disclose that you didn't get your facts straight in the beginning?

Do yourself a favor and copy and paste this at the top of your repost as suggested by Velma above:

"Update: All, I was corrected by a couple of folks and was presumptuous in my accusations about some bloggers being 'on the take.' I apologize for any ruffled feathers." - or something like that.

Alice,
Great point. So many bloggers are against the establishment that any hint of being corporate is an insult. But I think that's changing with the increasing number of companies recognizing that citizen journalists are a great asset. BTW, I'm a long-time reader of your blog.

Sarah,
The bloggers didn't write about the company but they wrote on the company's Web site, and in return SOME received a discount. The company benefitted by increased traffic on their site (which could have led to increased sales) from the posts on the site and from the blogs linking to them.
The relationship between companies and bloggers is evolving. Who says it's OK for a blog to accept advertising? The blogger. Why does the blogger feel heat for advertising or accepting a pitch? Why is a blogger a sellout if they accept advertising or talk about a product?
Our company runs word of mouth campaigns and the rules each blogger makes for herself are different.

Goliath Lion,
I didn't say every blogger was on the take. I said some accepted a discount.

And I quote from you above: "Three guest bloggers (ZeroBoss, Suburban Bliss and CityMama) wrote about Design Public on their sites without mentioning any discount."

So true, you didn't mention every blogger was on the take. But your insinuation was not that they didn't mention the discount because they weren't offered it. Your next sentence is "If you're being compensated by a company to blog, should you disclose that? Yes."

So according to your logic, they had no need to disclose because they were not compensated.

And I don't necessarily think you should apologize, but you should clarify that you yourself did not follow one of the golden rules of journalism/public relations: checking with your sources before you report misleading and/or erroneous information.

Thank you for letting me share my opinion.

You write "In journalism and public relations, the answers are clear and usually stated in employee manuals and codes of ethics."

So what are you, Tonya Deegan, a journalist? PR person? If the former, don't you think you would have done a little diligence and emailed some of these people before throwing around your accusations of impropriety? And once caught in the act, issue a retraction or at least an apology for throwing three bloggers under the bus?

And who exactly was "anon" on the Finslippy comments who "broke this story"? Someone looking to create a story where there wasn't one?

If you are the latter -- a PR professional -- congrats on finally creating a post on your blog that pulled in actual comments. Although I don't think your firm is coming out of it looking too good. In fact I find myself laughing at the fact that it was a five person company in SF that came up with the Blogapalooza-PR-stroke-of-genius while the PR firm that has appointed itself "word of mouth marketing experts" can only try to knock it down after the fact.

Look, you probably didn't mean to come across as accusatory as you actually did. But the answer to this is not to say "it will be interesting to see how this develops" -- it's to say "whoops, my bad". My two cents.

Shan

And in the spirit of full-disclosure, yes I read Bliss, Boss, and Finslippy daily --

Actually, Tonja, I completely disagree. You tell me one single newspaper that puts next to the byline whether or not the author gets paid. There is generally an assumption that they are but it is absolutely not always true. Second - there is only one publication that doesn't accept free products in some form or another for testing and review or commentary. Usually the individuals involved are not allowed to keep or sell those products but they sure as heck get sent them.
Third, real trust and ethics in any form of public writing come from telling the truth regardless of any other arrangements. And frankly, the current state of US journalism of any form couldn't be worse. There is more public kowtowing to 'ethics' than ever before and far less actual investigation than ever before. The result is worse than if journalists played fast and loose with 'ethics' but always looked into stories and told the truth.

The one publication? I leave that to you to find out...but here's a hint - they also don't take ads.

Wow. I wrote a piece on that blog, and I paid them for the privilege.

I have the worst business sense.