It's interesting and in no small way reassuring to see that the US is going to have a stab at regulating bloggers - specifically they'll have to disclose payments, says an article in the Press Gazette. I suppose I should declare my own interest; I don't get paid to write this blog at all but I'm hoping it will encourage people to buy my book, preferably through a link I put up so I get not only royalties but a kickback from being an Amazon Associate. Most authors with a blog do the same.

I'm a little concerned about two things, though. First, how are they going to police this? Everybody knows you can start a blog really easily (it must be true, I say it in my book) so how do we police every little thing that might crop up? Many blogs including this one originate outside the US, and it's difficult to imagine even President Obama himself being able to regulate them.

Second, lots of stuff isn't directly paid for as such but it's subsidised by freebies. Loads of bloggers - I'm afraid I'm talking about the amateur variety more than people like me who're used to getting paid for their words - are happy to review (say) computer games because the companies that send them will allow the blogger to keep the game. The blogger therefore hasn't paid for the game, and is therefore getting some sort of benefit (anyone wanting a Rolex watch reviewed on the same basis, just let me know).

Many journalists don't even notice these little benefits are happening. In my book I talk about Christopher Ward Watches, for example, as an example of an organisation that's used forums to engage with customers very effectively indeed. I stand by that, and would add that they've never pitched to go into any book on which I've been working; however, when I first met the team they were launching their then new range, and every journalist who turned up went away with a complimentary watch. This is just good PR of course - but is it a payment of sorts?

To my mind, the new American rules have opened a proverbial can of worms that certainly needs inspection; I suspect that insisting everyone declares any direct payments is only a start.

Tags: blog, blogging

A great blog post here from Penelope Trunk and her Brazen Careerist venture. I say great blog post because it’s well-written and well-argued. I also believe it’s completely wrong-headed. It’s important though; if we’re really serious about Digital Britain and the consequent social networking and blogging that appears as a result, we need to consider these issues.

Essentially, Trunk is arguing that newspapers disclosing an interest in something are protecting themselves rather than informing the reader. So when I report something for the Guardian and am flown out somewhere by corporate hospitality to find out about it, I declare ‘Guy Clapperton had his accommodation and flights paid for by XX in connection with this piece’. We all know where we stand, the reader accepts that I’ll have been shown what the company in question wanted to show me. This is more important in, say, travel journalism than in my field - if you know a travel journalist went to Cuba only because the Cuban tourist body paid for it, you understand there’s an element of promotion involved, unbiased though the actual article will be.

Trunk believes this is all baloney. She believes this because I wouldn’t be telling anyone anything about any of this stuff if I weren’t being paid anyway - so the reader really needs a disclaimer saying ‘Guy Clapperton wouldn’t tell you about any of this stuff if someone weren’t throwing money at him’ (true of most of what I write but not of this blog, by the way - I write this of my own volition). That is of course a fair comment too, and it’s something I raise when I’m doing my media training. Journalists, particularly business journalists and those who write about products, often get prissy about how independent they are while the PR community has vested interests. Well guys, so do we, just different ones.

But if there’s a reason I’m able to report on anything and it’s down to a company paying my way, I do believe in disclosing it. This is why I’m a little perturbed to read Trunk’s view that bloggers should be exempt from the rule. In my view it’s quite simple: they shouldn’t. You can be fed a lot of unscrupulously biased coverage by bad bloggers among the excellent stuff from the more professional variety. I’ve been to media training sessions at which the advice has been ‘give the journalist information and contacts, give the blogger a freebie and you’ll get coverage’. I have a problem with this. First it’s patronising to a large number of bloggers - gee, we gave Guy Kawasaki a burger, maybe he’ll talk us up? No he won’t. But the ‘we gave a small but influential blogger a Blu-Ray player, maybe he’ll write something positive’ view is becoming endemic.

It gets back to a favourite theme of mine; there is by definition no professional standard for a blogger. Anyone can do it. So the ‘you can keep the review kit’ theory can sometimes be used to influence coverage. Trunk’s view, that we’re all writing from some sort of starting point, that we all have a reason for writing, is valid to an extent - but I still think disclosure of a vested interest gives the reader a much clearer picture of where you’re coming from and therefore arms them better to make up their own mind. Personally I’d love to see some sort of voluntary code for bloggers - in which they could, among other things, sign up and agree to disclose vested interests where they’re involved and undertake to be independent within their blog’s parameters.

Anyone who’d like to help me set up and administrate such a voluntary code is welcome to get in touch...

Tags: blog, blogging, social media, social network, vested interest, broadband britain, digital Britain

I’ve been playing with this new iPadio thing that allows you to ‘phlog’, or ‘phone blog’, again. It’s going to be a useful tool for a lot of people. Here’s an interview with their new chairman:



It took seconds to put that into this website and this and other services like it are going to change the way a lot of people blog and particularly podcast. No, it’s not great for editing afterwards so you have to do a competent interview first time around if it’s going to sound slick, but this - as compared to, for example, the otherwise-excellent Audioboo - works on any phone because the coding etc. is done at iPadio’s end.

My guess is that this and competing services are going to lead to a lot more audio content on a lot more blogs, very quickly.

Tags: ipadio, audio, blogging, phlogging