I can't get over a recent proposal emailed over to us at Exchange.ph (us being me and the wife) offering, essentially, free food in exchange for what looks like positive reviews. I initially chose to ignore it since we don't run a food blog anyway, but I couldn't resist going back to re-read the email over and again just to fully understand the conflict I felt.

So to start, here's the part of it of which is acceptable:

• __ will schedule with the blogger (you) a restaurant; or group of restaurants (merchant partners) which you may order from.

• In the list provided, you may choose to write or not to write about the __  Partner.

• __ may provide alternatives as it is available.

• The order will be placed by you, the blogger, on the agreed upon date and time.

• After you receive the order, you will write a draft about the whole experience which includes your opinion on the food, call center agent quality, rider quality, payment options, online order experience, etc.

• You are to disclose in your blog that __ provided you the food on a complementary basis as part of its continuous improvement program.

• You agree to submit the draft to __ within three (3) calendar days upon receiving the food product.

And here's the part I find (highlighted) that's hard to grasp:

• Upon receipt of the blog, __ agrees not to alter or modify your written blog in any way nor will __ influence you in terms of writing content in order to keep the blog as honest and straightforward as possible.

• You agree that __ will have the final decision if and when the blog is to be uploaded for public consumption on your blog site (and the __ website) or if __ will keep the blog internally for use as part of its Continuous Improvement Program.

• If __ chooses not to upload your blog, __ will provide a verbal or written summary of how it addressed each of your concerns and how it intends to improve its service as a result of your blog.

• __ reserves the right to charge for the food value and claim for damages should the blogger upload the draft without __ and __ restaurant partner express approval.

• Upon approval of __, you shall post the blog on your blog site and insert the proper links to the __ website and partner website along with search registration of the review in google.com, yahoo.com, and msn.com.

• You authorize __ to duplicate your written blog to its website or related sites. __ shall acknowledge your blog as the source.

• __ will advertise you, your blogsite, and the approved blog itself through __ email blasts and social network campaigns. __ will also place your blog on its website which has your profile in it.

• The bloggers profile shall be provided by the blogger giving specifics to the background of the blogger or the background of site along with the focus of the blog site. In lack of the blogger providing a profile, the authorizes __ to lift information from its blog site in place of its profile.

Obviously I've replaced the company's name with '__'. I don't think I have to, but what the heck.

So my problem in a nutshell: If this company truly wants to keep from 'influencing blogs in terms of writing content in order to keep the blog as honest and straightforward as possible', then why is it penalizing participating blogs that write blogposts it does not agree with by reserving the right to charge for the food value and claim for damages should the blogger upload the draft without their express approval?

The contract comes off as an agreement between food company and blogger where food company provides free food for review in order for blogger to write about. Nothing wrong with that, in fact it sounds like a solid deal. The food company though asks for a draft before publishing, and if food company doesn't like the draft, will ask you not to publish it or else you're off the gravy train. What's more, if you do publish it without their consent, not only are you going to have to pay for it, food company might even sue you for damages.

Jesus Christ, are bloggers that desperate for free food? Or do bloggers come off as such? And how effective is that going to be? This company should just hire a PR company to write copy instead, because that's exactly what these supposedly honest reviews are going to sound like anyway.

I can't deny however, that I can name at least 5 or more bloggers who would fall for this head over heels, and sign away their blog's integrity for free food (because they don't seem to have any anyway). So this campaign is going to get eaten up, pardon the pun.

However, I sincerely hope, and this I know is talking to the wind, that bloggers never forget that blogging, essentially writing, is self expression, and the only cache a blogger can truly create for himself is by expressing themselves sincerely and honestly. By doing so you earn reader's trust, and that trust, truly, is the only thing you have that's worth any value. Risking that trust away is risking all the hard work you've invested trying to make a reputation for yourself, so everytime someone comes up to you offering you something, you've got to weigh accepting it against losing the trust people have put in you.

As for companies that offer this sort of thing, they've got to realize that value as well. By offering agreements like this they ask the bloggers to put their names at risk, and if these bloggers lose their credibility or come off as palamunin, the very reason why they approached bloggers to begin with would have become moot. I'm not worried about the more mature bloggers out there, but the newer ones who don't know their way around are prone to this.

How frustrating is it for a blog hopper like me to see paid posts or otherwise influenced, biased blogposts? The whole reason I decided to stop writing for a broadsheet and go off publishing my own stuff is so that I could get away from all that, and hopefully write and read stuff worth a damn. The fact some companies see blogs as writers whose content can be quantified by their price in food for Chrissake, food, depresses me.

‹ previous

80 of 272

next ›