FTC Ruling RE Bloggers A Long Time Coming

Discounting the fact of an absence of influence associated with a $250 annual sponsorship fee, and the fact that no one can hit the bulls eye all of the time, this past week clearly indicated that I got it right.

Even the blogger in question, despite some lingering concerns with the Click Commerce acquisition, acknowledged the fact that he is slowly being won over.

This of course is a perfect example of why the total amount paid to sponsor a blog should not warrant either greater or less scrutiny.  The blogger whose opinion was completely critical of my original post happens to charge a considerably higher sponsorship rate than we do.  The fact that he missed the mark, or that his opinion is softening has nothing to do which what he charges.

I also believe that in his original criticism, although someone will have to tell me what exactly a Fenimore Cooper is, was motivated by a sincere difference of opinion.  This leads to the second point, personal opinion and getting it wrong.

In another example the same blogger, as well as another fellow blogger questioned the validity of the term Spend Intelligence.

With the former, the blogger stated his opinion that “Aberdeen’s use and definition of the phrase, “spend intelligence,” which at this point feels dangerous to me, just as overly political language feels dangerous to Orwell,” was simply “an attempt to shoot some Botox into a segment of the Spend Management market.”

The second blogger was more forceful and direct in his criticism expressing the opinion that the term Spend Intelligence “is misleading.”

Now here is the thing, the PI Window on Business segment was sponsored by Zycus.  Even though there were sponsorship dollars paid to the PI Social Media Network for the show and related articles, we posted all views on the subject on the Procurement Insights Blog, and discussed the matter in a live on-air forum (Use the On-Demand Player below to access the broadcast).

Given the above scenario, who delivered a more accurate and balanced picture to the market?  This of course is the point.

Now even though the two bloggers to which I had referred missed the mark, they did express an honest opinion.  However they did get it wrong, so in this instance the sponsorship paid venue delivered an insightful and accurate assessment.

Based on the above, I stand by my earlier statement that the true measure of a blog must always come down to the caliber or quality of its content – plain and simple.  This is the only true way in which any blog content should be vetted.

In this way, I agree with Ecademy co-founder and author Penny Power who in the June 4th PI Window on Business Show indicated that the market re readers, listeners, social networking connections are the best ones to filter content.  If the substance isn’t there, or the accuracy of reporting is left wanting or even for that matter the honest opinion of the writer fails to deliver meaningful and accurate insight, the community will ultimately tune them out.