Blogger ethics

57 comments on “Blogger ethics ”

• Comments are now closed

1. bobo 1

   30 January 2009 at 12:26 pm

   It’s fine as long as its a complimentary one way flight 🙂
2. Redbaiter 2

   30 January 2009 at 12:37 pm

   “Given this situation I?d say the chances are quite good that there is at least some kind of loose arrangement between the company?s PR arm and DPF. ”

   Well of course you can say this, but I would prefer to see the evidence before I smeared anyone in this way. Your whole post is based on this one sentence, and the sentence reveals you have nothing but supposition. Hate to be a defendant in your court.
3. lukas 3

   30 January 2009 at 12:47 pm

   Jealous much?
4. Brett Dale 4

   30 January 2009 at 12:58 pm

   There’s a code for blogger’s????

   There should only be one code, don’ t plagiarise.
5. Clint Heine 5

   30 January 2009 at 12:58 pm

   Naaa, a few blogs were approached about the viral. Nothing really too murky and evil behind it sorry!
6. Idiot/Savant 6

   30 January 2009 at 1:03 pm

   Clint’s right. They approached me, offering to pay for each view of the ad. I turned them down. I’d have turned them down quicker if I knew it’d need to be run as a post and mingled in with content.

   The company behind it is Unruly Media, whose slogan is “Seeding Videos into the Social Web”. in other words, corrupting our conversation and using it to make money. No thanks.

   Captcha: “serves Helene”. Almost, but not quite…
7. Inventory2 7

   30 January 2009 at 1:31 pm

   IB – Methinks you doth protest too much 😉
8. IrishBill 8

   30 January 2009 at 1:48 pm

   Clint, that’s cool. My point wasn’t so much about DPF but about the ethical framework for blogging as it heads into commercial/MSM territory. I’m not so concerned for any moral reason as for credibility reasons.

   IV2, please don’t misquote the bard at me.
9. leftrightout 9

   30 January 2009 at 2:03 pm

   “the back catalogue of our work combined with the public critical feedback we get in our comments section means our posts are more rigorously debated and have to be more solidly constructed and fact-checked than a lot of MSM opinion pieces.”

   “Every month the blogosphere’s influence on the mainstream increases.”

   I’m not trying to be rude but do you have anything to back those statements up? Ive been noticing in recent posts, especially on the state of the Herald/blogs vs MSM a kind of “we say it is, therefore its fact” type attitude, without much to substantiate it? see Sprout’s ‘NZ Herald: Nobody Wants It’.

   If there were some figures/stats it would add more clout to the story.
10. Joe Blogger 10

    30 January 2009 at 2:07 pm

    yawn………
11. Felix 11

    30 January 2009 at 2:12 pm

    In fairness to DPF he does have it quite clearly labeled as an ad, even though it’s presented as content. I mean it’s titled ” A Viral ad for Air NZ”, the post states “This is an ad”, there’s a link under it saying “Sponsored Video” and it’s tagged as “Advertisements”. I think he’s covered himself pretty well.

    Clint, how do you read

    “I’d say the chances are quite good that there is at least some kind of loose arrangement between the company’s PR arm and DPF”

    and get

    “The ladies at the Standard are saying you’re being paid off by Air NZ and it’s some big business conspiracy”
12. Tigger 12

    30 January 2009 at 2:19 pm

    Look, I don’t care so long as I don’t have to sit next to him on the plane…
13. Soph MacFarlane 13

    30 January 2009 at 2:19 pm

    Felix, there’s a difference between stating clearly that you’re publishing it in exchange for money or as a favour for services rendered, and implying (as Farrard did) that it’s just an ad you’ve stumbled across in your travels and are sharing on its own merits.
14. ieuan 14

    30 January 2009 at 2:38 pm

    Come on, it’s DPF blog he can do what he wants!

    If he wants to let every nut job right winger rant to their hearts content in his comments section then it’s his call.

    If he wants to spout bullshit/brain dead economic advise, then it’s his call.

    If he wants to back Israel every step of the way because he is 1/64th Jewish then it is his call.

    And if he wants to post pictures of woman in various states of undress just to get his number of hits up, then it is his call.

    If you don’t like, just don’t go there…..
15. Felix 15

    30 January 2009 at 2:40 pm

    Yes I understand the distinction but it does say “Sponsored Video” underneath it.
16. IrishBill 16

    30 January 2009 at 2:49 pm

    “Come on, it’s DPF blog he can do what he wants!”

    That’s exactly my point. You could equally say come on it’s APN’s newspaper and if they want to produce advertorial while pretending it’s real news they should be able to. There is a point at which the degree of influence a forum has acquired starts to imply some social responsibility this is recognised in the fact there is a BSA and a press council and at some stage in the future it’s going to have to be dealt with by the blogosphere in order for blogs to achieve the credibility many of them are heading for.
17. Julie 17

    30 January 2009 at 2:50 pm

    I didn’t notice the sponsored video bit until going back to check after Felix mentioned it. If you click through to Kiwiblog’s “Advertisements” category from the tag on the post you get a whole lot of commentary on various ads, not (presumably) other paid spots.

    There’s a tension there between all the hard work that a blogger puts in, for free, and the chance to earn a little back for the costs in terms of time and sometimes money (eg url registration).
18. Julie 18

    30 January 2009 at 2:51 pm

    Also Clint, why do you use “ladies” as an insult?
19. Felix 19

    30 January 2009 at 3:00 pm

    Also Clint, why do you use “ladies’ as an insult?

    *puts hand up*

    Ooh ooh! I know this one!
20. chfr 20

    30 January 2009 at 3:33 pm

    Before getting too excited guys have a look at http://www.saverjet.com. FYI the site is halarious.

    If David has any contact with someone who works in the travel industry then he would have got this from someone there. The ad was heavily publicised in the industry rags this morning.

    I think you are trying to find a conspiracy where there is none.

    IrishBill: if this is your threshold for “conspiracy” then you must have a very hard time dealing with the dozens of conspiracies that I presume you find yourself confronted with every day.
21. QoT 21

    30 January 2009 at 3:35 pm

    Now now, Felix, give the other kids time to answer. 😛
22. Matthew Pilott 22

    30 January 2009 at 3:52 pm

    QOT – my guess:

    Maybe Clint’s mother, his girlfriend, or some other significant woman in his life is called ‘Bill’, so when he saw a post by IrishBill, he thought it must be a lady.

    Or maybe he’s just a cock.
23. IrishBill 23

    30 January 2009 at 4:34 pm

    My greatest regret here is I think I have just cost the Standard any chance of custom from unruly media. That’s going to eat into my whiskey money.
24. TightyRighty 24

    30 January 2009 at 5:04 pm

    question IB, was the standard approached to host the video?
25. TightyRighty 25

    30 January 2009 at 5:06 pm

    and i keep getting the most hilarious words to verify, i sometimes wonder if they are targeted. Last on was Baldy, condition, before that i got pies and glutton, i now have rocky chafing
26. IrishBill 26

    30 January 2009 at 5:10 pm

    TR, not that I am aware of.
27. Pascal's bookie 27

    30 January 2009 at 5:23 pm

    “i now have rocky chafing”

    Ouch, sounds nasty.

    So if something is a piece of viral marketing, and it’s being heavily pushed in industry circles and through cheap date bloggers, ain’t that kinda the death knell for whatever cred’ viral campaigns had to begin with? Does DPF cheapen his self by acting as an initial vector as it were? He obviously doesn’t care, and he has every right not to of course, but it does seem to be an extra wander down the path of hack.

    Yes, it’s labeled ‘ad’ and so on, but he could of said that AirNZ was pimping it out to him as free content, and that it was quite funny. He’s usually kinda keen to point out that msm or the real world in general is taking notice of blogtopia, so I was surprised that he didn’t even ego it up that way. At least then there would be a reason to post it as a discussion starter. But he didn’t in this case.

    Free advertorial I reckon.
28. ZenTiger 28

    30 January 2009 at 8:26 pm

    Hmm, I wonder if AirNZ are hosting his website? Maybe he should disclose that too?
29. Robinsod 29

    30 January 2009 at 8:49 pm

    Oh! look everyone! ZenTiger made a funny! And a cutting one!!! Or at least it would have been cutting a year ago…

    Really mate if that’s the best you can do it’s no wonder your odd little jesus-voodoo site is losing hits…
30. ZenTiger 30

    30 January 2009 at 9:24 pm

    I didn’t realise ethics had an expiry date. Thanks for the heads up.
31. Robinsod 31

    30 January 2009 at 9:34 pm

    I didn’t realise you knew what ethics were. Don’t you just substitute stone-age bigotry from that odd book when the need for such judgment arises?
32. ZenTiger 32

    30 January 2009 at 9:38 pm

    Howdy Robinsod. Not always, old friend. Every now and then I turn the other cheek. Makes up for my lack of reading perhaps.
33. lukas 33

    30 January 2009 at 9:44 pm

    Hey Robinsod, told your source that they were wrong yet?
34. Robinsod 34

    30 January 2009 at 9:47 pm

    Jeez – now you’ve gone and made me feel all uncouth with your nice-guy shtick… Funny thing is it was you that came in with the cheap crack so I guess I should just keep going…

    Thus… Tell me my old mate what do you do once the fourth cheek has been slapped?

    Edit – hey lukas – say hi to your mum for me…
35. Peter Burns 35

    30 January 2009 at 9:49 pm

    Smack yourself in the head with a sledge hammer robinsod or better still nail yourself to a wooden cross . I hope my not nice guy shit makes you cry and suck your thumb.
36. Robinsod 36

    30 January 2009 at 9:52 pm

    But dad – that would be blasphemy!
37. lukas 37

    30 January 2009 at 9:56 pm

    Hey Sod, haven’t heard that kind of humor since third form…Do I have to be specific as to what claim you got wrong?

    I’m sure there is room in the comments section to place an apology or retraction of some sort
38. Peter Burns 38

    30 January 2009 at 9:59 pm

    “blasphemy!” No sod you are alright as God knows the mentally insane cannot understand things. I pray you get better one day.
39. Robinsod 39

    30 January 2009 at 10:01 pm

    Lukas – I pitch to my audience. I have no idea why I just pitched to you. Oh and DPF’s column? Watch it become more infrequent…

    As for your your mum? She’s crap. It’s not surprising you never knew your dad…

    edit: speaking of dads – I’m not any more crazy than you pete.
40. lukas 40

    30 January 2009 at 10:06 pm

    You are a sad little man Sod. Your audience at your blog appears to be fairly low in intellect, probably explains why you only post one or two posts on a month, any more and the three people who read it would have a brain overload.

    Wow, its like you know my whole history…accept you happened to get it all wrong. Oh well, nice try… keep fishing, I’m sure one day one of your “sources” will accidentally get something right.
41. Robinsod 41

    30 January 2009 at 10:12 pm

    A sad little man? I’ve not heard that before. Did your dad teach you that? Oh no! My bad you didn’t have a dad. Or if you did he wasn’t sufficiently able to teach you how to conduct yourself as a decent man…

    I’m glad to see you’re reading my blog. It may raise your IQ… although I suspect you are a hopeless case…
42. Robinsod 42

    30 January 2009 at 10:14 pm

    actually – I’m starting to have a thought. Are you trent/richprick/pdq/pdm? Oh dear – you’re still angry ‘cos I caught you pimping your old dead granddad…
43. lukas 43

    30 January 2009 at 10:21 pm

    never heard of any of those people sorry ‘sod.

    I am surprised you have not heard that before. Word around Wanganui is nine out of ten women think you are a “little man”.

    As opposed to your parents who taught you to be an outstanding citizen, respect your fellow man etc etc?

    I suspect my IQ is sufficiently high enough. I would bore you with the details of starting university at 16, but that would only go on to depress you I suspect.

    Although you claim to be starting to have a thought, my suspicion is that that is far from the truth and you have had one too many cold beverages to have a coherent thought tonight.
44. Robinsod 44

    30 January 2009 at 10:26 pm

    Sorry lukas but you’re just not showing that big IQ you’re so proud of. Quite the reverse…

    It could be that you’re steady eddy but he’s too stupid to change his style past me sniffing him out… Maybe you’re prick, in which case I know exactly who you are… Go on – give’s a hint…
45. lukas 45

    30 January 2009 at 10:32 pm

    I’d love for you to actually attempt to find out who I was…
46. Peter Burns 46

    30 January 2009 at 10:34 pm

    Broken arse ethics from anonymous cowards. Hi big blouse.
47. Robinsod 47

    30 January 2009 at 10:35 pm

    It may take a while but these things eventually come to me. Goodnight lukas.
48. lukas 48

    30 January 2009 at 10:38 pm

    Going on the form of your sources to date I am pretty confident that you will not find out who I am anytime soon, but please continue to guess… its rather amusing. Let’s make a game of it shall we?

    Have a great night ‘sod. No doubt will see you around here next week.

    My first guess as to who you are- Winston Peters…
49. Clint Heine 49

    31 January 2009 at 2:27 am

    Good night ladies 🙂
50. David Farrar 50

    31 January 2009 at 8:31 am

    An interesting discussion. If I run an ad in the main blog again I’ll use a new tag of “paid advertisement” or something. I thought it was pretty clear, but obviously not.

    I ran this one in the main blog as a bit of a test. One can also have them in the sidebar but obviously smaller. I want to see what the relative click through rates are between main blog and sidebar.
51. TBA 51

    31 January 2009 at 9:12 am

    The only thing that is unfortunate about this whole situation is that DPF feels that he should even acknowledge this sort of crap.

    All the lines about ethics, disclosure are complete crap especially considering the sources of those comments and their own personal history’s within the blogsphere.
52. Regan Cunliffe 52

    31 January 2009 at 11:51 am

    As the person who arranged this campaign I am a little surprised by some of the comments here.

    Personally, I think it is fantastic that large corporates would be interested in throwing some money towards bloggers for the opportunity to be included in their conversations. None of the big media companies are receiving any coin from this campaign so it’s great for smaller publishers.

    If you’d like to add the viral to your site, you can sign up here.

    You don’t need to put it in a post. You can add it to a sidebar or serve it through an adserver if you want.

    I’m more than happy to answer any questions.

    Cheers
53. Felix 53

    31 January 2009 at 1:08 pm

    I’m surprised that you’re surprised.

    Of course people are wary of anyone wanting to join a conversation for monetary reasons.

    Many of us put a very high value on the integrity of our conversations.
54. Pascal's bookie 54

    31 January 2009 at 1:37 pm

    So if I wanted a post on KB extolling the benefits of magnets in the mattress, or bee poo extract or something, how muchee?

    Reagan, it doesn’t cost anything for corporates to be involved in online conversations. Just jump on in old son. But that’s not really what you are doing is it?
55. Regan Cunliffe 55

    31 January 2009 at 2:04 pm

    Felix, I’d be more worried if money was changing hands over conversations that were being moderated.

    Pb, there is always a cost for corporates to be involved in conversations. Someone isn’t going to work their spin for free.

    What UM is doing is providing a better solution for a) publishers to make a much better income than the likes of adsense and b) providing advertisers a grass roots approach to reaching their audience.m
56. tsmithfield 56

    31 January 2009 at 2:29 pm

    Felix

    Are you Mr P Pompous ?
57. Felix 57

    31 January 2009 at 4:16 pm

    I’m quite sure I don’t know what you mean.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS