Blogger Endorsements
Returning to the issue of blogger product reviews and endorsements, there seem to be two distinct schools of thought regarding the most ethical way of publishing them without compromising a blogger’s most valuable asset: credibility.
First is full disclosure: the blogger mentions, either by categorizing his entry as a sponsored post, or explicitly mentioning the origin of the goods or service in the article, or implicitly in the context of the blog entry. That is what is happening now with bloggers in the Metro Manila area who are writing about the free doughnuts they received from Krispy Kreme’s Philippine franchisee, who is anxious to promote its product in the face of entrenched competition.
By the mere fact that bloggers are talking about it online, even if these writers – like myself for example – were not even offered samples of Krispy Kreme’s product, is success enough. In other words, people who received it will talk about it – an ego boost, no doubt – and people who haven’t will talk about it too, out of envy perhaps?
Generating such reviews and endorsements is a mutually beneficial exercise for both manufacturer and blogger. By sending samples to bloggers, the manufacturer creates excitement, an online buzz, and product awareness; publicity, in other words. For the blogger, publishing detailed articles on a much-anticipated item is a good way of attracting more visitors, with the resulting increase in page views, and may I daresay an increased potential in producing advertising revenue.
Some, however, are taking a more conservative approach, like this one exemplified by the Sassy Lawyer who was also approached by Krispy Kreme’s publicist and offered a boxful of treats:
“What’s my point in telling you all this? My point is that, blogger or journalist, or blogger-journalist, the only person who has a genuine right to endorse a product or a service is one who actually uses it and has, in fact, been using it for some length of time. In short, only genuine customers can give objective feedbacks whether in the form of positive endorsements or scathing reviews.
x x x
“So, it helps to know how Krispy Kreme will drumbeat its arrival in the Philippines. When the time comes, I will write a review of Krispy Kreme–but I will buy my donuts. I will not review a “special” box of donuts meant as a pre-advertising for the company. I will buy and eat the kind that is available to the public at large and that is what I will review.”
I am reminded of a story I read about former New York Times food writer Ruth Reichl whose job was it to review the thousands of restaurants The Big Apple had to offer. Her paper budgeted a not-insubstantial sum – about USD 100,000 or so per year – for its stable of restaurant reviewers to buy meals anonymously. Restaurant owners were, naturally, very interested in placing their best foot forward in the event she or her colleagues showed up at their door, and instructed their staff to recognize them on sight. I suppose they had a difficult time at it, for Reichl often diguised herself to avoid being spotted.
Re the Ruth Reichl approach.
That, for me, is the only genuine kind of review.
Let me clarify that even more.
There are products which, whether in the form of samples or otherwise, the substance will not differ. Example: books, magazines, music… Whether one is given an advance copy, or a free copy when the product is already publicly available, if one buys a regular customer, the product stays the same. They cannot be embellished.
But there are products and services that can be embellished when the business owner wants a good review. Hotels, resorts, airlines, restaurants, food products are only some of them.
That’s a difficult standard to meet by any measure.
Sure, but not impossible if one really wants to be honest, di ba?
i totally agree with the Ruth Riechl approach…it is totally frustrating to read resto reviews in newspapers and magazines, when the writer mentions they were invited by the owner/the chef made a special menu for them/they were flown in to Singapore by the airline for this food festival promo/etc…..how can they seriously be objective, and say the entree, soup, etc. were not good??
i recall BusinessWorld newspaper had a columnist a few years ago, Pickwick (his column was named Pickwick Capers, i think), and he gave such honest and objective reviews bec. he always paid for his own meal, and he never told the establishment who he was.
Connie,
That’s true enough.
Gus,
At least you know that the writer said that his trip/meal/hotel stay was sponsored by the organization being reviewed, so the astute reader can judge for himself if it is credible or not.
The defunct Philippine newspaper Business Day used to have a anonymous columnist named Lucullus who used to review restaurants anonymously. IIRC, he was later revealed to be the late and colorful Antony Moynihan, the 3rd Baron Moynihan.
[...] I am now reading Ruth Reichl’s Garlic and Sapphires, the story of her stint as the New York Times’ chief restaurant critic. In an earlier entry, I alluded to how she had to disguise herself in order to prevent eagle-eyed restaurateurs and their staff from spotting her as she made her rounds, but until I got to read her book, I didn’t know how elaborate her deception was. She would frequently take on an entirely different persona – at one time using her mother’s identity – and saw for herself how some restaurants would mistreat a mere nobody, as opposed to the New York Times’ Ms. Reichl, culminating in her first-ever review for her paper, in this case that of the legendary Le Cirque, in 1993. First, here she is as the Unknown Diner: “Do you have a reservation?” [...]
[...] or sample food products for review. Why? Let me just rehash here a comment that I posted in the Unlawyer’s [...]