Digital Street Journal

Thi post is in response to Technosailor’s recent attack post, Jeremiah Owyand sticks foot in mouth (again) Over Izea Sponsored Posts, on Jeremiah’s role in the Chris Brogan/Kmart controversy. It’s meant in fun.

I came very late to Saturday’s controversy regarding Chris Brogan’s sponsored post on Dadomatic.  Most of the day I had been out and I got back in around midnight so it caught me by surprise.  In my initial limited knowledge, I thought it was a charity thing put on by KMart.  Turned out it wasn’t but Chris nevertheless bought toys for underpriviliged children.  However controversial, that’s a cool thing to do.

But first, a few disclosures:

• I am, thanks to Chris, a fellow daddy blogger on Dadomatic.  And by the end of the week I’ll be posting my own review of a cookbook.
• I’ve actually done some work for Izea on a freelance subcontractual basis.  At first I was leery of the concept of Pay Per Post, but I then came to realize that many of the people involved aren’t sleazy snake-oil types.  Many of them are moms looking to earn a few more dollars for their families.
• I’m looking to create a service for local businesses - primarily restaurants - that will include blogger relations. 
• Chris Brogan and Jeremiah Owyang are two of the people that I respect the most on Twitter.  For both their insight and their generosity.

Apprently, Chris was roundly criticized by many on Twitter following this tweet by Jeremiah: 

Here’s @chrisbrogan ’s paid post for Kmart http://snipurl.com/7ynb1 Transparent, Yes. Authentic? Debatable. Sustainable? No.

The part that probably got people going was the “Authentic?  Debatable.” part.  Pro and anti Brogan forces soon joined into a fray.  So here’s my take:

Announcing a sponsored post, done in limited quanities is fine by me.  It comes with risks, but each individual has to decide for himself or herself if they would do it.  Chris did it and bought some winter clothes for his kids as we go into winter.  And he bought some toys for tots.  It isn’t the end of the world and I have no problem with it. His rep is intact in my book.

I also think Jeremiah has every right to take look at the question the concept of sponsored posts.  It’s a worthy discussion, espcially since Ted Murphy just tweeted

“In the past month izea has had opps 4 ford, kmart and sears, now another fortune 100 brand-my favorite soft drink. 2009 is yr of spon posts”

The real missed opportunity here is from Kmart.  They could have donated a certain amount of money to an organization per blog comment and per retweet.  That would have taken some of the ill will off over the whole thing while giving people the opportunity to feel as if they are contributing something.  It could have been this year’s Frozen Pea campaign.

But this post isn’t about all that.  It’s about a post in response to all of this that I read last night.  Aaron Brazell, known as Technosailor and one of the more colorul commentators in social media, let loose on Jeremiah with “Jeremiah Owyang Inserts Foot in Mouth (Again) over Izea Sponsored Posts”.  Read it please.  I did, twice.  First time, left a comment.  Second time  I was taken somewhat aback by its harshness.

Jeremiah picked up on this development and decided it needed to be a big issue, asking questions (in his typical braindead question asking style) about the campaign, and insinuating that Chris is not authentic in his post. This is not his role as a research analyst.

With all the background in place, let me offer my own opinion - less about Izea, and more about Jeremiah. Jeremiah is, as a representative of Forrester Research and in his function as a research analyst, expected to be a thought follower, not a thought leader. That is, his role is not to editorialize, or offer public opinion in such a way that exerts his influence outside of his Forrester client base.

From where I sit, outside of Jeremiah’s client base, I can say that I don’t follow him on Twitter nor do I read his blog because he’s a thought follower.  He’s a thought leader in my book.  As is Chris Brogan.  As is, for that matter, Technosailor himself.

In this case, Jeremiah had no place asserting himself in a conversation that he had no information on. If you’re not part of the problem, and you’re not part of the solution, then you stay out.

It’s like Technosailor is saying that Jeremiah is not supposed to express his opinions publicly.  Since when do people in social media not comment on stuff?  Twitter is still abuzz this topic.  Social media is about conversation.  I’m sure a helluva lotta people made dumb comments on this, attacking either side.  But that’s social media, for good or for bad.  Freedom of speech, baby. 

I agree the whole issue is stupid. The fact that Brogan, (and I, this upcoming week) are doing these posts and have our own personal reputations and brands on the line should be enough to recognize that the fact that there is a sponsored post will not hurt our reputations.

This whole issue IS a bit stupid. But sorry, right or wrong, deserved or not, writing a sponsored post can hurt your reputation.  And reputations, while rooted in the way one carries oneself, is inevitably seen through the eyes of others.  No one is above that. 

For the record, I don’t for a minute feel that Technosailor’s upcoming sponsored post will be a sign that he’s compromising his values.  His integrity, which is high, will remain intact with me.

The problem, Jeremiah, is that you are taking the stigma of a company from two years, channeling the mindsets of the Mike Arringtons and Jason Calacanis’ of the world from two years ago and trying to make the same arguments today is where I think the stink is coming from outside of your direct influence. By the way, Calacanis gives a thumbs up on the effort…

…The problem is when you start fighting two year old fights. It makes you look irrelevant and petty. It makes you look tone deaf. When you go after Brogan (which I respect your assertation that it did not happen the way you wanted), it makes you look… well, clueless.

The problem is actually that this argument is NOT over.  The discussion, as we saw this past Saturday remains.  There are the gods and gurus of social media for sure.  And they have earned their influence and respect.  But social media as whole is too democratic and too much of an unwieldy beast to tame that easily.

Not everyone is hip to sponsored posts.  Ask Shel Israel.  Ask CK.  Ask a bunch of others and you’ll get hmms and haws and outright thumbs down.

Which brings me to what I consider to be the most important points of all.  Social media is still in adolesence.  We practitioners have less influence than we think.  Take two studies from Forrester that I learned about from none other than, well, Jeremiah Owyang.  Very, very, VERY telling.

One is that, in a Forrester study, 15 of 16 companies attempting to use social media as a marketing communications vehicle were failing in the fundamentals of social media as they were often treating it as a means to broadcast messages with their own needs coming first.   That means, to me companies aren’t listening to social media strategists. 

The second was that corporate blogs finished dead last in a survey of people who were asked what sources they felt were reliable about a company.  Dead last at 13%.  Once again, we’re not being listened to.

People, that’s the major problem here.  Not the fact that Chris Brogan went on a sponsored shopping spree and maybe one of us will too.  Hell, I retweeted the thing and I could use the money.

But that’s why Jeremiah’s follow up post offers so much.  Let’s examine what we’re doing.  Especially if Ted Murphy is right in that 2009 will be the year of sponsored posts.  We owe ourselves that.

That’s why Mitch Joel’s post nails it.  Companies are not ready, willing and able for Marketing 2.0.  These are the issues we should be facing and addressing.  And those that think they are ready are doing it wrong.

Right now we’re not seeing the forest for the trees.  And the longer we do that, the longer we won’t be listened to.