Dr. Pepper Pokes Me to Be More Transparent

Every time I link to an article that I am mentioned in, thank goodness, Jeremy Pepper is there to leave a comment on my blog calling for me to be more transparent. Take Saturday, for example. I linked to an AP story on corporate blogging in which I was quoted. Here's another with a bit more on his perspective. Jeremy, first, thanks, sincerely. It's a debate worth taking up. So, let's get it on. :->

Here's my two cents: if the article subject focuses on me, my company or my clients, I will say so in the post and file it under "Shamless Promotion." Otherwise it's fair game. In this case, I was quoted as a source. And anyone who clicks on the link will see that clearly. Bad Steve for linking to an AP story on corporate blogging. Bad Steve.

Comments

[B.L. Ochman]

Yes, Jeremy is quite the blog watchdog, bless his heart. I often wonder how he has time for his own blog.
BL

[david parmet]

Somebody's gotta keep us PR folks honest.

somebody....

[Jeremy Pepper]

I don't see a difference between shameless self-promotion where you are the article, or shameless self-promotion where you are quoted as an "expert" or "source" on blogging.

If you can put out a compelling, logical argument on why it is different, that would be great. Right now, an article where you are quoted is one degree away from an article where you are profiled. Both are promotions/PR for yourself.

[Steve Rubel]

OK, so let's say that's true. What's the big deal in linking to a story w/o saying that? Anyone will see that.

[Bruce DeBoer]

Am I missing something?

Steve puts a huge amound of time into blogging. Who would deny him self promotion on his own blog? It's a very small price for us to pay [microscopic] for all the return we get for his opinion and editing. My feeling is that if someone is bold enough to tell me that they blog but aren't interested in self promotion, I'll find that quite suspect. My transparency radar is tied closely to what I believe to be the truth.

[Drew Olanoff]

I respect Steve's PR work and most of his writing.

But basically, don't call McDonalds out for a funny french fry blog that everyone knew was a gag, when you're going to have an "informational" PR blog that you slide between posting small blurbs (See Is Microsoft Gearing Up for "Save as RSS?" post) with no opinion, to having huge opinions on stuff you're involved in (See "59 Bloggers" post)

That's just my 2 cents for whatever it's worth.

[Drew Olanoff]

And by the way, I have no issues with self promotion, but I would just think that when you have high profile clients, the limelight would shift to them slightly. I'm not a hater though, I'm the first to congratulate anyone on successes.

[Steve Hall]

OK, so Jeremy, no one should ever be quoted in an article lest they be seen as promoting something? There is a HUGE difference between a profile piece or an article about about one of Steve's clients and an article on, say podcasting, in which he is simply quoted as one who follows the space. Clearly two different things. Have we reached the point where we all have to trot out disclaimers every time we open our mouths thus treating readers as even dumber, clueless, unable to interpret losers than they are already treated?

[Jeremy Pepper]

Bruce, it's about transparency. If we, as PR bloggers, are going to counsel our clients on transparency, we need to go beyond any reasonable doubt on transparency and be totally up front on everything.

Public relations has taken many hits this past year on not being transparent and trying to fool the public. If the "leading" PR blogger posts a story on blogging, and he's/she's quoted as an expert but doesn't highlight that in the blog post, that is being less than transparent. The response of "well, they'll see that when they read the story" is just as bad a response as the PR firms saying that "well, VNRs are just a common practice, and everyone knows that they are used." It shouldn't - and doesn't - fly in today's world.

But, hey, that's just one PR person's perspective on transparency and PR blogging.

[Bruce DeBoer]

Sorry if I seem to be beating this to death but I find it interesting.

J- I think authenticity is the most important thing. I don't feel fooled at all by Steve's blogging. I know its purpose and believe his opinion is just that: opinion. His editing is valuable to me: It gives me insight into what a PR guy finds blog-worthy. Naturally, he would find his own PR blog-worthy. Who wouldn't? It doesn't cause me to lose respect or feel there is an ulterior motive - the blog still feels authentic to me.

For the same reasons I would go to the MS Blog sights knowing full well that they are corporate blogs and need to be read using that "filter". They remain authentic because they aren't fooling anyone.

Do you feel that being self congratulatory referrals or doing some minor promotion isn't authentic?

[Jeremy Pepper]

Since you referenced Dr. Pepper: here's my tattoo.