Yesterday’s blog drama du jour still has me shaking my head and going, huh?
A blogger named Crissy received a pitch that made it look as if Toyota was willing to pay mom bloggers $10 Amazon gift cards to write a post about how great Toyota is, and “like” positive news stories about Toyota around the web. Only it turns out, Toyota did no such thing.
A blogger, acting on her own accord, figured it would be a good way to get into the PR biz, start conducting blog tours, and “make a name for herself.”
Wow.
Shelly Kramer summarized the whole thing crazy super well. She needs to be a professional spy.
When I first looked at the pitch, there was not a doubt in my mind that this is not a pro PR person writing this. The astute Alli Worthington said the same (and beat me to it in comments, damn her!). There is no way Toyota would have approved this kind of strategy, and the Mommy Networks website looked all pretend and scammy-like to me. But then, Shelly and Alli and I do this kind of thing for a living.
When most bloggers looked at the pitch, their initial instinct was YOU WANT ME TO DO WHAT FOR $10 GIFT CARDS?
Because that is what they are often asked to do for a living.
In other words, despite the fact that the pitch looked amateur, the website looked like a fake, and the entire scheme seemed hairbrained, ethically devoid, and possibly illegal; it also seemed entirely plausible.
Not only plausible, but worthy of vengeance. Plenty of the commenters couldn’t wait to spread the word about this evil company, post comments to all their message boards and Facebook pages, and BRING TOYOTA DOWN.
Mwahahahahahaaaaaa…
That’s a little freaky for brands and PR folks, don’t you think?
There is so much mistrust of marketers out there, so much history of gift cards for positive reviews, so many ridiculous schemes presented to bloggers on behalf of big brands that we are ready and willing to believe (and share) the worst about companies.
One commenter on Chrissy’s blog even assured the group that this kind of outreach is “standard PR and in no way appears to me to be shady.”
There’s a lesson in here for the bloggers, of course. We have to learn to be better critical thinkers. We have to learn to analyze pitches and do a little digging before we act. Or react. Or overreact.
As for brands, hoo boy. I don’t know where to start. Wait, maybe I do.
I’d say start by putting pros on the payroll. The Weber-Shandwicks and the Edelman Digitals and 360 PRs and the Stephanie Smirnovs and Stephanie Azzarones and David Wescotts of the world. The very very best, very very smartest ones that you can afford.
Your carefully constructed brand is in their hands. And frankly, some of the other folks are messing things up for all of you.
73 shards of brilliance… read them below or add one
Next Comments →
And I'll bet you more than one blogger went for it, which is exactly what's wrong with blogging.
I agree with you, Liz, that we need to dig deeper into pitches. I'd like to say we should just deal with the major PR firms, but I think that's short-sighted. Some independent PR people are very good at what they do, and they shouldn't be dismissed simply because their e-mail address doesn't end in ginormousPRconglomerate.com.
For those of us with communications and journalism backgrounds, we need to spread the word on how to vet pitches and how to do the hard work that Shelley did.
How about all begin by no longer selling our brands and accesses to our audiences for gift cards.
Wow, Liz. You really nailed the root lesson in all of this. Beyond the hype, the real issue is just how BELIEVABLE this horrible pitch was, how much it has become the MO for blogger pitching. I hope companies look beyond all the hype to see this root problem. If we weren't getting awful pitched to do blog promotions for companies for gift cards EVERY DAY in our in-boxes, this fake pitch would have been questioned by everyone who received it.
I always come to you as the voice of reason, and once again, you are spot-on with this one.
There is another message for brands here. All too often brands look to bloggers to spread messages or implement campaigns, which bloggers can do brilliantly. But they also need to have relationships in place and be in the space in a supportive way. Toyota has done some blogger outreach and relationship building, but not much compared to other similar companies in their sector, and this happened on the heels of their “we don't make cares for bloggers” commercial. If a similar pitch circulated from Chevy, for example, more bloggers reading Crissy's piece would have said, “Wait, Chevy isn't like that in the blogosphere. They sponsor BlogHer, SXSW and other conferences, communicate transparently, lend cars and generally made things happen for bloggers. I've met Connie Burke and her colleauges.This doesn't fit and I know who to ask to check it out.” The #fail tag goes onto companies much quicker if they haven't done that relationship building with bloggers and their consumers in general. That's the big change that social media has brought to damage control.
I couldn't agree more. I too thought the pitch sounded poorly written and very questionable, but I have received too many similar pitches that really did come from brands or the PR firms they hired to make me doubt it completely.
Please tell me that there is more than one Stephanie Smirnov out there. I'll take a dozen, please.
Thanks for posting this, I didn't receive the pitch but if I had I definitely would have realized Toyota and $10 wouldn't make sense to me.
Not that I'm overly surprised, but you explained this whole hoopla in the best way possible. Thank you for taking the time to do so. Your voice always lends so much to this conversation.
Great post. And agreed: David Wescott is a pleasure to work with.
Deb that's a super important point and I'm glad you made it. Relationships really do matter.
That said, I sort of dismissed the whole “Toyota not for bloggers” thing. Yes, it wasn't the best copy choice for an ad. But it was clear that the point was we don't make our cars for automotive critics, we make them for drivers. Not, we don't make our cars for people who have blog accounts.
Toyota may not have come up with the specifics of the campaign, i.e. attempting to buy links with $10 gift cards, but they clearly hired the PR people, or hired the PR people who hired the PR people. So . . . how exactly should we feel bad for Toyota, again?
What they did was say “We want more search results that show that the acceleration stories aren't true. Make that happen,” to somebody, who told somebody else, who hired this shady PR firm. That's what giant conglomerates do.
Since when do you people just buy what corporate America says wholesale? This crap happens all of the time. This whole thing is ABSURD and smacks of wanting to suck up to potential sponsors.
This fits in so well with an offline convo I've been having with my husband, who works in the auto industry, about the nuances of establishing and maintaining a social media presence.
Critical thinking, people. We all have our moments where we react first, then think. But this is another great example of why it's so important to apply a little thought up front.
Great synopsis, Liz.
Anna, You're incorrect. They hired no one. This was a rogue woman acting on her own accord, thinking that this was a way to build a portfolio. Her apology is posted on both sites that I linked.
But thanks for making my point!
Fascinating. I missed this kerfuffle (as I usually do), but your synopsis is great.
Yes, bloggers need to be good critical thinkers – as do we all, bloggers and not.
Manufacturers of cars that accelerate for no apparent reason need to be sued.
Can you sit on my shoulder and remind me of this next time I set out to torch a corporate headquarter? Once I see red in these situations, the need for a person like you increases tenfold. I really do appreciate all that people like you, Alli, and David Wescott do and it's posts like this that keep me from surging with the mob. Thank you.
Muskrat: They were vindicated of that. A federal investigation last week determined it was user error, and not faulty manufacturing.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/08/us-toyota-usa-idUSTRE7165SY20110208
(I swear I don't work for Toyota. My agency has a rival car account!)
Anna, you said: “What they did was say “We want more search results that show that the acceleration stories aren't true. Make that happen,” to somebody, who told somebody else, who hired this shady PR firm. That's what giant conglomerates do.” I respectfully disagree.Emphatically. My biggest client is P&G — doesn't get much more “giant” than that. They are scrupulously transparent in the social media space and would never allow us or any of their other PR agency partners to subcontract any kind of outreach with full vetting and prior approval. Not to mention adhere rigorously to FTC guidelines.
Liz: I am extremely flattered for the shout-out. On behalf of all the teams at DeVries PR working hard to get this right — thank you.
Nice recap, thanks. Curious to see how Toyota (or, their pr reps) will address this matter, if at all.
Thanks everyone for the smart discussion.
And Katie, that's crazy nice of you. Thank you.
You know, I think this all goes way deeper than just bloggers. Our society is creating people who don't think critically. As an urban social studies educator, I see a tremendous lack of questioning texts, sources and authority going on in schools. I know not everyone has fight in them, but as citizens of a democracy, it's our responsibility to “check” stuff like this. I'm so sick of people simply taking things at face value because it's easier than doing your homework. And I'm sick of people misdirecting their anger. And/or clout. Ok. I'm done now.
Thanks for the shout-out, Liz – much appreciated. (and you too, Heather.) I think Deb nailed it – relationships make the difference.
Personally, I've found hiring bloggers as consultants and partners and letting them add their creativity to yours – making them part of the team as opposed to the target – is much more effective than outsourcing to other firms. The ideas Heather and another blogger brought to the table on a project we did were outstanding, and I'd work with her again in a heartbeat.
I think that approach conveys a level of professionalism and commitment and respect that you can't deliver through a gift card. And to Jen Singer's excellent point, you don't need to work for a huge firm to do that.
Kami, I agree with you wholeheartedly. That's why I wrote so passionately about the Texas BOE textbook standards issue, and was so dismayed when my own father commented to say, “Who cares? Nobody remembers what's in their textbooks.”
The details matter, both in terms of specific circumstances and in how we think and how we teach our kids to think.
And there's a big difference between critical thinking and analysis (what Liz did in her post) and unsupported conjecture (what ABDPBT did in her comment).
Thanks David, great point. Goes without saying that blogger has to be a pro too though. This post is a good example that not every blogger–even the really great ones–are cut out to be in charge of brand outreach.
But a smart blogger + a smart PR guy like you? Winning team.
This whole thing was so…weird. From every angle. It's fascinating to watch boundaries (and standards) set, explored, extended, exploited, and reinforced. And whoah, I can't wait for the Mom 2.0 Summit. Let the conversation continue…
You covered it all perfectly, Liz. Thanks for the shout out.
Let me tread on dangerous water here in your comment section for a minute. It was disappointing to read the comments of that article and see how many women were ready to pounce on Toyota as a company.
The Social Media trainwreck has a bandwagon effect that is dangerous not only for brands, but for the people who join in.
As someone who often advises companies on which bloggers to work with, I pay careful attention to individuals who seem all too willing to jump in without thinking critically about the situation.
Everything we do online matters. This is true for individuals as well as large companies. Professionalism matters in this space just as much for bloggers as for the companies they partner with.
I watch these events carefully and I guarantee every company that works with bloggers is watching as well.
My advice to everyone is the next time the social media trainwreck rolls by, that they do a gut check and see if they have done their research before jumping on.
I missed the initial “event”, but as always, I enjoyed your analysis. I think I know how you feel watching this sort of thing unfold- a bit like I feel when I'm watching the latest piece of pseudoscience make the rounds. I'll echo what some of the other commenters have said- it is ALWAYS a good idea to stop and think and check the facts before jumping on a hot topic or bashing a company. Just because companies sometimes do stupid things doesn't mean that they do every stupid thing they're accused of!
I'm sorry, Alli, but did I read that correctly? Are you insinuating that bloggers should self-censor in order to impress you and other PR consultants or you will punish them via a kind of black-list?
I don't blog for profit for many reasons, so this matters to me not at all, but your advice seems rather chilling. Have we now reached the point in blog monetization where every comment or thought is examined in an effort to gauge a blogger's suitability for use by a PR firm?
Er…ick?
I was around for the beginning of this story, went to the store and saw that everything had changed. I agree with much of what has been said here and I'm giving Kami a fist bump and a high five.
SPOT. ON.
We really do need to make every effort to focus our attention on how this stuff actually works. Specifically, on what it looks like when it's done well – thank you so much for giving props to the people and companies that DO do it well, and who should be the models and examples that we look to when we're talking about this stuff.
And yes – as Alli said – we do need to keep our thinking caps on when we discuss these issues and cases like this, and not default to X IS BAD! without consideration. Which is a good rule for life in general, I think
Am always, am so grateful for your smarts.
@ Cherie
Absolutely not. My comment was advising everyone to think critically and do their own research before jumping in on the latest drama in the Social Media realm.
“My advice to everyone is the next time the social media trainwreck rolls by, that they do a gut check and see if they have done their research before jumping on.”
Cherie, If that was the intent of Alli's comment then you're right – ick! But I didn't see it that way.
What I got from that is that is that there are a lot of loose cannons in the blog world (which is true) who jump in on every drama and ever brand-bashing opportunity and that reputation carries forth. Whether you work with brands or not. Your reputation is your reputation.
I thought that was pretty sensible.
My apologies then. I was focusing more on this:
“As someone who often advises companies on which bloggers to work with, I pay careful attention to individuals who seem all too willing to jump in without thinking critically about the situation.”
…and taking it to a conclusion that seemed plausible. I may have read between the lines too much there.
Cherie, I think Alli's point was that we should all take a deep breath before we pull out the collective blogger pitchforks.
All of these weird pitches are freaking me out so much that (here is my secret) I am one of those bloggers that chose a long time ago not to participate in any campaigns unless they were run by a professional social media company/site. Or – here is my other secret – from the company *directly* and that I either get paid as a consultant or disclose whatever other form of payment I got. But this meant that I did not participate very often… I agree with this post – bloggers need to do their homework and hold up to ethics. geezzzz
@ Cherie Beyond – I don't think Alli is suggesting we self-censor. I think she is correctly stating that people who are going to pay bloggers for their services by necessity pay attention to who they are and how they present themselves. This is just like any other professional situation, by no means unique to blogging.
We are all free to blog and comment and post content however we want to, but we have to be aware that companies may not want to be associated with us because of how we behave in the online space, just as an employer may not want to hire you if they know you are disruptive, impulsive and have an unsavory reputation in your field or in your personal life.
Not rocket science.
There are obviously about twenty points I could respond to here, but, let me just say that I did my best to update the post as information came to me.
A month ago I watched no less than 20 of my mom blogging peers run a story on their blogs for Hundai. They were paid with a $20 gift card, and actually instructed not to disclose. I know that part for a fact. http://www.sheposts.com/content/should-ftc-be-harder-bloggers
When I saw this screwy pitch roll in, I assumed it was more of the same.
Did I jump the gun? Well, that's pretty obvious. I can't un-jump it, and can only hope that the conversation that came from this incident will make everyone, myself included, look at blogger-PR relationships a little more closely in the future.
@ Suebob (and everyone else)-
I get the point and I certainly concur that if one wants to be taken professionally one should act professional. I think what bothered me, and I actually just nailed it down in my own mind, is that what Alli is pointing out that she is, in fact, a gatekeeper. And while gatekeepers can be good (who wants to work with a windbag with a grudge against corporate America?) they can also limit discussion to the detriment of the larger conversation. This is my concern, at the root.
I can't be bothered to blog as more than a haphazard hobby, which is why I think I sometimes take a step back and say, “Wait, THAT'S where we are going with this?” This was one of those moments for me.
But, clearly, this is my own issue and distracts from the discussion above, which is a good one. So…as you were.
Crissy, I thought you handled it very thoughtfully as new info rolled in, posting your updates at the top of the post and even changing the headline. That's a seriously awesome move.
Where we differ, is I probably wouldn't have jumped on a brand for something a consultant did. And I generally email the person pitching for more info before I write about it.
I wasn't familiar with the Hyundai campaigns. Yikes. Were the bloggers specifically instructed not to disclose? Or they just didn't?
I find this all fascinating, as a person who only rarely participates in this kind of thing, and as a person who is NOT a professional blogger, nor has any interest in doing so.
What I found interesting about yesterday was the moral outrage that someone would be asked to cover up “bad press” at all, when — and I say this as a PR professional — that's what MANY of the campaigns are designed to do, they're just more well-packaged. I'm sure everyone remembers when Pampers reached out to mom bloggers after getting the crap kicked out of them for the Dry Max diapers. But I didn't see any of those moms throw a fit about how they were asked to cover up bad press, probably because they were well compensated.
To me, yesterday's mess was about compensation; what I found distasteful was that people who were regularly willing to shill for companies were suddenly putting on a show that they would never participate in such a disgusting campaign.
That, to me, showed an astonishing lack of critical thinking and a blatant willingness to be bought.
In the interest of full disclosure, I've done precisely one sponsored campaign, working with Edelman (who I loved), for a brand I already believed in. That was, and will forever be, my litmus test for working with a brand. Do I like them whether I'm paid to say so or not?
I really wish more people had that as their criteria. We'd have a lot more credibility.
I have no idea how many people were involved with recruiting bloggers into the Hundai campaign, but yes, I do know that at least one group of the bloggers were specifically asked not to disclose.
Fab post and awesome comments – this is absolutely indicative of a very real problem that threatens all of the major brands that are taking the right approach with blogger relationships. My post today echos many of your commenter's sentiments. The exhaustive discussion over whether bloggers should be compensated or not should be resolved in many minds today – a professional blogger would NEVER have made an error like this. Bloggers and PR have made great strides in developing a protocol for doing business together but now it is time to for the conversation to turn towards banding together to educate and demand a higher level of professionalism from the both the blogger and PR industries. Both sides are at great risk if the current practices continue….
This whole thing also represents a huge problem in blogging general — people want to be viewed as professionals, but also want to be able to blog about their preshus feelings, many of which are considered highly unprofessional in the traditional sensel. The personal is becoming the professional, and that's a really murky pool to swim in.
“We want to be taken seriously!” everyone (rightfully) crows, while at the same time writing a heartfelt post about something that is as un-serious as it gets. Our lives are becoming our brands and it's … it's kind of creepy, if I do say so myself.
I'm also struck by the hypocrisy in how it's sometimes okay to call companies out on bad pitches, but sometimes it isn't — it all depends on who knows who, and I firmly believe that some companies/people are given a pass because they don't want to piss off the gatekeeper for another campaign. I don't expect P&G will come knocking on my door after I mentioned the Pampers incident, for example. I'm OK with that, or I wouldn't have said it.
It's MESSY, is what I'm saying, and I don't see any way you can look at it where it isn't. It's confusing and it's pretty ugly, from my vantage point.
To clarify my earlier comment, I DO wish that more people would only work for brands they genuinely like and use before taking a compensated campaign. Because at the end of the day, you ARE only selling yourself, your trust, your brand, your credibility, and if you'll do a giveaway or sponsored campaign for the highest bidder, what do you have left to sell me on? Nothing. Sorry.
Ergo, when something like this comes up, and 80% of your content is sponsored but THIS one outraged you (and this is the general you), I feel a little twitchy, and that's not your fault as a person, it's your fault as a professional, and a failure to use your brand effectively to protect your credibility.
Did I trust Brooke Shields after Latisse? Yes. Did I trust her after Latisse, Crest (or Colgate or whatever, I don't even know) and whatever else she's selling? Nope. Do I trust bloggers who run more than one sponsored campaign a quarter? Nope. I see no reason why I should.
I've spent six years building up my readership — a readership that is not insignificant, and one that I could easily exploit for monetary gain. At this point, I consider them friends, and I want them to trust me — not only as a person, but in what I say and what I recommend. If I abuse that, why on earth should they stick around?
Edelman — and Huggies — absolutely recognized that, and it's why they are so great to work with, and why they compensate the way they do. I would have a hard time believing if I eroded that trust, that I would be able to command the same on a one-off campaign.
And yet, I see bloggers doing their best to damage their relationship with their readers every day. It's sad.
Thanks for posting the recap on this. I saw what was happening and reached out to a PR friend at Toyota who immediately jumped on it. She's a great PR pro and I was surprised something like this could have come from her shop. I'm glad I was wrong. Let's hope the correction extends further than the misinformation.
Thanks for your comments Jonniker. You bring up some good points. I honestly didn't follow it closely enough to know who was outraged about what and why. But I think there's a difference between public relations strategy and putting good news out there in response to some negative press…and a “cover up” which is kind of what the fake pitch was offering. I know it's a fine line, but the two are very different in practice, if not in the desired end benefit.
@Crissy that blows my mind about Hyundai. I don't know the details but if a company approaches a blogger with a campaign and the instructions not to disclose, walk away. Fast.
I have a possibly dumb question, but I didn't see the answer in Crissy's post or Shelly's. Did anyone else receive the pitch?
Well, that's just it: the end result is the same. Are people always thinking super-critically to realize that by participating in a “good news” campaign that they're participating in a bad news cover-up? Doubtful. Or if they are, they're okay with it because hell, they're getting paid!
I mean, come on. Break it down to its most basic elements and that's what it is. There is a slightly dirty element to many successful sponsored campaigns, and I don't know why people are so afraid to acknowledge it. It's gross to me that at the same time we're encouraged to think critically, while at the same time being told there is a difference when it's packaged prettily, and with a nice cash bonus.
Thinking critically also means thinking about what you're doing even when it's a “good” pitch or opportunity.
Finally, is it really so weird for people to be suspect of whether or not Toyota is involved even after the denouncement? After all, Lansinoh denied, and yet …
Well Jonniker, isn't that inherent to marketing in general and public relations specifically? Brands exist to put the best positive message about themselves out there and potentially offset negative ones.
I guess no one discusses it because it's a given.
But hey, maybe we should.
Of course. But isn't that the whole point? You're selling yourself to a brand to do their dirty work at a cost, and that cost has more ramifications than the money they're paying you. So please, spare me the outrage at being asked to cover up bad news in this case — or others — when that's exactly what you're being asked to do most of the time. And yes, people should be thinking about that, and thinking about the ever-present trust capital issue that Anna has brought up repeatedly.
And no, I do not think that specific point is obvious to most people. If it was, a lot of points in this Toyota case would be somewhat moot, and the outrage generally kept to a dull roar. And further, if it's really obvious, and still, that many people who are willing to sell themselves at the right price, with the right package, then there isn't a whole lot of integrity left in the world of blogging and that sucks.
This isn't a job in the traditional sense. It was one thing for me to do PR for a giant tobacco company in my younger years. But here, you really are willing to sell your brand, your personality, yourSELF, without thinking through the ENTIRE thing, and yes, I think realizing exactly what marketing and PR means is something people should be thinking about at its basic level. Yes.
Next Comments →