Commercial Sites?
It has been a long time since a post, but I want to raise a question that has come up with recent activity. Is there a place for “commercial” bloggers on the HBCE? What I mean by this is, should we allow bloggers who are using their site for their livelihood to display the code? The answer is a little tough for me, so I would like to hear what others think.
There are pros and cons for their inclusions. Pros include:
- If you look at the code, it does not say that you cannot have a commercial interest; it simply states that if you do have one, it must be stated clearly.
- Many bloggers blur the line. If I put up advertisements on my blog, have I become a commercial blogger? I am seriously considering it.
- Many “commercial bloggers” offer valuable content, so why should they be excluded?
Cons include:
- This is a blogger code - which implies that it is done by non-professional writers. The purpose is to protect both the reader and the blogger from misunderstanding. The commercial blogger will always have some degree of suspicion since they want to earn money off of you (like friends who sell Amway).
- There is a financial interest in getting the code, as it makes people trust you more and so read your posts more. While this is not bad, it is not at all the reason the code was made, and somewhat goes against its purpose.
There are several options on how to handle this:
- Accept them as long as they clearly state their commercial bent and comply completely with the code.
- Keep the HBCE to include only “amateur” bloggers.
- Have a separate category for those who are “commercial.”
What do you think?
I will never place ads on my blog but write regularly about my own service. Does it mean I’m a commercial blogger?
No, I’m an amateur blogger as I don’t make money out of my blog.
So I think the first option is absolutely perfect.
This is a tough issue. While I agree that some commercial bloggers have valuable content, I think they should be in a separate category so that readers understand that they potentially have commercial interests. There has been such controversy lately about PI’s who have financial interests in the pharmaceuticals that they are investigating (therefore casting doubt on their “objective” findings) that I feel we should require the utmost clarity about the blogs people are reading.
Since we already have different codes for healthcare professionals and patients, I don’t see why we cannot have one more for professional bloggers. There ought to be a clear distinction between two categories of bloggers.
1) Those who are pure amateurs like most of us medbloggers, patient and professional.
2) Those who blog to either advertise/sell products or make money through their blogs in any way - by placing ads or monetizing their content.
I think HBCE has to be inclusive, not exclusive. Having a separate code will remove any kind of ambiguity and we don’t have to keep out anyone.
I agree, the line is hazy. You not only have to decide on what a ‘commercial’ site would be (does having advertisements qualify as a commercial site), but you’ll also have to determine if the blogger is a ‘professional’ blogger, and not and amateur blogger?
Seems to me it’s all a matter of interpretation from the reader as well as the writer.
I don’t think there is going to be a right answer to this one.
For instance, why does a blog’s content become ’suspicious’ once it’s determined to be ‘commercial’??
I do think the Code of Ethics can/should be a universal application and safety measure irregardless of ones motive and purpose for blogging.
Best of luck with this one.
I disagree Vijay. Simply because a blogger puts advertisements on their blog doesn’t mean they are a professional writer. I have advertising on Highlight HEALTH (clearly stated in the advertising policy) but I don’t consider it a commercial site nor do I rely on it for my livelihood.
I have been contemplating advertising for some time and agree that I, too, see no value to providing content, much of which takes time to research and validate, without some form of renumeration. At first, I wanted to be “pure as the driven snow,” but as the time commitment to maintain a blog encroaches on my life, I cannot justify continuing unless it provides something (revenue in my case) in return.
Marketing one’s self is also a powerful incentive to blog. Google rankings are important these days. Is this any less “pure” than not advertising? I’m not sure. I side w/Vijay. More inclusive is better. Advertising in most cases is obvious on webpages. And certainly when where conflicts arise with advertisements, they should be stated. But more often (as with Google ads that are triggered to keywords) it’s impossible to be 100% compliant with this ideal.
Many blogs opts to run ads to off set operating costs of the blog and a website, if there is one. My blog is part of an ad group, for example, but my blog is not part of any commercial interest otherwise.
However, some blogs clearly try and sell a serviced. Those blogs run the gammut, however, and many always seem to be all about their service or book with the blog posts being mostly various forms of “shameless self promotion”. In other words, these type of blogs are really glorified ads themselves.
What we could do is make that the distinction. If a commercial blog has posts that fit our criteria, fantastic. But, if the posts themselves are themselves ads, I’m not very comfortable.
This is difficult. Like Wes, out of necessity I am reconsidering accepting advertisements. Advertisements that are clearly marked, aren’t necessarily a problem, as long as bloggers behave professionally and follow journalistic and medical ethics and don’t allow editorial content to become advertiser-driven. But I have a MUCH more serious problem with blogs (some already with the HCBC) who are writing for commercial, social-marketing media companies, or sponsored by entities with special interests, and bias is evident but not readily apparent to readers.
I think the real distinction should be between someone who might also make some money from ads or who gets paid to write (whether Dr Tim on ABC or a public relations officer or a journalist) against a site that exists to direct readers to commercial enterprises, whether a users portal or medical services website or to manufacturers, or to message therapists or new agers.
I agree with Sandy above. A recent site for consideration was in the commercial-front category for me, reprinting posts from its portal, but there is a site such as Dr. Thomas at Changing Aging which is acceptable to me, even though he is the founder of a series of long-term care businesses.
Timing for this post couldn’t be better. I won the Healthcare Today contest and am having to decide what to do. I don’t want my blog to “cost” me to maintain it even more than the time it takes. Dr Wes puts it very clearly, but it would cost me even more than time if I move my blog to my own server, etc. Ads would allow me to be cost neutral, but I would not want it to conflict with trying to put clear, honest information out there. I wish it were a simple black and white issue, but fear it isn’t.
This is the thing. If you have a “free” blog from wordpress, blogger, or another…It’s free for you to blog, there isn’t a need to generate profits from advertising on it. However, if you have a dot com, that is a different story. My health blog is not on a dot com, so it has no advertising.
But, I do have dot coms, and dot coms cost money to “buy” the name, to have it hosted, and to get the amount of bandwidth you need. I pay about $80 dollars every three months just to have my dot coms - http://www.catherine-morgan.com and http://www.politicsanew.com - Neither of these sites are “commercial”, I’m not trying to sell anything…But, they do have “BlogHer Ads” on them (generating a mere $20 to $30 dollars a month).
For those and other reasons I don’t believe we can have a hard and fast rule about whether to accept blogs with ads. When you go to a site that has so many ads it is hard to find the actual content…that is a problem. Sites that have “double lines” under the links, are links to ads, and that turns me off. I’ve also seen people have paypal accounts set up on their blogs asking for donations…that makes me feel a little uncomfortable, but if it is excellent content and regular readers want to give a couple bucks now and then…who am I to judge? I think all of these things need to be looked at individually, and assess the value of the content to readers, before making judgments on ads.
If the blog is a 100% commercial blog (and it is pretty easy to see when this is the case), with little information other than why you should buy the products, then it should be turned away.
We need to remember that everyone is writing/blogging for their own personal reasons, and one of those reasons may even be to generate some kind of income (in these hard economic times, that’s easy to understand).
I suggest we look at each blog independently, without a lot preconceptions over ads, and focus on the content.
I’m like Berci. I don’t think I’ll ever have ads on my blog.
But I see the point that Walter, Wes & Ramona make.
I agree that content should be paramount. And being inclusive.
Would you give Sanjay Gupta at CNN the code? He (and his staff) seem to be ethical bloggers. The same distinction exists in journalism. There are those that write stories about advertisers where the intent is to make money off of the advertisements. Then there are ‘true’ journalists. Both are paid. Both have advertisements. Here’s a good quote from the wiki entry on journalism
“Journalism is the profession of writing or communicating, formally employed by publications and broadcasters, for the benefit of a particular community of people.”
Why not apply the same standard to the HBC? If the blogger is writing (paid or not) for the benefit of a community of people (and meets the other criteria) they get the code. If the blogger is writing to promote or market a product or service then deny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism
Perhaps we need to just look and see if the blog benefits the reader or the author more. I certainly don’t think that any revenue from a blog makes it commercial (ad words?), but I do agree that posts that spend a lot of time pitching a product are also not what the Code is aimed toward.
Wes echoed my feeling exactly - I am putting a lot of time into things and when I am getting a lot of traffic, I am tempted to get paid for all the time I am investing. I know Kim and several other bloggers have advertising on the blog without compromising the content. Again, the code itself says that you simply need to disclose this information.
Maybe the answer lies not in trying to define the commercial, or professional blog, but in defining the “amateur” ones. I’m using this definition of amateur: “a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons.”
I would like to have the distinction made between those of us who are blogging for purely non-financial and non-professional reasons, and those who are not.
Sherril
Umm,,, How one makes a living has nothing to do with ethics.
I assume everyone knows that I am a professional writer, author, journalist, blogger (take your pick). I have never hidden that fact. It is clear to anyone who reads my profile/about page. (You have all read my blog, right?)
I personally (and I mean this sincerely) don’t appreciate having people imply that how I earn a living affects my integrity. I’m also a little put off by the suggestion that blogs like mine should be set aside in a separate group and labeled with a scarlet “C.”
If we are going to single out commercial bloggers, then we should also single out:
1. Medical Professionals (or anyone) trying to make a name for themselves,
2. Anyone with a political viewpoint
3. Anyone with a religious viewpoint
4. And what about race or nationality?
5. The list could go on and on.
Anyone who doesn’t have a personal bias that affects your opinions, please raise your hand. (Put your hand down, you liar…)
What We Need To Remember
The HBCE was set up to protect medical bloggers (such as Flea, Fat Doctor, and others) who were being persecuted for blogging. It was never meant to be a policing agency. That doesn’t mean it can’t change, but I hope that’s not where we’re headed.
In my opinion, the only thing we should be concerned with when voting on new members is:
1. Quality of Content
2. Integrity of the writer/blogger.
We already have a fine set of guidelines that covers almost every possible scenario. It was designed to keep out spammers and other bad apples. It has served us pretty well so far, and I think it is still adequate. If you haven’t read it, it’s posted somewhere around here. (Rob, where did we put that thing?)
Yes, commercialism is a factor you should take into consideration when you cast your vote for a new member. Just use your own best judgment.
I have maintained from the very beginning that medbloggers “know a medblogger when we see one.” I also have every confidence that all of you can recognize a bad apple when you see one.
When reviewing a blog that just doesn’t feel right to you… that you think does not represent the medblogger community… simply vote, no and state your reason even if it’s just a hunch.
Enough no votes and Rob might even pay attention. If not, we can always take away his Llama. :o)
I’ve been keeping up with this lively discussion, and I’ve changed my mind. Call me a “waffler”, whatever. I agree with Amy:
“* that the editorial content is independent of advertising interests (aka journalism model)
* that any ads featured on the site should not contradict the HCBE ethical principles (like being offensive or misleading)
Other than that, I think that labeling an independent physician blogger or patient blogger as a “commercial blogger” is unnecessary, and even sounds rather negative.”
I respectfully disagree. I’m an amateur blogger and I’ve been actively blogging for over 2 years. I know my blog gets 4-5k readers every month and 70%+ of them are new readers, so I believe it provides valuable information. But I also have Google ads and I’d have a limited number of other ones if I could. The income (<$500 per year) doesn’t even come close to reimbursing me for the time I blog, but it pays hosting costs and gives me some money for geek toys.!
So focus primarily on quality of content. Is it valuable, how long has the blog been active for, are there many comments? I know that I see a lot of trash blogs that are there just to get advertising revenue, I think those are easy to spot. Advertising isn’t a key factor here.
I’ve been following this thread and I guess you could call me a ‘waffler’ like Sherill above describes herself.
Here are my revised opinions:
1. I agree that content is king/queen.
2. We are not going to be policing medblogs.
3. We do not want to become an organization tangled in red tape.
4. No problem with ads on blogs as long as the author posts content that does not try to sell / push whatever is being advertised.
5. I have no problems with authors trying to drum up support for books that they’ve written. The same goes for any creative effort (music, videos, etc,.). As long as the author specifically mentions it in their application to the code.
6. I think Rob and Dean are doing a great job.
Not to beat a dead horse but the heart of the code is that when people see it they are getting a realitively objective opinion (or where it’s not it’s stated why - in the case of sponsorship). A blog to promote a product or service is inherently biased and at odds with the code. But if the same company is just buying advertising space and the opinion is ‘unbiased’ it would seems to adhere. Thanks Rob and Dean - great discussion.
Tricky issue. Has anyone else been sent emails asking to plug certain products/commercial website on their website in exchange for cash? I have (they got a big ignoring from me and went straight in the trash). I should maybe change my contact to blahblah at gmail dot com as opposed to having a link. But my reaction was “Seriously? I have a readership of like 80 a day at present. If they are targeting such small fry, imagine the garbage that others have to delete from their inbox”.
This would explain why I have not been accepted after applying a few times over the span of a year. What constitutes a professional blogger? Making a few bucks? Making a living?
I blog mostly about my weight, but I do blog about other things. I have ads up, that cover the hosting and my marketing of my site.
I have not been as involved around here as I would like to be, so I will leave the decision up to the more involved community…
@Ian Furst
I agree with you. I am contacted day in and day out to promote products, but if I do I wills give an unbiased opinion. I don’t let a company sending me something or paying for a review, sway my judgement on anything.