Social media isn’t new, is it?
We’ve had a few years now of doing this stuff and I think there are a few basic, commonly agreed norms of conduct. And two of the most important things in any social media activity are surely authenticity and transparency.
For me, this means if I’m blogging about a situation I have a commercial interest in, I’ll try and mention that. I don’t mind – I like plugging the fact that I provide cost-effective media training and training for PR executives in working with bloggers, for example (see what I did there?)
But maybe it’s just me.
I read a blog post yesterday about a health threat to consumers. You know the sort of thing: X causes cancer. The post described some of the research supporting this theory, and praised groups that have campaigned to raise awareness of the possible problem. Then the author suggested a few alternatives to X, with links to buy these products.
I’ve no issue with the topic, or the post. I’m certainly not qualified to say whether or not X causes cancer. Maybe the writer is perfectly correct. And I'm sure they are sincere in their intentions. But what they SHOULD have mentioned, in my book, is the fact that they’re the PR for all three of the alternative products linked to within the post.
In failing to mention the commercial relationship, I instantly suspect the author couldn’t care less whether X causes cancer. They just want to scare people into buying their client’s product rather than an alternative product. That’s not necessarily what they intended to do, but it’s how it looks.
Hmm. I could rant on for ages about this, but I’ll just say: not a good idea. And surely something PRs these days learn not to do on day one on the job?
