ChrisBrogan.com
“No one does anything for nothing.”
You do what you do because you get a payoff of one form or another. If not financial then fame, if not fame then respect, if not respect then to be heard, if not to be heard then to vent in an act of catharsis, and so on.
Just because your currency is different from another doesn’t mean you don’t have a currency. Martyrdom offers more than enough rewards for some.
When Chris Brogan was called out for a post that he was sponsored to write about his experience with K-mart it sparked heated debate about whether or not sponsorship devalued the authenticity of Chris’ message. I was amused at how quickly a few thoughtful questions became fuel for judgment, negativity and misinformation.
I like what Betsy Wuebker had to say in her comment to Chris “It seems like the ladies on the corner who are giving it away for free are accusing you of working at their profession for money?”.
Is the motivation of the sponsored publisher any different than the publisher who receives donations or lives in hope of ‘being discovered’?
I don’t think so. I do think that the sponsored publisher is conscious of why he exists online and is successful achieving his goal while the others have yet to commit to a course of action.
Every time I sit down with my laptop I ask myself “How do I get paid?”.
It is the filter through which I pass my motivation for being online, writing, communicating and meeting people? It is about being conscious and deliberate - taking action with the end result in mind.
I’d like to hear your thoughts on how you get paid. Will you please let me know by posting in the comments section below?
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Interesting post Mistress. You are right - motivation is motivation regardless of the form it takes. The girls on the corner giving it away for free would be motivated by needs other than money.
My “payment” for blogging is being “discovered” by other interesting people out there, and to start conversations that could go somewhere.
Hi Mia,
I followed the link ready to be outraged. But it’s all about disclosure - and he did disclose. it was clearly labelled as a sponsored posting.
It’s an entirely transparent (and therefore legitimate) transaction.
Thanks for your comment Tim. I agree with you. The actual disclosure on the post only added to my amusement at the storm that unfolded on twitter as a result.
I get paid for my POV, my intelectual capitol and my ability to cut through the clutter. I give away more though but Im quite up front on what I expect to be paid for. Who works for ambiguity and vagueness?
Marc Meyer’s last blog post..Will the economy change the way you blog? or the blogs you read?
I find it tragic and hilarious that we accuse traditional media of bias and profess to only embrace “purists” in social media. Yet, the purists rushed to judgment and shoddy reporting like a pack of wolves in a deer den. How many contributed to the controversy to improve their own visibility? Yea, exactly what we purport to hate about traditional media. Chris disclosed the sponsorship, if he had lauded KMart while receiving money under the table I’d take issue, but the controversy was silly and is the very thing that scares many companies off from engaging in social media.
Karen Swim’s last blog post..The Gift of Words
Chris disclosed the motivation for the post. We really can’t ask for anything more than that.
With the decline of mainstream media circulation popularity and the favorable growth of online information sources such as blogs… don’t believe Chris is the first and certainly won’t be the last to directly benefit financially for their popularity.
Tom Bomar’s last blog post..Wii Fit - Fitness Games
I get paid as a writer. I blog (rarely) for fun on my own site, but I ghost-blog for others. I also write ebooks, web copy, product descriptions, and more. I am a copy writer, so I get paid for almost all of my writing.
I agree with Karen, above. And, well, nothing is pure these days.
I had a very interesting discussion with Stowe Boyd last night at the TechSet party - he still disagrees because he believes it pollutes the purity of the blogosphere (paraphrasing). I can hardly believe how quick so many are to pass judgment on others - as a participant in the new Sears campaign, I viewed this as getting paid for my time, not my post. It may be splitting hairs to some, but its all important to me. I do make money because of my twittering/blogging/speaking, but I get paid more money for my insights, creativity and opinions.
There are so many people out here now splitting hairs on this conversation, picking apart each sentence word by word, its ridiculous. I think I was somewhat lucky that I had a rough experience with Sears so I could just tell my story truthfully - thankfully I didn’t have to defend my integrity for having a positive experience.
Thank you so much for articulating another very important aspect of this issue.
Should social media be different from traditional media in it’s way of deliverables? But why should it be so, just because it is different because we want it to be or it has to be so that it is new?
I blog for my reasons and I do blog on articles that pays me, inviting me to events to be seen and to be heard. Is that wrong when I clearly place it up that it is a sponsored posts by blog2u.sg? Am I shoring myself just because I benefit from what I took time and effort to preset it at my blog?
It is a never ending discussion that been transported from the baggage of traditional media into this new media that we can’t get it out of our head that it has to be pure and non polluted. Is it even polluted in the same definition in the first place?