At least it wasn’t targeted at mommy bloggers…
There was an article in yesterday’s PR Newser – an online newsletter for the public relations industry — that excoriated Ann Taylor LOFT, the fashion company, for “paying” bloggers to run a post, calling it an “obvious infringement” of the new FTC guidelines.
The company sent this event invitation to bloggers:
“Come take a sneak peak at LOFT’s summer 2010 collection before anyone else! Bloggers who attend will receive a special gift, and those who post coverage from the event will be entered in a mystery gift card drawing where you can win up to $500 at LOFT!”
Followed by:
“Please note all bloggers must post coverage from our event to their blog within 24 hours in order to be eligible. Links to post must be sent to [address], along with the code on the back of your gift card distributed to you at the event. You will be notified of your gift card amount by February 2. Gift card amounts will vary from $10 to $500.”
The PRNewserarticle claimed that the arrangement was payment, pure and simple — and that furthermore, many of the bloggers did not disclose that they would be receiving gift cards. Referring to the gift card offer, the publication Jezebel used the phrase “attempted bribery.”
The LA Times also voiced it outrage:
“The mass fashion company is clearly bartering coverage of its new collection on blogs in exchange for gift cards. And — from the sound of the sliding scale card values — the bigger and better your coverage, the greater your reward.”
And:
“It goes against the rules of ethical journalism (which mandate that journalists cannot — or at least, should not — be influenced by money and gifts). Are the organizers suggesting that the new generation of journalists aren’t playing by the same rules?”
In the same publication, Ann Taylor LOFT’s response:
“Engaging the blogging community is a new way for us to communicate product information. We put a premium on the editorial media that covers our brand and we do not incentivize media for coverage. … It is not uncommon for LOFT to offer contests, promotions or special offers in-store and through various online channels to our clients, similar to other retailers.”
So — is this brouhaha another case of blogger bashing? Or do these critics have a point?
Is there a difference between the normal modus operandi — sampling products or offering, say, a travel or shopping experience to bloggers so that they can review them — and telling them they will receive something only if they do a review? Does it matter whether it’s the horse before the cart or vice versa? Is the fact that we’re talking about a gift certificate – cash by some interpretations — what makes this scenario one that may cross the line?
We’ve worked with bloggers for some years now. Would we feel comfortable saying to them, we’ll reward you if and only if you blog about us?
My answer: No. To Ann Taylor LOFT’s credit, there is something to be said for telling bloggers upfront what a company’s expectations are and linking next steps to a deadline. We’ve seen too many incidents of bloggers attending some expensive event — and then not posting a thing. Business note to bloggers: Why do you think we invited you? And why do you think you won’t be invited to the next one?
Of course, no publicist in his or her right mind would make an offer such as Ann Taylor LOFT’s to a traditional journalist. Yet as bloggers have said repeatedly, they’re not journalists.
“Barter?” “Bribery?” I think the real issue here is timing and nuance — and perhaps a bit of neglect. All successful blogger events offer giveaways of some sort; it helps generate turnout and excitement. At Ann Taylor LOFT, the approach was blunt — post about it and we’ll give you a reward – and yes, unfortunately the amount can be interpreted as tied to the quality of the post, although that may not have been the case. Perhaps it would have been different if the company had offered the gift card to guests beforehand and invited — not required — them to write about their LOFT experience afterward (although that would probably not have satisfied the critics). In reality, the latter approach would have been risky (those potential deadbeat bloggers again) and difficult to tie to deadlines—but more palatable. Furthermore, yes, anyone who posted should have absolutely disclosed that they would receive a gift card in return. Is it Ann Taylor LOFT’s fault if they didn’t? No–bloggers should all know better by now. Should Ann Taylor LOFT have included that requirement in the invitation? Makes for one wordy invitation but, hey, there’s always fine print — and FTC guidelines that impact not just bloggers, but the companies that reach out to them.
Marketers, what are your thoughts? Was Ann Taylor LOFT’s approach ethical? Where would you draw the line? Bloggers, I’d really like to hear from you, too. What do you think of the company’s invitation and the media’s reaction?
There has to be a finer point to this that I am missing, or else why would I be so confused about the “blow up” over this? I participate in a few momblogger review panels online, and at least two of them offer incentives similar to this. Here’s the exact text from a recent email (though I omitted the names of the products they were promoting): If selected for this program, you will receive samples of the *** and the *** weeks before they hit the shelves so you can try them out and share your feedback with your readers. After the tour, we will send all participants a $20 gift card as a thank you for posting. Another panel I belong to doesn’t reward every post, but does offer those who post a chance to be randomly drawn for one of any number of prizes (including gift cards). I’ve seen both of these panels applauded for showing support to the momblogging community by offering tangible compensation (beyond simply providing product).
I’m sincere in saying that I’m not sure what the difference is between what LOFT did and what these review panels do. It seems that LOFT is just following a business model that has already been established by other momblogger marketing/word-of-mouth providers online.
I don’t think it’s fair of the LA Times to suggest that the bigger/better the LOFT coverage, the greater the amount of the gift card – that’s assuming quite a bit. But I do agree with everyone’s concern over any of the bloggers not disclosing the details of the LOFT event. Even the two panels I mentioned absolutely insist on transparency.
So my honest question is: what did LOFT do that others have not already been doing (and with success and some degree of respect) online?
This whole thing is absurd. While Ann Taylor LOFT’s ploy was really obnoxious, this was because all gift cards were $10 not $10-500 and not a single attendee we know “won” the $500 card (side note to LOFT, writers all know each other and we talk). This wasn’t because it was pay for play. Is the FTC unaware of how many freebies writers (including this editor) get from companies in general? Whether a print journalist like myself or a web blogger, we are showered with stuff. It arrives via courier, we get it in gift bags, you can’t stop the flow. It just is. If my publication spent money to send back every unsolicited gift we received, we’d actually go bankrupt. Do journos from Vogue, Elle and Harper’s and all the mags bypass the goody bag handed out to us at an event? Of course not. Witness last Thursday’s Ann Taylor party at the Ace Hotel. We all (and no, I won’t tell you which one I write for) collected a goody bag on the way out. Lookbook and a pretty necklace. Is that a bribe? Don’t be absurd. No self-respecting journalist (print or web or whatever you want to call bloggers) can be bought off with a $50 necklace, much less a $10 gift card. The fact is, that all this merch allows us to see (and experience) what we are being pitched. We write about things which capture our imagination – and newsflash, FTC, if I’m holding it in my hand, yes, it’s more likely to make sense to me. End stop and out.