This is something I've been struggling with for a long time. For over a year now, I think. When I started writing about kids' media, way back in the fall of 2005, I thought it would be way cool to someday have people sending me promo copies of music, DVD's, books, or other things, asking for my opinion. To be considered a legitimate authority, an opinion-maker, a good writer, someone who is taken seriously. Yes, doing what I do means free stuff for our family, but that was not my motivation and is not my motivation for continuing to write about kids' media.
Well, in the last year, I've seen a lot of other bloggers -- bloggers who are primarily parent bloggers and memoirists -- looking for ways to "cash in" on writing reviews. Several bloggers have launched their own side-project blogs where they review certain (or any) products.
Many others have joined review networks, like the Parent Bloggers Network, where parents review anything from books to diapers to hand sanitizers and become eligible for all kinds of swell giveaways and prize packages-- not just review items, but also things like a $200 night out with your spouse, a $50 restaurant gift card, or a two-person tent.
A few bloggers have signed on with PayPerPost, where you can "get paid to blog about the products, services and websites you love."
Some bloggers who have gone these routes have made it quite clear that they were initially motivated (or still are motivated) by the opportunity to get freebies from their reviews. Some have openly discussed their excitement about freebies. Some have kept fairly quiet on the subject. Some have joked about it. Like this:
Even though I don't work at that company any longer...I'm still all over the swag....I'll take it where I can get it since I'm a SAHM and, um, have no income to call my own. (No, I still don't have any shame. Why do you ask?) So when I was contacted to be a part of The Parent Bloggers Network I jumped all over that like men in bad ties jump all over free pastries and gourmet coffee at a boring conference.
For about 6 months last year, I contributed kids' music reviews to Cool Mom Picks, a site where moms review a wide variety of products. Part of the reason I left that group was that the line between review and advertising seemed very blurred. I felt as though I was writing the same review over and over again, and that it wasn't really an honest critique, but more like ad copy.
I've struggled at times with keeping my voice honest on my own site, too. I'll admit, it's hard to criticize an artist once you've had personal contact with him or her. But I've never, ever felt obligated to give a positive review for an album (or DVD or book or whatever) just because I received a free/promo copy. Nearly all the music I've reviewed in the last year was music I received for free, and I've written a good number of negative reviews. More often, when I get something that is less-than-fabulous, I've just set it aside and not mentioned it. I've tried to always make this clear to people who want to submit materials to me: Artists and publicists who send CD's or other materials for my consideration are not guaranteed a review, or even a mention, on my blog.
PayPerPost and some of the review sites that parent bloggers have launched perpetuate the idea that a review on a blog/website is a quid pro quo arrangement, where you give me a sample of your product (and maybe some other swag), and I will give you a review (probably a positive one) on my site. That's not how I operate, and it's so, so very troubling to me that people assume that it is.
Part of my frustration is that I see a major difference between product reviews that appear on other sites and the kind of writing I do here. I see my writing (and maybe this is a bit ambitious on my part) as music criticism, not just reviews. Sure, I could write a review of some new baby shampoo. Or a minivan. Or refrigerated cookie dough. But I don't know enough about any of those things to have a truly informed opinion. In my view, many of the reviews that parent bloggers are posting are actually unpaid ads or endorsements.
I've tried hard to keep my writing from sounding like consumer recommendations or kiss-assy hype in exchange for freebies or access. I've tried to keep advertising and content very separate on my site, and not blur the lines. And I've given negative, even scathing reviews of plenty of music that I received for free, which should demonstrate quite clearly that I'm not writing under the influence of oooooh....free stuff.
When I got a copy of a lullaby CD made by Carnie Wilson, who was once a major label artist, I could have said nice things about it in order to make friends with her publicist. And she quite possibly could have connected me with some major players in the industry. In my wildest dreams, she might have gotten me access to Carnie's dad, the amazing Brian Wilson. Because she would have been so appreciative of my glowing review, right? How great would that have been? But I gave my honest opinion. It sucked.
I wrote an honest review of KidzBop last summer and never heard from the people at that label again (even though I didn't think my review was all that negative -- I guess it's possible they just didn't like my style).
And although she's never sent me any of her music (and probably never will), I've given my honest opinion about Laurie Berkner and why I think she might be just a bit over-rated.
The reason I bring this up now is that BlogHerAds, the network which I chose to work with to run ads on my site, has issued new editorial guidelines, specifically to address PayPerPost, paid reviews, and any reviews where the writer receives a product for free. Because of the perception that reviews are something given in exchange for freebies, and because advertisers are demanding it, I'm now being asked (as are all members of the BlogHerAds network -- the lovely people who place clean, income-producing ads on my site) to disclose whenever I review an item that I've received for free. Also, if I receive something with cash value greater than $40, I will be obligated to either return it or buy it.
Personally, this is somewhat insulting. Having to include this disclosure suggests that I'm incapable of remaining objective in the face of a free CD. But I don't blame BlogHerAds one bit for adding this to their editorial guidelines. And I don't blame their advertisers one bit for demanding it. I blame the many bloggers out there who are attempting to cash in on reviews and perpetuating the misconception that reviews are a quid pro quo arrangement.
Wil Wheaton blames them, too. In a recent entry, he said that PayPerPost "undermines the legitimacy and hard work of a lot of bloggers who write about things they genuinely love and care about." I couldn't have said it better myself. All of this undermines my legitimacy. The legitimacy I've been working for as a writer and as a critic.
So from here on out, I'll be adding (in teeny, tiny print -- because I know most of you couldn't care less about this) information about what I have and have not received for free. To look back quickly at the last several months, here are some things I received for free: nearly every kids' CD mentioned or reviewed here (and many more that I haven't covered yet), possibly a few drinks consumed while in Brooklyn, breakfast and lodging at the home of AudraRox while in Brooklyn, some stickers, and a few comic books. And here are some things I've written about which I paid for myself: any of the DVD box sets mentioned as being part of our collection in this post, my own personal copy of Alternadad (Neal Pollack, you cheap bastard), my airfare to Brooklyn, the deposit on the quarter-keg of beer that was consumed at the Brooklyn Hootenanny (which I got back), my subscription to Dish Network (which provides me with endless hours of TV entertainment about which to write), the water table pictured in this post, and all the Diet Coke consumed while writing.
Also, these are my review guidelines, which I really didn't enjoy spelling out so bluntly, but I felt somewhat pressured to do a few months ago so after being confronted with some ugly comments from a reader, suggesting that I was being "bought" or at least swayed by freebies and "payola". Hee.
Lastly, I've been sitting on this entry for a while, knowing that it will likely offend a number of bloggers whose writing I truly enjoy. But hopefully, if you've read this far, you understand the need for me to get this off my chest.
18 comments:
Well, I know you weren't talking about me (nobody enjoys my writing), but I figured I could weigh in on this... I've received a few free books and CDs over the past few years. Probably about 1% of what you get. So far, my kids and I have enjoyed everything sent our way except two CDs, which will go unmentioned. Like you, I chose to simply not write a review because my blog isn't really about reviews, positive or negative. It's about what we like as a family, so I never felt the need to write about something we disliked.
As for PayPerPost, I signed up but then never saw anything worth writing about. Oh, I may have written about one thing a long time ago... I think it was a review of a store that sold Ugg Boots. Mostly I consider PayPerPost and ReviewMe to be a waste of my time because so many of the review opportunities are garbage.
Anyway, the occasional free CD is nice, and I'll always appreciate the discs sent by Eric Herman, who I now count as a friend.
Testify, sister!
Not being a blogger (I don't think my occasional chiming in with way old music at ((sm))all ages really counts as blogging) I know I'm coming WAY out of left field here. But this NEVER stops me from throwing in my opinion....
It's too bad they won't add an option for documenting a donation of those things afterward, or something. Easier. Kind. I'm guessing it's not like the old days (or whatever) and you're not getting really ...uh... *inappropriate* donations along with those CDs.
Community man. That's what kicks about this whole kids music thing. dontcha think?
yeah, I'm naive.
Lovely Mrs. - you know, I hope, that I have *tremendous* respect for your talent as a music (and media) critic. I think that your blog stands out as a tremendous example of how well this stuff can be done in the blogosphere. But I have to disagree with the charge that review blogs and reviews by parent bloggers and 'diarists' are bringing the quality and integrity of criticism down. I agree with your assessment of PayPerPost - it really is explicit shilling for dollars and/or swag - but I think that it's difficult to attribute such limited mercenary motives to parent bloggers in general.
So some such bloggers like the swag - so what? Why shouldn't they like the swag? Liking the quote-unquote swag doesn't *necessarily* mean that that's their sole motivation, nor does it necessarily undermine their ability to write a good review.
I love writing reviews, because I totally %100 believe in reviews. I'm a shameless capitalist, and I love hearing what other people think of products. And I think that most of us can tell the difference between a shameless shill and a real review. AND, I think that when comes to products that parents and children use, the expertise of parent bloggers - as both the market for those products and as writers who know how to communicate with other parents - in unparalleled.
In my opinion, the real damage to the reception of review blogging or product/media criticism on blogs doesn't come from those practices themselves - it comes from this idea - now widely perpetuated - that such blogging is only and ever slavishly mercenary, and of dubious quality. And this idea, I think, is *not* grounded in fact. Sure, there are some crappy review blogs, and some shameless shill-whores, but these, I think, are in the minority. Most of what I'm reading in the blogosphere by way of review/crit is really pretty good.
So - there's my two cents of disagreement. As always, you made me think!
Kristen and I created The Parent Bloggers Network as a means of turning the spam in bloggers' inboxes into a mutually beneficial enterprise. That is, beneficial to the PR agents and business owners who are seeking blogger attention, beneficial to the bloggers themselves (receiving items that actually do interest them), and beneficial to us as the facilitators of this arrangement.
Most of our reviews are positive. Some of them are a bit snarky. Some have not even been written - we give our clients the option of a negative review or a "review of omission".
Bloggers are given the opportunity to participate in a campaign - or not. Voluntary participation is more likely to result in positive reviews. We consider that an advantage for both clients and bloggers.
I see you as an independent, informed children's music critic. I think that in itself gives you credibility that we - review bloggers - can't take away.
No hard feelings, okay?
I agree with the notion of maintaining integrity in reviews, whether you do it for swag or not. And am not a fan of pay-per-post myself, because I think it turns personal blogs into hackneyed advertorials incongruous with the theme of the blog.
That said, I feel the need to address your comments about Cool Mom Picks.
We never set out to be a review blog...we're a recommendation blog. There is a distinction there.
Our goal was and still is to help support smaller businesses, artists and designers, and turn parents onto alternatives that aren't mass market. But because we have certain taste levels as well, we constantly reject items (and tons of music) for review that have been submitted to us, even after we've received samples. It's hard to do, but we do it.
As we've discussed, sometimes criticism comes simply in the form of choosing not to review something at all. "Review of omission" as Julie puts it. That's the tact we take on our site.
The assertion that we do this for the swag however is untrue. We give away 99% off every sample we receive to readers, which is why there are contests on our site nearly daily. Once in a while I keep a onesie I'm in love with. I admit it!
I also have to take issue with your suggestion that the line between advertising and editorial is blurred. I can guarantee that we have plenty of advertisers who never receive reviews and we've literally turned down thousands of dollars in advertorial offers because we couldn't wholeheartedly endorse the product.
As far as your role with CMP, as you know you always had carte blanche to review any CD you wanted, and reject anything you didn't. We trusted your taste levels implicitly. Our only request was that you didn't delve into music theory or strong criticisms of the album since our audience is just looking for music recommendations, not probing reviews.
We're certainly glad you've found forums that better suit your interests and talent and most importantly, the kind of writing you'd like to be doing. But I'd be dismayed to think you look back at your time with us negatively at all.
Lovely Mrs. Davis-
Right on for taking a stand. When I first discovered the world of bloggers who reviewed kids music (if only occasionally), I was very pleasantly suprised. Finally it seemed the "kid" gloves were off and no longer were childrens music performers given a free pass as they had been for years. It seemed nothing critical was ever said about childrens music as if somehow writing music for kids put one in an untouchable realm. The reality is (in my opinion), like most musical genres, 95% of it is mediocre or plain bad. If I'm looking for good music for my kids I want to know the opinion of someone who listens to way more kids music than I ever will and can tell me what the good stuff is. If that means they get 100 (?) free cds a year so be it. The childrens music bloggers have to go through a lot of crap to find us the good stuff!
By the way, if any blogger feels guilty about receiving free cds, please send me $15 for our new cd which I should be sending out in approximately two weeks. Otherwise, I will send it out for free - not with any expection of a review, mind you - and you will just have to "deal with it".
Julie and Liz, this is nothing personal against either of you, but I had to mention both PBM and CMP in order to illustrate my points. (And I had to mention that I was a part of CMP or I would have probably been called out on it by some reader with a "hey but didn't you write for a site like this once?")
Also, I named and linked to these examples to avoid having this piece appear to be the kind of passive-aggressive nonsense where a blog(ger) is mentioned but never named or linked.
No hard feelings. Just me talking through my struggles with some issues that I consider important and meaningful.
ach, this must be such a slippery slope. there was a great piece on NPR recently about viral marketing. personally? i'm not a fan of advertising on blogs, which can distract from content & sometimes makes me feel like i'm in a mall.
i like reading about the process, the struggle: and i think your writing will always bring me back. Good luck with the move,
One wishes Mrs. Davis would make even further use of her influence to expose "Kindie Rock" for what it largely is: spectacularly underwritten and just as riven with noxious sentimentality as "uncool" kids' music. Please, Mrs. Davis, save us from the ex-rockers who have rediscovered childhood, from the "inclusive" music which really only appeals to relatively affluent people of European descent. Your polite critique of Laurie Berkner should only be the beginning of much-needed exposure of a musical fraud that is taking place (a fraud which has gone mostly unpunished) on a far larger scale. With a few keyboard strokes, Mrs. Davis, you could to family music what Winston Churchill was during the 1930's when he faced down Nazi Germany -- you could refuse to appease the insidious forces whose imminent takeover of the middle- to upper-middle-class world of indie family music threatens us all.
Wow, NAL, you raise some great points. That's one of the most cynical views on kids' music I've seen/heard. I agree in part, but it would take a whole other post for me to respond properly.
I feel slightly misunderstood. To my understanding, a cynic criticizes for its own sake; I am at heart an idealist. I am motivated by disappointment, not by misanthropy. I have merely been chafing at the discrepancy between the claims made for indie kids music, the claims made by indie kids musicians themselves, and the thin gruel that this music so frequently is. As I am somewhat cowardly by nature, I have delayed expressing these views until now.
signed,
leaderless
Um, yeah. I think that's probably another conversation for another time. And, like I said, I think I agree *in part* with some of what you're saying, but it's hard to tell without knowing the source (you) and the context. Let's save it for another time.
Some of these things sound a little bit like "astroturfing" -- and I can understand why you'd want to distance yourself from that.
Hey,
I recently added you to my "domestic divas" the good blogs list and wanted to come over and say hello
I am the not-so-lovely "reader who left some ugly comments about being "bought or swayed" by payola." Obviously I am not the only person who has thought about it and I find it interesting you are pulling out from certain venues for the very same reason I emailed you originally.
I only wish I hadn't been drunk and beligerent about it. I think I had an excellent point that got lost at the time because of my communication breakdown. The funniest part is obviously you are very concerned about people who do something only because they get something as well.
I still wish I hadn't offended you, because we actually have similar opinions of writing reviews just to get something in return. I am glad you aren't one of those people.
Marlana, I appreciate you weighing in on this. And I do think we probably have similar opinions on some aspects of this discussion.
But I do want to clarify, I didn't leave CMP or pull out from any other venues as a result of your comments. I had already left CMP well before hearing from you, and I left for a number of reasons, including (as I mentioned) that the writing style needed there was more ad-oriented and less critical / analyical / theoretical.
Mrs. D, you know (at least I hope you know) that I have great respect for what you do, we've even talked about this topic of receiving product off-blog, and I do find your take on this interesting, but I feel the need to clarify my involvement. And not necessarily to you because I don't think you were maliciously quoting me.
Yes, I did joke about receiving swag. I'm not ashamed of receiving a book or two or a toy for my kid in exchange for a review because IRL I use the suggestions of my friends when weighing a potential purchase. In my blog and in my life I subscribe to the "If you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all" rule of thumb. I have not, as yet, been given any product to sample that I haven't been able to find positive qualities about. And in turn I confidently mention what I don't like about a product. It's a balance, but I write these reviews as if I were telling a friend about them. And I am.
On my other blog (the dog one) I write about products that I like, that I've purchased myself or would like to purchase or have absolutely no interest in purchasing, because I genuinely want to share my thoughts with others. I look forward to the day when companies will offer me some of their product for the possible review I will give it. But, like you, I will not write a good review just because I have received something for free. That goes for all my blogs.
Oh, and I also partake of the free samples of food and drink at places like my local wholesalers club. Sometimes if I don't like what they're offering I just smile politely and say "Thanks, but no thanks."
Post a Comment