Talk about sex crimes, not me, says cash-for-comment blogger
Sydney based video blogger Hugh Thomas has gone on the defensive after it was revealed that he was paid to promote Ten’s show Lie To Me.
After the story appeared in today’s Sydney Morning Herald, he posted a message on his YouTube channel which has nearly 20,000 subscribers – suggesting the publisher should focus on more serious issues. In his note he says: “I can’t believe that Australia’s famous Sydney Morning Herald website would stick an article on this on the featured spot of their website, while stories about women getting raped for 10 hours is shoved on the side.”
The SMH reports that the makers of the Ten show, 20th Century Fox, paid a number of video bloggers around the world to do pieces about it. The topic was first aired by Julian Cole of Sydney social media agency The Population last week. Discussing the fact that several video bloggers were taking part in “cash for comment”, he wrote:
“The content is good, it is engaging, it is not a stretch from what these vloggers normally produce. So that makes it okay, right? From a Vlogging source I was told that the reason they do ‘cash for comment’ is because they do not want to risk losing a large percentage of their audience (by doing full disclosure, they will be deemed as a sell out), whereas with cash for comment, a large percentage of their audience will not notice.”
You reach out to bloggers because you respect their influence and feel you may have something which could be of interest to them and their audience. If that includes news about a product, campaign or issue, you never offer monetary compensation. It’s simply not ethical to “buy” favorable reviews. Simple as that.
I’m curious about Mumbrella’s stance on cash for comment – you say it’s controversial, but do you believe it’s unethical in the online space?
Not that I’m suggesting the practice should be banned, but at the very least, viewers need to be able to work out who has a stake in the content they’re viewing.
Also, does anyone else find Hugh Thomas’s to-camera presentation really hammy and awkward? I’m not a fan of these direct-to-camera vlogs so I’m not sure if this is the way they all are.
It’s very simple: where money changes hands the interest should be declared. It’s no different than a company buying advertising space in a newspaper and passing it off as editorial.
Hi Mel,
Thanks for asking. My first instinct is probably close to Tony’s – it’s all about disclosure.
If I’m hearing a paid message, I want to know that’s what it is.
To use an example from yesterday, if I pick up a Vice magazine summer guide created for Corona (I have one sitting on my desk right now), I don’t mind because it’s entertaining and the allegiances are clear.
It was the same issue with the radio scandal – presenters editorialising their sponsors without being clear that was going on.
And as a conusmer, I feel the same with stuff I watch online. If I’m supporting people by watching them, then I feel they owe me disclosure. But as a punter I’m happy for them to take the money so long as they keep entertaining me.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
people watch this junk?
Nearly 20,000 of them, Ben…
Well (and this is where we need to be careful about metrics), 20,000 subscribe to the channel on YouTube.
If most people’s behaviour is anything like mine, that doesn’t automatically convert to watching the new stuff when it comes in… same as podcasting stats really.
Yikes! Makes channel 31 look like a Bruckheimer production.
It’s offensive that Watkins mentions a horrific rape case to attempt to even justify his actions. Sick of oh so clever marketing “geniuses” spitting the dummy when they get caught out and unmasked. In the interests of full disclosure I’ve actually watched LIE TO ME. Awful, far fetched, mediocre show. But can’t stop watching due to Tim Roth. He used to be a good actor. He looks out of place among the glam US actors on the show, which makes it kinda amusing.
I too believe it should be disclosed online. However, if you read reviews of new shows some reviews are simply too glowing to believe. It might not be cash exchanging hands but access and exclusives can warm the coiffers too. This kind of exchange is certainly not going anywhere and it does make our world go round, like it or not.
Interest should be declared, yep. But how that declaration is expressed is an issue.. that aspect is certainly in it’s infancy.
It just feel so damn nerdy and hamfisted somehow, the way the whole ‘FULL DISCLOSURE’ thing is flagged and expressed by bloggers / vloggers that way minded at the moment. But what else can they do?
Maybe just a tiny little standardized-size logo fading in and out top-corner-of-screen for the duration of the paid-for chatter would be enough in the vlogging space to placate people? People would get the message – but that sounds a bit dud too now I’ve typed it down. Bang goes the ‘home grown’ look for starers. It’s interuption, too. Yikes.
Or maybe subscribers to a channel – in the Bondi bloke’s case for example – could be automatically sent an email telling them the clip they just viewed had a given brand’s backing? (But then that’d discount the vast majority of non-subscribers and afterward is a bit late to mention).
If YouTube keeps upgrading the user experience, then in a few years’ time it might be quite a different and more high-end watch, which maybe in turn will give people a few more options in how they/their brand partners disclose.
It all feels like an early work in progress at the moment though. Someone should define some voluntary guidlines and see if there’s much sign up. (maybe there are some I don’t know of?).
As a journalist, it REALLY pisses me off that this dude mentions the rape case as a reason why his shennanigans should go unreported.
It bothers me because he clearly doesn’t understand ethics, not to mention he’s a rather ordinary presenter, yet he professes to knows what is newsworthy, what is interesting, and what requires discussion.
It’s this kind of ill-informed commentary that will ensure he never lands a gig in mainstream media.
And if he DOES, i’m quitting the world.
Hugh ALSO violated his contract with youtube. You CANNOT take cash for sponsorship AND run the site adds, it’s a conflict of interest, and directly violates his content partnership contract.
Hey – it’s his blog – why can’t he do what he likes?
And for that matter, it’s Fairfax’s business, so why can’t they report on what they like? (If stories like his are going to sell more papers it’s their business. Let’s not forget that it’s a BUSINESS first and foremost. Even if it’s disclosed, seems some are forgetting that and believing it’s a genuine news service.)
Don’t tell me that people ARE trusting what they see/hear on the internet… I can remember the old days when you didn’t believe any thing online.
Those were the good old days, when you believed every thing you read in the letters to the editor in your newspaper.
*grins*
There was a passing mention in this SMH story that one of Network Communications’ clients was in some way associated with paid coverage by Hugh.
We completely reject any inference that we engaged in undeclared sponsorship. While that very term was used in Asher’s story I believe it must have been for the sake of economy of word count.
I have taken the liberty of posting my stance on the ethics of online media outreach on our blog to alleviate any confusion in that respect.
Hope that’s ok with you Tim? It’s an important debate.
http://freshchat.com.au/the-et.....onsorship/