Occasionally, the gall of some individuals boggles the mind!
The other day, a potential advertiser zipped off an e-mail to me, expressing an interest in posting a link on “The Tattler” site.
In my response, I quoted the fee due and the terms and conditions of the advertising agreement.
When I received a reply back, I was a little startled by the advertiser's request.
For starters - the individual countered with a rate offer which was bit lower than my going ad fees - but I was willing to work with the company to bring them into the fold (so-to-speak).
But, the stipulations for the the text ad - and links - were a little off-putting.
For example, the female liaison was quite adamant that I rustle up a post to promote their product (300 words in length) to include a couple of links to their client's web site.
“I don’t care about editorial control,” she wrote, just before hurling the communication my way over the Internet at lightning speed by e-mail.
Of course, the ignorance of the woman astounded me.
For example, in recent months the Federal Trade Commission became concerned that bloggers were flogging products “for pay” on web sites without proper legal disclosure.
So, the Government watch-dog agency implemented a set of rules and regulations to prevent abuses (such as deceptive business practices and potential fraud) on the Internet.
Bottom line?
Was a blogger promoting a product because he or she backed the item or service one-hundred percent or simply because it was a case of pay-to-play?
In my reply, I noted - rightly so - that when it came to my writing (and the Tattler) I endeavored to maintain integrity in my personal and professional affairs ( it's called journalistic ethics).
I am always seeking subjects to pen a feature on that may be of interest to my readers, though, so it is wholly possible that on occasion I might act on a tip or allow for a post touting a product based on my belief in its value or potential interest to readers.
But, in the specific situation aforementioned, I felt a full disclosure (or disclaimer) - posted in plain view - would be required to satisfy FTC concerns.
Shortly after the FTC regulation kicked in last September, I posted one such disclaimer when I raved about a local gym - 24 hour fitness - in West Hollywood.
Because my review was glowing - it occurred to me that readers or new visitors to the site unfamiliar with my policies - might assume I benefited (got paid, received a free membership, etc.) from publishing the plug.
I didn’t.
Nonetheless, I posted a notice disclosing that I was not influenced by any incentive, payment, etc.
Once I made a decision on the post noted herein above, I notified the advertiser that - based on the subject matter - I was going to give the green light on the ad.
At this point, I instructed the party to make their payment in advance (in full), and also be sure to include background information on the web site to facilitate the penning of the article.
At this juncture, the advertiser started to play games, which didn’t set well with me.
For starters, the rep noted that her client preferred to pay only half the sum up-front, with a promise to send on the balance after the material was reviewed and "approved".
Uh-huh.
Initially, the PR office assured me there was “no interest” in editorial control.
When it came time to close the deal, however, they changed their tune.
Or, were they playing games all along?
Notwithstanding, because I discounted the ad space fee - and they were a first-time advertiser - I could not accept their demands to pay half up front, preview the material, then pay the balance after “copy” approval.
Did they honestly think I have stupid written on my forehead?
Golly, I wasn't born yesterday!
No comments:
Post a Comment