• Many executive and corporate blogs/tweets today already come from a team of people behind the scenes. Does that bother you? Make it any less effective?
• If you were regularly reading a blog that you thought was being written by a business leader you admired and then discovered they only “approve” the articles, would it hurt the credibility of the individual or company?
• If I accept ghost-writing assignments, what guidelines should be in place?

If this debate is not relevant to you right now, it will be in the near future as the demand for content explodes. This is the way the world is moving! What do you thnk? Please leave your thoughts and comments on this blog post. Can you out-source authenticity?

Note: After I orginally posted this topic, these articles came to my attention which might help you explore this topic further:

The ethics, of lack thereof, of ghost blogging by Jason Falls    

Would you trust a company that ghost blogs? by Danny Brown

A defense of ghost blogging by Bill Sledzik

Why is this different from ghost-writing a book? by Wintress Odom

41 Comments

• 

  By Lil Miss, August 20, 2009 @ 12:52 am

  Don't. You. Do it.

  Dude, you're one of the very few smart and honest people I look up to out here in the blogosphere. Don't bow to the man!!

  Unless you REALLY need the money tee hee : )
• 

  By Marian Sparks, August 20, 2009 @ 12:59 am

  Hello Mark,

  These are great questions and I'll answer with a story re: two different "individuals" but same outcome–> Me disappointed.

  I'd been twittering with two different people (pretty "popular").Those interactions felt authentic, genuine and it appeared we shared the same philosophy about engagement and relationships on Twitter.

  Yet, when I finally met both of them (individually) at a LIVE event, I was less than impressed. There was no "memory" of the connection we shared. They seemed like strangers. And in fact, I discovered that someone else had been tweeting for them.

  So while I don't expect YOU (whomever I'm tweeting with) to remember our exact conversation. I believe that YOU are accountable for the tweets (and related experiences derived from them) EVEN IF you have someone tweeting on your behalf. I THOUGHT I was having a conversation with you (the Twitter named acct) not your representative.

  Thanks for raising the question! It's happening now…

  ~Marian
  http://www.twitter.com/mariansparks
• 

  By MARK W. SCHAEFER, August 20, 2009 @ 1:25 am

  That story had a very powerful impact on me, Marian. I'm so appreciative that you shared it. This is part of the reason why I CHERISH the authenticity. I am meeting, and calling, and working with real, great people I am connecting to through the social web. And I've never been disappointed like you were.

  Of course, "me" will still be "me." It's the other guys who will be in a position to disappoint. I hate that.
• 

  By amy, August 20, 2009 @ 12:21 pm

  No fakers please. If you are going to have ghost writers, you should tell people "hey, this blog is a combination of input from several.." something like a disclaimer. I think the disappointment comes when people FEEL betrayed (lied to, deceived). My 2 cents
• 

  By fransgaard, August 20, 2009 @ 12:42 pm

  Maybe write "…this blog is inspired by [insert CEO name]. Any resemblance to the real-life [insert CEO name] is purely coincidental". :-D

  Seriously though, I know copywriters dragged into to this type of work and it seems it always fail in the long (read: medium) run often with a backlash, but I am sure it can be done successfully to some extend.
• 

  By Mike Smith, August 20, 2009 @ 1:05 pm

  I think ghostblogging for a company/website is ok, but ghostblogging as a specific person (ie: the CEO) is pushing it a bit.
• 

  By nancy, August 20, 2009 @ 1:14 pm

  I'm going to be unpopular here, but I think it's okay to blog for another person. Copywriters have written letters for well known people for years and most CEOs have speechwriters, Powerpoint creators, and PR people. I don't see anything special or different about the practice of blogging. Twitter is more complicated because Twitter — at least as it is presently evolving — isn't just about information or opinion, it's about personality. On the other hand, actors, personators, comics, and even spokespersons routinely "speak" on behalf of others and do it successfully, so rules about "Twitter-on-behalf-of" aren't cut and dried, either. If it were me, I'd want to carefully think through the following: First, do I know as much about their business as my client does? Second, am I ethically and philosophically comfortable expressing the *opinions* my client wants to express? Third, will I end up mainly providing "information," which more or less violates the purpose of Twitter in the first place .. and, if so, is it worth it to my client? Fourth, will I be able to speak freely in my own voice, and will my client be happy with that? Fifth — and best option –will my client allow me to create a "new" persona and personality to *represent* him/her and Tweet as such. Mark, you're a consultant and your expertise, words, experience, know-how, and personality are your stock-in-trade. You have extraordinary communication talents and people want to hire those … which doesn't mean you're for sale. It just means you have the right — and responsibility — to consider all offers and then to be personally comfortable with the assignment. Good luck!
• 

  By Nate Towne, August 20, 2009 @ 1:20 pm

  While it can be incredibly lucrative work for some, when you get right down to it ghost-posting on behalf of an individual (vs a brand) doesn't really work well. In my own experience, there are significant internal challenges – the approval process runs contrary to the need to respond rapidly and it is often difficult to capture the subjects' voice and match the authenticity of relationships offline (as Marian so wisely pointed out). In addition, due to lack of engagement with their own social media brand the effort often gets jettisoned because the subject fails to find the value after a few weeks of being bugged endlessly for approvals. While ghost posting on behalf of brands makes sense, blogging on behalf of an individual just falls flat.
• 

  By MARK W. SCHAEFER, August 20, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

  Just taking it all in … thanks, everyone.

  Nancy spurred another thought. I started my career in PR for a Fortune 100 company. I often wrote for people I didn't like and didn't agree with. Certainly it was nothing unethical or enough to quit about, but in a large company you learn to express your opinion but at some point fall in line. It's not a democracy where every vote counts!

  Being a hired gun gives me even more freedom to leave in this situation, but similarly, there would probably be times I don't agree with everything.

  All of your input has been helpful! I wish we were all hashing this out over drinks or dinner some place! Business idea = drink web : )
• 

  By Jim LeBlanc, August 20, 2009 @ 1:36 pm

  The fact is, this is a business space that must be filled and it will be filled. It's not a matter of should it be done. It will be. Mark, seems like you have enough comments and concerns on here already to put together some guidelines on how to do it successfully, or at least give it a good shot. For exmple, Nate has a great point about the approval process. It has to responsive — almost instantenous for this to work. The new boss better understand that and that should be a guideline. When you figure this out, please share on your blog!!!
• 

  By mrboilermaker, August 20, 2009 @ 1:52 pm

  In reply to nancy, it is true execs have speech writers, deck creators, etc- but in the end those people are up there giving the speech or presenting the deck – they may have had someone wordsmith for them, but in the end the words come out of their mouth giving them the ability to ad lib and follow up with QA. Plus this setting is much more formal.

  With a blog or twitter I see it as much different. These are more personal interactions then a group presentation or a press conference. This is your individual thoughts put out there for all to read, digest and react to. I would say it is always good, if you are not a writer, to have someone look at what you are planning to post (especially if it may be deemed controvercial) – but in the end you are responsible for every word that goes live on the internet.

  Seriously, how would you feel if you found out Mark contracted me to write this post you replied to? Or, what if you found out this whole time it was an intern writing for Mark and the responses given here were not really from him? I don't think I would continue to have the feed on my iGoogle page (not because the content was less valuable, but more so because I value the personality behind it… the authenticity of it.)

  I am a marketing person too, with years of PR experience and I don't think I ethically could ghost write a blog – and definitely not a twitter account.

  Just my .02
• 

  By George Tong, August 20, 2009 @ 2:17 pm

  With the speech writers and staff writing for CEOs, I think this is why they are viewed sometimes as cold and impersonable. We get a cookie cutter speech that has nothing most of us can't really relate to. Their personality IS an entire staff that knows only the exterior that CEO.

  Even though CEOs need to look out for the image of their company, they should have enough passion for their company to, at the very least, try to come up with some tweets (140 characters!) on their own.
• 

  By Jamie Lee, August 20, 2009 @ 2:40 pm

  Mark, So glad you're taking this topic head on … though I wouldn't expect any other approach from you! :)

  This is an interesting question because it pulls us into new territory. Though we are familiar with the concepts of PR spin and professional speechwriters, we cringe at the thought of someone ghost writing another person's blog. I think that's because blogs are inherently assumed to be more personal than PR or speeches.

  Although I believe that business can use social media channels to great advantage, I also believe that they can't approach this venue with a business-as-usual mindset. Successful social media (blogs, twitter, facebook fan pages, etc) is not simply a matter of staffing and editorial. It's about connections, and the connections have to be real or the whole thing falls apart.

  The "authenticity challenge" arises with CEOs for several reasons – primarily that they are too busy, but also because they often can't write their way out of a paper bag. I don't think that should eliminate them from participating in a blog, but I think we need to be more creative about how we frame things up.

  I wouldn't, for instance (even though I could probably make a good deal of money at it), recommend ghost blogging. Instead, I would suggest creating content that conveyed the CEO's insights in unique ways – maybe a mini interview (5 minutes with Suzy CEO), a post inspired by a quote from Suzy CEO (start with the quote and then have the non-ghost writer expand upon the idea), position yourself like a biographer. Bounce the CEO's ideas against the current news and trends. If you want to do something really crazy, have the CEO's dog or company mascot write the blog.

  It's also important to make sure that the authorship of the blog is clearly defined in the "About" section. It's cliche at this point – but authenticity and transparency count.

  So – short answer: no ghost blogging, but yes to creatively getting a CEO's thoughts and personality out there.

  Good luck! Can't wait to see how this turns out.
• 

  By sam, August 20, 2009 @ 2:51 pm

  The "purist" notion of the Social Web and Social Marketing (our "real" digital personas out there, on the line, creating our personal brands) is really only of interest to this small circle of Social Marketing Folk who inhabit much of Twitter and spend all day trying to out impress one another.

  Sorry, this is true.

  Deception comes in many forms. Those of us who schedule Tweets (so we look active on Twitter all day, but really just set up an illusion over early morning coffee) are we deceiving? Yes. If I have a trusted assistant reply to blog comments (on my personal blog), is that deceptive? Yes.

  Do we REALLY CARE about connecting with strangers via business social media?

  Is that the real heart of the issue?

  Say I'm a rock start marketing guy with 20,000 Followers on Twitter. Do I care about them, really, as individuals? Or, do I care about the 80 I Follow and who I actually talk to during the Year at conferences?

  The 3x day RT or @reply I send gives the impression that I'm dealing with everyone, but, I'm not. It's all an illusion. So, while there is authenticity (I do send my own), by it's nature, I am facilitating disingenuous relationships. Just because you Follow, doesn't mean I really care. To be honest, I don't.

  If someone hires you to Ghostwrite, that's their decision on how they deal with their connections. Perhaps, the connections will have a more rewarding relationship since it's being dealt with professionally, rather than smoke and mirrors deception?

  Do I seem a bit cynical? I think "social media and marketing" is a self-absorbed crock we've cooked up for ourselves.

  The tools of Facebook, Twitter et al are a space where "real people" (i.e. Not us) do connect and communicate. We are trying to invade that space for our Clients and Brands. So far, we've done a fairly poor job because we aren't focused on the "real people," as much as we're focused on collecting our own Followers. We've created a myth about how "real" and "genuine" the space is (since we came from the swarmy pits of advertising), but, we're lying to ourselves.

  Will someone please figure out how to get back to good old fashioned marketing? We have a job to do, persuade, influence and engage; I'd rather do it with obvious deception than through a disingenuous "me."
• 

  By Jamie Lee Wallace, August 20, 2009 @ 4:14 pm

  @Sam – some really interesting points, but I think you're tackling two different issues:
  1. Transparent content
  2. Authentic connections

  Though they are related, I think – in the context of the ghost blogging conversation – they are slightly different.

  I don't have any issue with people scheduling blog posts or tweets. That's a matter of time management. I also don't have any issue with the fact that the CEO behind Brand X doesn't really "care" about each of his 20,000 followers. It's unreasonable to suppose otherwise – so, I don't consider that a deception … it's an obvious truth.

  I DO care if someone blatantly misrepresents the authorship of content. I want to know – to the best of my ability – the actual source of what I'm reading.

  I do agree that much of social media is geared towards supporting communication between "real people" vs "brands and real people," BUT here are a few ideas to consider:
  1. Real brands ARE made up of real people
  2. Brands can connect in some "Real Life" ways without having to interact with each of their 20,000 fans individually (I touched on this here: http://www.savvyb2bmarketing.com/blog/entry/212591/social-media-reality-check-no-one-cares-%E2%80%93-it%E2%80%99s-not-real-life)
  3. Though many use social media for personal communications, many channels (LinkedIn, and – increasingly – twitter, for instance) cater to the business side of things … there's a place for business in this realm

  …IF – and you're right on the mark here – IF we can figure out how to stop drooling over the tools and start finding ways to work with them in the context of "good, old-fashioned" marketing … sans the deception. It can be done – and that's the fabulous challenge we have before us in this arena.

  Enjoy!
• 

  By MARK W. SCHAEFER, August 20, 2009 @ 4:24 pm

  Wow. This is the real me (and it always will be!) Blown away by the depth and diversity of opinion on this topic. Thank you.
• 

  By sam, August 20, 2009 @ 4:52 pm

  @jamie Yes, you're right, this posting and the comments triggered some multi-thought processes all at once, resulting in my over-zealous, pre-caffeine rant…

  Why does the "actual source" of the Content matter? If someone pays a Ghostwriter, on a work-for-hire basis then the Purchaser "owns" the Content and has passed it along as their own (since, technically, they own it, it is theirs to do with as they please).

  End of the day, isn't it about whether or not the Content provides you with the value/info you seek?

  I'm equating "authorship" with "ownership" and don't really care if someone originated it or paid for it. We know who has original thoughts and adds value from real-world experiences; their digital persona can be a chatbot for all I care (OK, maybe that's going too far!).

  I think the "deception" factor comes from an unrealistic pipedream that social media marketing can be genuine and transparent when applied to a commercial space. Perhaps for small and local businesses, but, otherwise, it's simply not a platform for any company who deal with more than a thousand customers per day.

  The emphasis on "genuine and authentic" has overshadowed the real issues (my .02), which is, are we using these platforms well to provide real value, information and even entertainment to the masses (and, to our Clients in return). Or, has this desire for genuine, individual conversation simply held us back from doing our jobs and thinking about far more interesting ways to reach and engage people?
• 

  By Jen McClurg, August 20, 2009 @ 5:14 pm

  Great meeting with "the real you" this morning, Mark. As we talked about, I believe it depends on the context. A series of "how to" posts is going to be impersonal and can be written by anyone, adapted by the main author's voice, if needed.

  I have written many posts for a physician, a warm, compassionate man who has a lot of information to share with the community, but little writing skill or time to do it. He speaks, I capture the information and his sentiment, and put it into a form that is engaging, and sounds like him. He approves it and out it goes.

  In my real estate marketing business however, we preach against ghost-writing. Marion gave the best reason for this above. If YOU are your brand, you better make sure YOU are the one selling yourself.

  I can not imagine a scenario where engaging with readers on a personal level (blog comments, Twitter or other interactions) is acceptable as an outsourced position.

  To me though, like anything in life – "it depends." If our online presence is an extension of ourselves (and it is) then allowing someone else to pretend to be you on a personal level is as bad as hiring someone to take your SAT's for you.
• 

  By Gregg Morris, August 20, 2009 @ 5:29 pm

  Wow, I can't believe this hasn't generated any conversation! I've been out of town the last two days Mark or I would have surely commented earlier. Something is going to have give here but I'm not certain exactly what just yet. The demand for content has always been high and there has never really been a shortage of good writers to create it. But there was usually a byline associated with most of that content. Not always, I understand, but in most cases. Speech writing is likely the most obvious one where there was no byline. Was the person delivering the speech any less credible, effective or believable because someone else wrote the speech? I don't think so. It was always the speech writer's job to jump into the shoes of the corporate executive as s/he wrote that speech. It was the executive's job to bring the words to life. But this authenticity thing changes our expectations in some very subtle ways.

  In answer to your first bullet, I understand that and am not bothered at all. Nor do I think it reduces the effectiveness of the communication.

  The second bullet though is the real sticky one though isn't it? I think it would/should be made clear that someone else is speaking/writing. Giving the speech writer his or her due so to speak but also setting the authentic tone for the blog or whatever. Maybe something along the lines of "written by… and approved by…" or "written with…" or "written with the help of…" Whichever, I think it will be important to acknowledge who exactly is writing. Without that, in this community driven world, I think that the credibility of both the individual and the company could suffer. And, should what I call a "pinata attack" happen (Dominos, United, Dell, etc.), I think it would be very important for people to know exactly who has been speaking and who is speaking.

  As for ghost writing assignments and guidelines, first one, they need to pay you handsomely(smile). After that, I would think that your own internal compass would be guideline enough. You have established your trust credentials and I think most people would stand behind what you thought best for each assignment.

  Best wishes,

  Gregg @greggvm
• 

  By Gregg Morris, August 20, 2009 @ 5:31 pm

  Oops! My mistake. I had the post open without refreshing. Lots of good conversation. That'll teach me.

  Gregg
• 

  By Steve Miller, August 20, 2009 @ 6:06 pm

  It feels like deja vu all over again. Jen Harris had this same discussion on her Feb 23 blog: http://caffeinatedmarketing.com/2009/02/23/principles-over-income/.

  Lots of deep thinking in the comments here, but I tend to think in one-syllable words. Writing under someone else's name is not authentic. Period. And no amount of spinning will change that.

  I have no problem with PR people and ghost writers. I'm just not one of them. Are you?
• 

  By MARK W. SCHAEFER, August 20, 2009 @ 6:18 pm

  @steve – no fair asking hard questions. : )
• 

  By Steve Dodd, August 20, 2009 @ 6:24 pm

  Mark, you've touched on a very crucial topic that speaks directly to the core value proposition of the Social Web (opps, sorry) er Social Media. Anyone can do anything they want but authenticity, integrity and transparency is what makes it work. The comments here are fantastic and should keep you busy for a while.

  In my opinion, for many varying reasons, blog content may need to be written for someone else. But, it needs to be identified as such and better be consistent with the "owners" opinions. This is really no different than any other form of publication.

  As far as Twitter/Facebook and other Social Networks are concerned, which are one too many communications vehicles, any ghost writing from an individual is really inappropriate. If a corporate moniker (or alias) is used, then obviously the corporation stands behind the activity (from both a legal and credibility perspective). But if a real person's name is used, especially a corporate officer, not only is it misleading to the people on the receiving side but is highly suspect and could be a real brand & legal issue for the company for a multitude of different reasons.
  There are some legal precedents to support this as well. Not too long ago, a woman was charged for impersonating a teen on Facebook for the specific purpose of bullying that contributed to the suicide of a young girl.
  This is one of the key arguments for valid identity management and authentication in the SM space.
  I hope you don’t mind, but I’ve sent this link to a couple of attorneys I know who are build practices around Social Media legal issues and hope they’ll chime in with their perspective.
• 

  By Michele Linn, August 20, 2009 @ 6:25 pm

  What a great topic, and one that I have thought about but never from so many angles.

  Like others, I think it is OK to ghost blog for a brand, but it is an entirely different animal to ghost blog for a person. I appreciate the value of a blog and can understand why people want to provide this type of content, so it's tough when you are not a writer. What are these folks to do?

  I like the suggestion to include something like, "This blog is inspired by the thoughts of . . . " This way, a person who hates to write can still get his or her ideas out there, but there is no pretense that it is this person who is doing the actual writing – and none of the readers feel duped.

  From my perspective, I would still follow a blog that was "inspired by" someone if the content was relevant and meaningful to me. But, if a blog were presented as being written by someone and then I found out later that it wasn't, I would certainly feel as if a trust had been broken.

  What a great discussion, and one I will certainly be following.
• 

  By Anonymous, August 20, 2009 @ 8:26 pm

  Here's an example of why it may not matter to the public as much as some think:

  Sarah Palin – Facebook (complete with Footnotes and written in a style that reeks of Grad Student volunteer) v. Sarah Palin – Twitter (her old feed, now defunct) that clearly was the 'real' Palin.

  Does anyone care? Her Facebook posts get quoted by mainstream media even though they know she was incapable of writing them. Her Twitter account gets read by William Shatner on late-night TV and circulated in viral videos endlessly.

  The public takes what they want from each, both the authentic and the clearly ghostwritten.

  Let's get to the heart of the matter: Some of us here make a living out of consulting and guiding "real and authentic" use (so, that's our bread and butter and why we argue one side) and others may make a living out of doing a bit of ghostwriting (so, that's their bread and butter).

  Neither side is necessarily 100% right or wrong. Look at how some major Users (with large public numbers) can migrate and use authentic and purchased material concurrently and the public really doesn't care.

  I think this is a dreaded gray zone with no clear black and white answers, though some of us would like to think differently.
• 

  By Michelle Gouldsberry, August 20, 2009 @ 9:36 pm

  As a writer, I'm a purist about these types of things. Though "authenticity" is becoming a cliche in social media, it is nonetheless true, IMO, that a blog is a very personal thing. It is supposed to convey the owner's unique experiences and insights. That's the point of a blog. Getting noticed and broadening one's business circle, for example, are by-products of a thoughtful blog.

  A ghost writer (or worse yet, a team of ghost writers) don't have access to the inner workings of that individual's brain, no matter how good they are at interviewing and writing. What's more, readers-for the most part-believe they are reading something written by the blog owner.

  For me, the exception would be, as a practical matter, those who feel very ill at ease with writing (e.g., They're poor writers or non-native English speakers). But even in these circumstances, the blog owners must always be directly involved in reviewing, editing and approving blog content before it's posted.

  As a practical matter, what do those who don't write their own blogs do when a colleague, peer, customer or even stranger approaches them with a question or observation about something they've supposedly written. Ghost writing is then disingenuous at best.

  Perhaps if more people wrote their own blog content, there would be fewer blogs and less debris for readers to traverse. There's a lot of content I've read based on rehashed ideas and ill-informed opinions. Why waste the readers time? If a blog is worth doing, it should be done exceedingly well, with great commitment.
• 

  By John Bottom, August 20, 2009 @ 10:23 pm

  This is a fascinating area – thank you Mark for hosting the debate. Can I contribute (on behalf of my sponsors, obviously) by saying that I think transparency is the main aim. I have no problem telling my clients that the copywriters at our agency will take on the job of helping them with the (otherwise unmanageably large) task of creating content.

  Most of the time this means creating unaccredited content, like case studies, ebooks etc. But, I don't think it is impossible or unethical for our copywriters to blog as long as they do so on behalf of the brand, as opposed to on behalf of the people. In fact, ask yourself the question: why should a blog by a full-time employee of XYZ have any more credibility than one created by a writer who works on a freelance contract? The point is to be transparent: this is me, this is what I think, I hope it is useful, engaging and informative. XYZ should only employ a writer who is likely to say the right things – ie if they fit the brand. And of course, writers – if they are any good – will consider it part of their job to be in regular touch with experts within XYZ in order to gather valuable information that will help them create useful content.

  So I think 'ghost blogging' – if it means pretending to be someone else – is dishonest. But blogging on behalf of a brand is completely different and perfectly acceptable.

  I hope I haven't offended, but this is the way things are starting to work.

  Thank again for raising the issue, Mark.

  Regards, John
• 

  By Anonymous, August 20, 2009 @ 10:52 pm

  So under Mark's suggestion, I've chosen to remain anonymous to contribute to this thread, mainly because about 80% of my job is ghost writing – and it would be fairly easy to track back to my website and make certain deductions.

  I write most of our company's thought leadership pieces – and they typically end up under executive bylines. Additionally, I write for our generic blog (our CEO contributes to his own, and it’s very well written), email campaigns that distribute from “certain individuals,” and a twitter account. Granted, we have a marketing/editorial team that helps edit, but it is up to me to generate.

  A few notable things:

  - Our org. is in the intellectual property business, and that extends internally. We have a cache of resources that I pull from daily, and because I draw from and recycle pre-existing content, the company considers it theirs. The additional research and resources I perform and pull in are attributed if need be, but not trumpeted. Of course, all writers have their own style, like a thumbprint – and sometimes my experience and perspective does end up in the piece, but the fact that I am regurgitating their experience and future initiatives makes it theirs. The concepts are theirs, sadly. @Jamie Lee Wallace – yes. Some of the pieces I write land squarely under a different byline (I am omitting my personal opinion regarding the health of my portfolio here *cough, cough*).

  - It's a constant back and forth. As far as our blog, I'm not the expert (I'm a marketer), but I do know the business well and what we sell, so I can speak about it proficiently. There is no individual attribution, which I sort of perceive as hokey. Yet I don't have the title or applicable industry experience that readers may connect with. So my name is left out… As orgs have to work with far fewer resources (time, money, people), not many of those execs have expendable time to really contribute to it. I think it's viewed internally as a different/stylized iteration of their content – instead of my interpretation and interjection of commentary.

  Of course, my personal opinion is that blogs are individual; they're personal – whether they come from a corporate entity or not. And blog readers have a preset expectation that they're reading the thoughts or expertise of another person. I feel like we're breaching that trust from the get go, but it tracks back to the issue of credibility. Who cares what I have to say about our space when I come from the mktg. department?

  I go back and forth about it personally – but from a reader’s perspective, they are reading something branded from our company. Because they’re reading x-branded thought leadership generated within our four walls (so long as lead are looking in our direction), the company views it as a good use of internal resources. I don’t know that they’re concerned with admitting the authorship is false. Let the big fish chase the sales opportunities instead of writing…

  (Sorry, Mark – I didn’t mean to write a novel!)
• 

  By Bob Scheier, August 21, 2009 @ 12:09 am

  Will add my kudos for the fascinating conversation, and yes, someone WILL figure this out. How about one rule: Don't use an executive's name on social media posts if they didn't at least review them — i..e, make up an avatar or something so people will know it's been massaged internally. Or just say "By Joe CEO with help from the Widget Inc. marketing staff…" The point about the approval process is a huge sticking point, as social media is inherently subversive and "bottom up" vs. top down communications filtered through corporate PR. Final thought: Once someone proves this makes money organizations will quickly adapt.
• 

  By Nanette Levin, August 21, 2009 @ 1:53 am

  My first reaction to this was to cringe at the idea of pretending to be someone else in social media venues. The fact that these posts will be approved, though (and that's a whole 'nuther challenge to make it timely in the corporate realm), ultimately led me to change my mind a bit.

  I do ghostwriting for various requests including everything from books and corporate presentations to weddings and religious 'coming of age' ceremonies. If you can capture someone's voice, he/she is pleased with what you propose and you're able to help them focus on what they are really good at by handling something that they're not comfortable with and/or don't have the time to address, I guess I could see this working.

  Would I be annoyed to find out someone I thought I was corresponding with was a hired gun? You bet! But blogs and twitter posts aren't dialog as much as broadcasts. I'd certainly draw the line on comment responses and think this can easily be resolved by suggesting you filter and forward queries that require the executives direct response with an understanding that he/she will provide timely comment for you to post.

  Personally, the way I intend to deal with the time drain challenge of social media communications where my businesses are concerned is to pre-announce and feature guest producers/commentators/query respondents and build it up as a value-added. Is this something your client could do?
• 

  By Danny Brown, August 21, 2009 @ 2:48 am

  Great conversation and equally great sides to the discussion from everyone so far.

  I've never had much of an issue with ghosting (if done properly) – it's a job like any other and as has already been mentioned, some will do it, some won't. Personally, though, I'd recommend setting up a MU blog instead.

  You can write under your name – or even a pseudonym – and post generic corporate info, as can ther ghosts (or company employees). Ghostwriters write speeches; newsletters; business plans. The generic stuff can have a generic voice and receive CEO approval.

  Where I'd (personally) draw the line is speaking *as* the CEO, or the voice of whatver the blog is. That has to come from that person – otherwise, don't make it a CEO or executive blog. Instead, make it a company blog (and there is a difference).

  One thing to consider as well – if an executive or CEO can type an email, they can blog. Just check out Posterous as a great example.

  There are ways around anything, but for me, if it's meant to be YOUR voice, make it that.

  Cheers, Mark, for a great topic and conversation!
• 

  By MARK W. SCHAEFER, August 21, 2009 @ 3:35 am

  So much to take in and think about. Special thanks to Danny Brown for taking the time to comment (one of the most intelligent and respected bloggers on the Internet, IMO).

  The day is winding down and I'm humbled and moved by the wisdom shared here today … and I'm sure the debate is not over.

  I think the depth, intelligence and respect of this exchange among my friends and newcomers is one of my proudest blogging moments. What a wonderful tribe we have on {grow}.
• 

  By Natasha_D_G, August 21, 2009 @ 5:35 am

  You are always causing a stir on this WWW now aren't you Mark? Well…great dialogue. I'll ask a question or two (devil's advocate) Are ghostwriters any different? Who writes the President's speech? Who writes the company whitepaper? Yeah yeah yeah….I know, tweeting is more of an intimate convo. Soooo in my opinion you can ghost tweet for a Company/business….please don't do it for an individual —but like lil miss said. ONLY IF YOU NEED THE MONEY!
• 

  By Dan McCarthy, August 21, 2009 @ 4:05 pm

  Ha! We used to say "Don't kill the messenger." Now we don't even know who the messenger is…

  The issue isn't simply about ethics. It's also about effectiveness. Whether ghost-blogging is either ethical or effective has a lot to do with the end goal of the blog.

  Like any marketing medium, businesses to forget to ask that question before rushing in.

  If the goal is to make the CEO more accessible, or even to spark discussion and engage readers, then hiring a middleman probably defeats the purpose.

  If, however, the strategy is to build credibility and attract traffic to company website, then blog content can simply aim to inform and educate readers about the industry at-large. This "industry blog" model retains plenty of marketing value, and it allows a lot more wriggle room for legitimate delegation to a pro.

  I think there's an opportunity here for professional ghost-writers to adopt a consultant role, and guide businesses toward blogging models that are authentic, effective and legitimately outsourced
• 

  By Steve Dodd, August 21, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

  Mark, I'm still waiting for a couple of attorneys to chime in here (promised sometime over the weekend), here is a link to a very appropriate document on Social Media legality which will help explain some of the ramifications of this subject.

  "The business press is filled with discussions of social media, from blogs to Facebook and LinkedIn to Twitter, and how they can move your company ahead. While there are tremendous benefits to social media, there are some risks as well, both legal and otherwise. The risks are all manageable, but only if you recognize and address them ahead of time."

  http://blogs.zdnet.com/feeds/?p=1449
• 

  By The Writers For Hire, August 22, 2009 @ 12:54 am

  Hi Mark,

  Loved you post! Jason Falls just wrote a great one on the same subject(http://www.socialmediaexplorer.com/2009/08/21/the-ethics-of-ghost-blogging/), and you both really inspired me…so I put in my two cents here: http://www.thewritersforhire.com/blog.

  The cliff notes: Yes, I think it's fine to ghost blog for clients. The key is making sure that the client doesn't have a hands-off approach to the project, and that the client and ghostwriter are both intimately involved in the ghostwriting process.

  Let me know what you think!
• 

  By MARK W. SCHAEFER, August 22, 2009 @ 4:00 am

  @NDG : )

  @Dan — This may be the biggest risk of NOT having a ghost blogger: There is no blog at all. It just won't happen.

  @steve. Extremely interesting and timely legal perspective. That is a whole new can of worms!

  @WFH — Wonderful article, Wintress. Glad to have provided some inspiration! I've added it to the bottom of the post as further reading on the subject.
• 

  By Steve Dodd, August 25, 2009 @ 11:23 pm

  I know most ppl are no longer following this, but I just saw a very interesting and relevant post about various corporate CEOs and their feelings about blogging that speaks to this very topic, including their legal, corporate & moral responsibilities.
  Http://bit.ly/2T3C4
• 

  By Anne Giles Clelland, August 26, 2009 @ 10:19 am

  After studying your post and the thoughtful, informed comments that followed, I created a “Social Media Authenticity Policy” for my company and its sites. I even had it reviewed by legal counsel. I found the process challenging, the idea of taking a stand both risky and necessary, and clicking “post” ultimately mission-fortifying. I posted about the policy’s creation, then linked to the policy for all to see. Your point, “If this debate is not relevant to you right now, it will be in the near future as the demand for content explodes,” inspired me to choose to make it relevant right now. Thank you for inspiring me to equate online authenticity with the integrity of my company.
• 

  By Jeff Hurt, August 26, 2009 @ 10:12 pm

  Wow, I want the cliff notes version of this discussion, plus the recommended guidelines and the tips. Obviously, not a black and white issue for some and everyone has a different perspective. Lots of thoughts, lots of emotion, lots to consider.

  Could it be that it boils down to how the ghostwriting affects one personally?

  Whether you’re the ghostwriter or the reader, you’ll have a different opinion about this.

  Ultimately, it’s about words and their context. Words are used to build trust and destroy, persuade and influence, communicate feelings and beliefs, divide and conqueror, sell and pitch, love and hate. Words are powerful. Words can destroy and offer life. People put a lot of stock into another person’s words and if they discover that those words are not really the true words of the perceived writer, there can be negative consequences. You are known by your words. You are trusted or distrusted by your words.

  If you don’t have any words to share, and must hire someone to write them, then perhaps there is a bigger issue at hand. If a ghostwriter is giving your concepts and words fresh life, stringing them together attractively, it seems that might be acceptable. As long as the original thoughts are yours.

  How would a reader feel to discover the words s/he was reading were written by someone else? Depends on the content, it seems. For advertising, ghostwriting is acceptable. For speeches, it’s acceptable. For some autobiographies, it’s acceptable. For some books, it’s acceptable. For some company communication, it’s acceptable. For personal communication including email, tweets and comments on blogs, it seems unacceptable and misleading, especially from the reader’s point of view. Unless the ghostwriter is identified. In my opinion, words disguised as someone else’s show disrespect for the reader and the alleged owner’s lack of self-respect.

  Two questions I don’t have the answers for:
  How does the ghostwriting affect one personally? And, what are the consequences to the owner if the ghostwriting if discovered by the audience?
• 

  By MARK W. SCHAEFER, August 26, 2009 @ 11:45 pm

  All, thanks for great links and comments. It is so awesome that my post spurred such inspired reactions.

  @Cliff — cliff notes probably coming. I think a summary of learnings is in order.

Other Links to this Post

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment