57 Comments

• 

  By John Bottom, August 31, 2009 @ 9:39 am

  Mark

  Allow me to comment by way of analogy…

  In the 1960s, there was a series of much-loved British comedies called the Carry On films. The actors, despite their local fame, were notoriously badly paid, so it was not unknown (in fact it was tolerated) for them to supplement their income by involving sponsors. Not only would Sid James, who was one of the leading men, write whisky-drinking scenes into the script, but he would also replce the bottle supplied by the props department with that of his sponsor. No one really noticed; no one really cared. We got our film, Sid got a few extra quid from Johnny Walker.

  My point is that some people can get away with it, some people can't. I'm not going to go into the 'rules' and ethics of social media monetisation. Not because it isn't important, but because it depends on the person in question, their situation (eg whether they declare an interest) and their relationship with their audience.

  Interesting point as always Mark, and the reason why I continue to read each of your blog posts, despite the Google ads on the right :-)

  Carry on blogging…
• 

  By Jeremy Bramwell, August 31, 2009 @ 9:57 am

  I am not unduly offended by Chris Brogan earning a few bob from his 'celebrity status' although I stopped follwoing him a few weeks ago due to his tweets alone filling up my Tweedeck. It wasn't necessarily the self-promotion (although that has been on the increase) but the sheer quantity of repetitive Tweets – non-one else got a look-in. Although I do subscribe to his newsletter which is really good. As always 'you pays your money and takes your choice'.
• 

  By Chris Brogan, August 31, 2009 @ 11:44 am

  One fun side-effect of my time in the space is that I provide interesting fodder for blog posts looking at me for what I've done and who I am, etc. I'm often grateful, because they give me someone else's mirror to hold up.

  Though I don't really cop to the "celebrity" status, I have most certainly come to a level where I'm on a few more people's radars and minds. But that also comes with a lot more opportunities for criticism.

  I'm not in any way apologetic for experimenting with models for sponsored posts. My job is two-fold: to help big companies figure out how to interact on the web, and to help bloggers and personal media makers learn how to sustain themselves now that many people seem to be in need or work or at least supplemental income.

  Because I'm neither a journalist nor a professionally-trained PR person, I'm willing to step over all the invisible lines to figure out what works and what doesn't. Despite some of the purists feeling that Kmart/Izea was somehow wrong, Kmart reported that they were very happy with the project, and there were hundreds and hundreds of readers who participated with the post I had up on Dadomatic, and thousands overall.

  So, of all the things you wrote, the one that really intrigued me (because I'm living it) was this:

  "Is it possible to be a statesman AND a folk hero?"

  That's the crux, eh? Because I have a very active community. I have lots of people who I've cultivated their friendships and trust over the last several years. I guess that's the folk side. But as things are getting bigger and bigger, how do I not make the mistake my ancestors have done, and fall into the trap of "forgetting" the people who I love?

  That's my focus, if you want to know. Should I make some loot? That's not on the table. I'm working for my family. When the blogosphere decides to come and pay for my family's school clothes, they get a vote.

  But can I sustain the level of community love and affection? That's my big goal.
• 

  By MARK W. SCHAEFER, August 31, 2009 @ 12:29 pm

  @ John @ Jeremy – Thnx for the contribution!

  @ Chris This post wouldn't have been entirely successful without your perspective, so I'm grateful you caught up with this post and added the thoughtful commentary. Glad the "mirror" was useful in some small way!
• 

  By brooks bayne, August 31, 2009 @ 12:34 pm

  i make $ from pimping out products too, but i have a few rules.

  1. don't pimp outside of your "silos" (my silos are anything red state/package-goods worthy, food, bacon, liquor, guns, politics, etc).
  2. don't be a shill. even if you're pimping out something for $. ppl need to be able to trust you. see rule #1
  3. don't dilute your personal brand. your personal brand is why companies contact you.

  if you don't follow these rules, you may lose some credibility with your audience and the brands.
• 

  By Jason Falls, August 31, 2009 @ 1:43 pm

  Excellent post and analysis, Mark. I'm one of those Brogan fans who has become a friend through the years. Frankly, I too have been a bit turned off by the increase in self-promotion from him lately, but I understand why he's doing it, that there is still some community/altruistic benefit at play (people will get benefit from reading the book) and that, yes, social media marketing is business. There is a numeric payoff somewhere or we wouldn't be doing this as fervently as we are.

  The big theme I keep coming back to is that there is an audience out there for everyone. For every person who opts out of Chris Brogan, there will be 10-12 who opt in. For everyone who claims IZEA and Sponsored Conversations/Sponsored Tweets is blasphemy in the social media space, 10 others will sell it through to clients because there is a more meaningful finanicial payout measured at the end.

  There are people out there who like Amanda Chapel. There's an audience for everyone.

  Also, social media audiences are different than advertising audiences. Social media is opt-in. You don't have to follow Chris on Twitter. You don't have to read his blog. If his commercialization gets to be too much for you, you can opt-out. If you want the thought leadership an insight he provides with his experimentation, even if it is for his own gain, then you have to put up with the parts of his gig that turn you off a bit.

  But no one is forcing you to be in his tribe.

  That's why it doesn't matter what the social media purists or Brogan detractors say. He's earned the trust of a lot of people. He may turn a few of them away with his "buy my book" schtick, but I'll guarantee the community of his friends isn't walking away from his expertise anytime soon.
• 

  By Steve Dodd, August 31, 2009 @ 2:03 pm

  Yup, at the end of the day, it's all about the money. We prove this over and over again. This is just another example.
• 

  By Chris Brogan, August 31, 2009 @ 2:34 pm

  So here's a question (that will become a blog post): do we shit on other people for doing their job and making a paycheck? Why is blogging somehow sacrosanct? What if the web *is* my job?
• 

  By Steve Dodd, August 31, 2009 @ 2:51 pm

  Oh, and for the record, making money's not a bad thing. Without that motivation, the infrastructure that is enabling us to even have this conversation wouldn't exist.
• 

  By Kevin Lo, August 31, 2009 @ 2:56 pm

  Some great points here, Mark. Thanks for sharing.

  I, for one, have recently wondered about this recent rise of "social media experts" and how exactly they are making money. Brogan, of course, seems to have risen to the top of the chain, and by his own admission he is neither a trained journalist or PR figure.

  I follow Brogan on Twitter, and while it may seem (especially recently) that he is all about promoting his book, I can't really fault him. Based on his large following, it appears he's done enough already to gain the "trust" of many. Not all of his followers will buy his book, but many will. Everyone still has that choice.

  As for his sponsored messages, as long as he remains completely transparent and actually feels strongly about whatever he is promoting, he can continue to toe the line.

  The agency I work at recently purchased several copies of "Trust Agents" and Erik Qualman's "Socialnomics." And while the concept of a book about social media might seem ironic, the reads have been worthwhile for an overarching look at the current social media climate. Then again, how long before all the information is outdated?

  Kevin Lo
  http://www.twitter.com/eudtheviking
  http://www.thepillagevoice.com
• 

  By Jeff Hurt, August 31, 2009 @ 2:56 pm

  Mark:

  You mentioned the need for standards. I suggest that instead of standards, perhaps accepted guidelines. Standards imply control and we know that trying to control anyone or a message is not possible. Guidelines are self-imposed and seen as acceptable best practices.

  When you said certification, my insides churned. Usually a governing body runs a mandated certification program, often state governments such as nursing boards or teaching agencies. Associations run optional certification programs, such as CAE (Certified Association Executive) or CPAs. (Regarding CPAs, in some places both the American Institute of CPAs and a state governing body runs it.) Do we really want a government mandated-approved blogging certification?

  However, I think you’re on the right track. I believe that in an increasing hyper-connected world, people need to develop and refine the skills to shift from a focus on information as such to learning to judge reliable information, it source and the sponsors behind it. I think we need to shift from memorizing information to finding reliable sources. Then the audience would be the judge and jury about bloggers that were using acceptable blogging practices and those who weren’t.

  Just my thoughts…
• 

  By Jamie Lee, August 31, 2009 @ 3:06 pm

  Mark – As always, you cut to the core, don't you?

  I am an unabashed Brogan fan mostly because his ideas and opinions resonate with me, and because I admire the way he doesn't try to convince you that he's something not. He's just doing his thing, and – as Jason pointed out above – you can take it, or leave it. No one is holding a gun to your head.

  Personally, I don't take issue with bloggers who leverage clearly-identified affiliate programs, sponsored content, or other means to bring home the bacon. Chris' rhetorical question about whether we "shit on other people for doing their job and making a paycheck" hits the nail on the head. If the Web is your business, then by default there is some sort of transaction taking place (hopefully!) that allows you to earn a living.

  I think we've created murky waters with all the hyper-focus on authenticity, transparency, and helpfulness. Each of those attributes is a great thing, but needs to be balanced with the reality of the business side of things. It's said that money and power corrupt – but are they really corrupting the person at hand, or just changing the perceptions of observers? For instance, I doubt it was ever Chris' intention to invest the massive amount of time he does simply for the feel good part of helping people out. He works hard – leveraging social media – to create a professional platform which he has used to launch a number of lucrative projects. There's nothing wrong with that. He's been open, honest, and genuine. He's helped a lot of people along the way by delivering free content through his blog. Why should he be expected to give EVERYthing away for nothing? If what he's delivering has a real value, why should be be penalized for charging that value?

  How much do we give away? When do we transition from giving to asking for the sale? How do we assign a value to the "upgrade" services and products that follow a slew of freebies? How do we strike a balance between "helpfulness" and profitability? Should we even care about how other people label us if our business model is working for our customers?

  I know I'm leaving more questions than answers, but there's a lot to think about here. Thanks – again! – for the great thought starters!
• 

  By Jamie Lee Wallace, August 31, 2009 @ 3:10 pm

  PS – I'm with Jeff Hurt above re: my reaction to the idea of "certification." I agree that accepted guidelines would be much more palatable – both to provide publishers with a benchmark and to educate "consumers/readers" regarding what is acceptable behavior, and what is not.
• 

  By MARK W. SCHAEFER, August 31, 2009 @ 3:14 pm

  @chrisbrogan This will be a great blog topic for you and I look forward to seeing it. And I think you probably stated in one question what it took an epistle for me to say: what does it mean to be a professional blogger? What do we need to do to be leaders and make this an acceptable — and respected — career?
• 

  By MARK W. SCHAEFER, August 31, 2009 @ 3:18 pm

  @jasonfalls beautifully written comment, Jason and a key idea about the really exciting time we live in. Yes, there is an audience for everyone. For the first time in history! Mankind has access to free, global, instantaneous communication. What do we choose to do with this power?? We are participating in such an incredibly important moment.
• 

  By MARK W. SCHAEFER, August 31, 2009 @ 3:28 pm

  @Jeff and @jamie — You definitely improved on my idea of governance. I don't want restrictions either and perhaps "guidelines" would suffice. Who has the power to pull off globally-accepted guidelines? Hey Chris, in your spare time …

  Seriously, put a couple important bloggers together to establish the guidelines — and a badge to show you follow those guidelines — and everybody would scramble to comply.

  Who is our leader? I'll step up and contribute, but don't have the stripes (…YET!!) to have meaningful influence. My "guidelines" would be met with a resounding "WTF?" : )
• 

  By Jamie Lee, August 31, 2009 @ 4:05 pm

  @Mark – I wonder if everyone would scramble, or if there's a large contingent of independent "renegades" who'd abstain from being part of any organized effort … even the establishment of benign promotion guidelines. Interesting idea, though. I'm sure we'll see someone try it before too long!
• 

  By Danny Brown, August 31, 2009 @ 4:39 pm

  It's kind of funny that we seem to castigate bloggers or new media professionals quite freely, yet we never give the same ire to more "traditional" mediums and people within that area.

  I've followed Chris for a couple of years now, and I've always found him to be pretty upfront about all he does. There are times when I disagree with something he's said or written, and I'll mention as such to him. And, kudos, he responds with either an "amended" point of view, or explains even clearer why he's still of the original opinion.

  It's a tough place to be in at the minute. New media has become almost a target for anyone with an agenda – it's fine if you have a genuine beef about something or someone, but if it's the sheer fact you have a voice and a mouthpiece to use it, that kinda loses the point for me.

  There are interesting paths ahead for sure, and it's great that we're having conversations like this (and that the subjects of the conversations are taking part).

  Perhaps the Blog Council can offer some ideas along with FTC, who knows? But it still boils down to one thing – personal trust in a person or organization.

  Do I trust Chris? Yes, I do. Will that change? Maybe – nothing's ever that solid, is it? Or can it be? Guess time will tell. :)

  Cheers for a great discussion, Mark.
• 

  By Juan Lulli, August 31, 2009 @ 4:57 pm

  The question cannot be, as you say, "How do you monetize and keep your audience and integrity intact?" Such a question, as it applies to the social media industry, is generally and normally a call out of disingenuous intention and, more often, hidden, unarticulated, and darker motivation.

  Sounds weighty, doesn't it?

  Seems didactic, and morally self-satisfying, but usually, masks a hollow meaning and, on the contrary, a heavy dose of misunderstanding and maybe even double-speak.

  Whatever question you want to pose and whichever sacrosanct-infusing mandates and rules you wish to explore for social media, you must clearly state — surely you must know — that social media and the web is an industry, with its own market, its own set of marketplace participants, and one that entitles those individuals who work in it with equal rights to the responsible pursuit of happiness and liberty as all other industries enjoy.

  Start there. Then, and only then, start articulating moral pronoucements. Thanks for the chance to comment, and I appreciate it.
• 

  By Farida Shakhshir, August 31, 2009 @ 5:36 pm

  There's a lot of conversation going on about the "monetization of Chris Brogan", and to be frank I don't see the issue. Let's consider for a moment that in the Social Media landscape Chris has evolved from being a blogger/tweeter/person to being his own brand. He is recognized, stands for something, has a brand personality and adds value to those who choose to follow him. So why be upset when his brand has a cross-promo with another? Or he pre-hypes and hypes about a brand extension (the book)? After all, the value we get can't simply be free – although a lot of it is. I, like many, have gotten tons of great info from Chris without paying a cent! So why not let the Chris Brogan brand cover it's costs and yes, make a profit in return for providing continued value.
  One last thought, I can't help but wonder, could this blog post be a sensational PR stunt by the Mark Schaefer brand to get more coverage and discredit an industry leader?
  P.s. For the record, I don't know Mark or Chris personally and have never shared a DM with either.
• 

  By Sean Williams @commammo, August 31, 2009 @ 5:36 pm

  Mark – your commenters are an interesting crew, and Juan Lulli certainly stirs the pot with the best of them.

  The pregnant question is whether social media is an industry like any other. It may be, the jury is still out. There are people who write and speak and consult in the Web. 2.0 space with no discernable bone fides other than their own celebrity. For them, this is a living — they've gathered followers, offered opinions, given advice without any foundation other than their own assertions. I use social media therefore I am.

  The prospect of professional determinants — of objective standards of online behavior — would have a chilling effect on their business model, unless they are the ones to determine the standards.

  Perhaps they would be good stewards, adopting standards that protected consumers of their art and science, or perhaps they will attempt to make policy that restricts competition. We have no modern template for social media as business. The era of self-published broadsheets gave way to broadcast, with its capital intensiveness and regulatory framework.

  This is logical: Social Media will become regulated as a consequence of its growing influence. That may mean licenses, that may mean prior restraint and new applications to the libel law. It surely will involve blogging as a form of commercial speech, with restrictions on what can be said in posts about products, services, and second-party comments.

  We have moved past caveat emptor in much commercial speech — as social media matures, it seems inevitable that we'll see some form of regulation. And that might bring about the development of standards of behavior quickly.
• 

  By Dan Holloway, August 31, 2009 @ 5:42 pm

  Hey, Mark. I thought I'd comment as soemeon who called Chris out over his recent post on community. I thought he showed an inconsistency like the ones you outline from other critics – he advocated participatig in community and acting for its benefit, but then seemed, a few sentences to be talking about how to milk your community. I asked him which side he was actually falling on, and he got back to me with an explanation within about 15 minutes. For a man as busy as Chris that really impressed me (it shouldn't have come as a surprise – the very best and most popular bloggers engage with their readers no matter what level of success they achieve. The wannabes and, worse still, the "think they're already there"s are the ones who avoid answering questions using the excuse of "too busy" or "too important").

  For me there is only one rule of engagement. Be up fromt from the off. If you tell you're community you're not going to monetise yourself then don't. The moment you do, that's an instant unfollow, for me at least. If you say you'll have a book in the pipeline that you'll one day ask me to buy, fair enough. I'll stay with you and see if I like what you say.
• 

  By Trish, August 31, 2009 @ 5:56 pm

  "But there are also thought-provoking criticisms out there from seemingly intelligent, well-meaning people. What’s going on?"

  Perhaps these people found themselves falling into the "Do as I say, not as I do" category. That's sure to get people in an uproar.
• 

  By Anonymous, August 31, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

  this problem will be self-correcting…

  even if today's "social media experts"
  aren't con artists, the con artists will
  pick up on their success, and move in.

  and once the con artists are operating,
  the whole thing will crumble into itself.

  -bowerbird
• 

  By Amanda Chapel, August 31, 2009 @ 6:13 pm

  Rather than begging people to buy a book about how to game the meritocricy by *using* pseudo "friendz," how 'bout an honest book like "The Cult of the Immature Wrongly-Empowered Sell-Out Amateurs Who Are Corrupting Commerce"? Too long?

  Bottom line: "Trust Agents" is a Wiley Publishing marketing scam pure and simple. There's little there there. There's no expertise. It's opinion about a topic the authors have little experience in. Note: " Prior to roles in the media and events space [i.e. blogging and such], Chris had over 16 years of telecommunications experience in wireless and landline technologies, including enterprise software and hardware experience, project management expertise, and applications/solutions engineering experience." He's a tech guy posing as a makerting/PR expert!

  For those here that apparently need a dose of adult guidance, here, let me boil it down for ya: Using people is wrong; Using "relationships" is immoral; Creating a pseudo religion to use relationships is a social pathogen.

  For Christ sake. Praised?! This empty fuck and the legion of those who prop him and others like him up in social media should be horse whipped. Jesus. Get a grip.

  - Amanda
• 

  By MARK W. SCHAEFER, August 31, 2009 @ 6:37 pm

  Ummm… this is called losing control of the conversation I guess. : )

  @Juan no, it doesn't sound weighty. It sounds pompous. Where I had an opinion, I stated it clearly, where I didn't I didn't.

  @Farida — I don't know how anybody could read this post and think I was discrediting anybody. I reported already-published criticisms and used it to illustrate what I perceived to be chronic problems. My tone was respectful and supportive. Publicity? Yeah, everything is publicity in a way. Including posting a blog comment.
• 

  By Steve Woodruff, August 31, 2009 @ 6:38 pm

  The best "guideline" a blogger can have is full disclosure, and the best quality control we can exert is to vote with our clicks and pocketbooks.

  Chris is Chris. Follow him or don't. Buy his book or don't. At least he's telling you what he's doing. Unlike many others in the marketplace (or the inside the DC beltway, for that matter).

  Worth will be judged by the price people are willing to pay, to gain MORE value from something they already feel provides value. It's not a whole lot more complicated than that.
• 

  By MARK W. SCHAEFER, August 31, 2009 @ 6:42 pm

  @Sean and @Dan -thanks for the rational wisdom and thoughtful engagement.

  @amanda — missed opportunity for you to comment on the ISSUES I presented. I did not intend to get in the middle of a gun fight.
• 

  By David Breznau, August 31, 2009 @ 6:57 pm

  wow mark, having fun i see. we should all suggest to amanda that we prefer to remain professional. take the school yard trash talk someplace else.

  here is my two cents. thanks to everyone for the exchange.

  Personally, I’m tired of this conversation. It is the same conversation that has taken place since the beginning of commerce itself. The fact that social technologies now allow everyone to be involved with the conversation doesn’t make the issue any different.

  Currently, it’s a conversation that is talking place in the vacuum of social media itself, by the very participants who are envious of each other’s successes. Chris Brogan wrote a book. Big deal. He was able to leverage his brand to sell a bunch of copies and make some money. No one forced anyone to buy it.

  He however, is the first self-proclaimed non-journalist, or professionally trained PR person, who has turned his blogging efforts into a successful business model. Exactly what every member of his “tribe” hopes to accomplish.

  So what’s the “thought leaders” knee jerk reaction to his success? We need to implement some industry standard; we need rules…off with his head, but nicely.

  Relax. Stop thinking all consumers are idiots. The same technologies that allow everyone to participate, also allow us to educate and regulate. If it turns out that the people who purchased his book felt betrayed, they will not buy his next book and you will be hearing from them. Believe me, Chris will not be retiring on his proceeds from “Trust Agents.” He is obviously smart enough to understand why his tribe supported, recommended and purchased the book. He will harvest the lessons learned and contacts made from its journey, repackage them and sell them to you again. God Bless America.
• 

  By Dave Lutz, August 31, 2009 @ 7:14 pm

  Great discussion here! I've been following Brogan on his blog and thru his newsletter for about 18 months. I've never met him, never seen him speak to an audience, but he has earned my respect.

  I'm very OK with bloggers earning a few bucks off their communities back, as long as they deliver value and disclose their relationships. Brogan sets a great example for the rest of us by hitting the ball out of the park w/ value provided and earning trust through his honesty and transparency.

  I'm not so sure that guidelines or a code of conduct is needed in the blogosphere. We all have our own filters and personal values. When someone does something against those values, we are free to vote with our feet. I'm still getting lots of value out of Brogan's blog. I'll keep telling plenty of others to jump on the band wagon, buy his book, etc.
• 

  By David Jones, August 31, 2009 @ 7:16 pm

  Many folks are looking for a bedrock to build the foundation of social media marketing upon. It's not surprising that many then hang on the every word of people like Brogan. Teacher, guru, evangelist, trailblazer. Whatever label you choose, most people are looking for some sort of guide to follow.

  When that guide, be it Brogan or Israel or Jaffe, seems to go off the path they've been telling the rest of us to follow, many are quick to assume they are lacking integrity or they've broken a trust.

  The debate that ensues is good and everyone involved can usually learn something. Some ignore the indiscretion, some jump to their defence, some lose faith and some others find it for the first time.

  The fact is, there are detours to take, new routes to imagine and flat earths to navigate. We need brave souls like Brogan to step off the path once in a while, scrape his knee and live to tell the tale so the rest of us are spared the pain or, better yet, have a new path to take.

  @doctorjones
• 

  By MARK W. SCHAEFER, August 31, 2009 @ 7:31 pm

  Perhaps the tone of the comments are overwhelming the original text. This was not a post vilifying Chris. In fact the first words were that I like him!

  I tried to used the criticisms against him (only because there has been so much of it) as a spotlight on three broader issues. Based on my experience (27 years in Fortune 100 sales, PR, eCommerce and marketing) these problems seem obvious and, largely unaddressed. It's fascinating to me.

  Thanks for all of the enlightening comments. Just wanted to re-focus and clarify.
• 

  By Juan Lulli, August 31, 2009 @ 9:16 pm

  "Relax. Stop thinking all consumers are idiots."

  That, from a comment above from David Beznau, has led me to see a defining point. That the web and social media represent a marketplace. In this marketplace are millions of citizens, producers and consumers, professionals and practitioners, buyers and sellers, etc. Particularly because of the transparency social media fosters, we the people — whether we be producers or consumers or anything in between in this space — are capable and equipped with the know-how to sense a loss of equitable and reciprocal value in commercial exchanges that occur in this marketplace. We know who are trust agents are. Generally speaking, the market sees no erosion in reciprocal value with Chris Brogan. Penning a blog on "loss of integrity" and attaching it to Chris Brogan is, at the very least, peculiar if not suspicious in its intent.
• 

  By Jeremy Bramwell, August 31, 2009 @ 9:32 pm

  Mortified by my spelling error on my post.
• 

  By Will McCulloch, August 31, 2009 @ 9:38 pm

  Hi Mark,

  I'm pretty new to the blogging world – and this is definitely one of the most personally interesting posts I've seen so far.

  From my own limited experience I'd say ( as others have) that Chris Brogan is pretty upfront about his activities – and I see absolutely nothing unethical with his marketing methods/ presentational practices. He's developed a great audience – and basically it's his right to put present whatever to them. After all, they're free to leave, voting with their feet ( or clicks or whatever)

  The idea of a ruling body setting shuddering standards and (almost inevitably) cashing-in on certificates to well-behaved good boy bloggers … seems oppressive to me – and a threat to the wonderful freedom of speech that the internet represents.

  Why should people complain if they don't like the path that Chris may (or may not) be taking ? Wouldn't it be more positive if they just followed another path? There's plenty of them.

  Or they could even start a path of their own perhaps!

  Best wishes from Hamburg

  Will
• 

  By Dan Holloway, August 31, 2009 @ 9:40 pm

  Hey, Mark. Wow, this is a hot topic, and people seem to get hot under the collar. In the spirit of getting back on topic, I want to say what an impotrant point #2 is. Part of the problem when we reach that crossover point is not that WE change, it's that peopl's expectations and perceptions change. What they previously perceived as authentic/wise/fresh they now see as homespun/arrogant/hickish and it's nothing to do with content – it's to do with relative position. We love to hear our own voices reflected back by our peers. What we love is where it comes from. When the person speaking changes position relative to us, we hear something different even when what they're saying is the same. One of the hardest things people who make the transition have to do is realise the reltion's changed and reevaluate themselevs accordingly. And something we should be doing as critically awaer commentators and listeners is recognising how our own perceptions shift.
• 

  By MARK W. SCHAEFER, August 31, 2009 @ 9:45 pm

  @Juan As far as I know, you have never read my blog before. Certainly you have never commented on it or engaged with me. I have taken on many provocative topics usually because I don't know any better. I just write about what interests me.

  I put a helluva lot of thought and work into this particular post. I would ask you to look at the body of work and get to know me before labeling anything about me as "suspicious."

  If you really think this article was about attaching a "loss of integrity" to Brogan, I give up. Can't argue with that. I think I have been clear on my intent.

  I hope you give the blog a fair assessment and return as a freqeunt contributor, Juan.
• 

  By MARK W. SCHAEFER, August 31, 2009 @ 9:50 pm

  @will and @dan — Thanks for bringing this back to earth : )

  Lisa Foote (@footenotes) tweeted this out and had a MUCH better headline than the one I chose: "Chris Brogan as the canary in the social media coal mine." Perfect!!
• 

  By Chris Brogan, August 31, 2009 @ 10:43 pm

  I learn something every day.

  A few thoughts: I don't think there's a social media industry. I think these are tools.

  I do think there's a social media movement, but that the tools aide this movement, they're not owned by the movement.

  Know what it is? Hippies at the end of Woodstock, and I don't mean that in any derogatory way. It's that moment when people realized the movement and the methods weren't married. They'd had a kid, but that was it.

  And yet…

  Thanks for everything today, Mark. Your post and this commentary was a shining part in an otherwise bleak day.
• 

  By Juan Lulli, August 31, 2009 @ 11:29 pm

  "I hope you give the blog a fair assessment and return as a frequent contributor."

  I will Mark.

  I've spent a good deal today learning and getting to know your extensive thought, your obvious hard work, and the stream of commentary you've elicited. Wow!

  I apologize for my brusque way of introducing myself as well as my reaction to your provocative post. I'll remain in touch…!
• 

  By Anonymous, September 1, 2009 @ 1:38 am

  A number of other SM bloggers seem to be (increasingly) promoting their firms so Chris is by no means alone in self-promotion. But I don't think he's the first to 'sell out' if he has (which I can't say I feel right now). I'll put up with some self-promotion in exchange for fewer personal Tweets (e.g. just got off a plane…) and to stop the 6, 7, 8 or 9 Tweets in a row. Spread 'em out; 3 in a row is enough. Let somebody else have a say!
• 

  By Nathan Hangen, September 1, 2009 @ 2:21 am

  Now that I'm worn out from reading this mess, I'm not sure if I can put to text what I have going on in my head…but I'll try.

  I'm a huge fan of Chris, but not a fanboy. I admire what Chris has done and I've never had any major issues with the way he sells himself or uses his brand to make money.

  He wrote a book to make money and uses his community to spread the message…isn't that what social media is? Are we supposed to sit around and talk about Starbucks and great blog posts all day?

  Most people are on Twitter to make money and I have no problem paying people that I feel in sync with.

  Amanda, you call Chris' book a scam, but take a look at most books at your local Barnes and Noble and I guarantee you that you'll find more trash than gems. In a free market economy, sales will dictate standing. If people think the book sucks, you'll see less of them on the shelves.

  To the average user/blogger, social media has grown into this happy, feel good, cupcakes and chewing gum type of industry. The problem there is that the real movers and shakers behind the scenes are smart enough to see new media as a way to make money in a different way and are doing so.

  The people that claim social media is about being authentic and making internet friends are probably many of the same people that haven't figured out how to find the balance between making money and being liked. I'm impressed that Chris has been able to do that.

  Most of us are either selling books or seling ourselves, so I dont' see how trying to make a dime is a bad thing.
• 

  By AussieWebmaster, September 1, 2009 @ 3:41 am

  Since Chris is openly acknowledging he is paid by some of the people he writes about he is covered under the government's possible intervention into paid content on blogs and other social media.

  As an online writer who makes part of his income from blogging, I understand the allure of money and other freebies being offered out there. But it can be something that eventually costs more than readership if the FTC gets involved.
• 

  By Greg Satell, September 1, 2009 @ 4:58 am

  It seems that Brogan isn't the only "guru blogger" who has trouble when he goes out of the relatively cloistered world of the blogosphere.

  Socialnomiocs’ author Erik Qualman may be a Social Media expert, but he recently showed himself to be somewhat naïve and foolish when it comes to basic brand management issues.

  See here: http://www.digitaltonto.com/archives/314

  - Greg
• 

  By steve dodd, September 1, 2009 @ 12:16 pm

  Regarding the regulatory question, the FTC and Congress are already invovled and looking at ways to deal with Social Media. Secondly, privacy agencies all over the world are also paying attention. Regulation is coming, fast.

  From a totally personal point of view, Who's to say what's "right" or "wrong" from a marketing perspective. If there is full disclosure, what difference does it make what anyone says or does. It's all personal preference. If it works, Chris will be deemed a hero an visionary, if it doesn't, he'll likely come up with an angle and still be seen as a hero and visionary. But, at least he's trying to do something (and seemingly quite well).

  The use of celebrities or seemingly unbiased users as pitch people has been a tactic for ever. Why should anyone expect this change.

  I loved Chris' Woodstock analogy earlier in these comments. Free love, until they had the baby. Isn't that when "love" ceased to be "free" as well?
• 

  By Dan Levine, September 1, 2009 @ 12:21 pm

  Mark, thank you for changing the discussion with this post. You took us away from the "here's why Social Media rocks" discussion (which has been covered from gazillions of angles) to a much more interesting and important discussion of "what's next?" and "how do we navigate to get there?". You helped push us in a new (different) direction. Hopefully this will lead to more debate, more thoughtfulness, and more new ideas. Thank you …
• 

  By MARK W. SCHAEFER, September 1, 2009 @ 2:02 pm

  @ Juan – apology accepted :)

  @chris. I agree that there is not a social media industry (yes = tools) but there is a blogging industry that is growing in importance, profitability and number of participants. Whether we self-regulate (as I suggested) or the FTC gets involved, there is critical mass and it seems likely it will be getting attention.

  @everybody else – thanks for your zeal and extraordinary insights.
• 

  By greg cryns, September 1, 2009 @ 4:43 pm

  "Bloggers need sponsors because we can't feed our families with page views and tweets."

  Absoeffenlutely!

  I watched while Brogan got roasted (by some loudmouths, not by all). I also put in my 2 cents to tell these yokels to get a life.

  What the heck is wrong with making money? I think this cult of "community only" people need to be educated. The Internet itself is not free. Why should our services be free to the hangers-on?

  I repeat to them: GET A LIFE!
• 

  By Danny Brown, September 2, 2009 @ 1:26 am

  I think the bigger question is how Amanda Chapel managed to limit his/herself to just the one F-word in his/her comment. Wonders will never cease… ;-)
• 

  By rinkjustice, September 2, 2009 @ 12:01 pm

  @Steve Dodd: Social media isn't always about money. Believe it or not, there are people who use social networking for socializing and connecting with friends and family, nothing more.

  @Mark: Brogan can do whatever he wants. He controls his brand. The rest of us can elect to either subscribe to his work or not. Simple. No rules.
• 

  By Anonymous, September 2, 2009 @ 2:51 pm

  The "muse" gave birth to art. Art became a commodity in some ways, yet still exists in its original muse inpired state. Is blogging art? Some is. Was blogging birthed by muse? I think so. Andy Warhol literally sold prints of "$" painted in his "Factory" by students while captivating the aristocracy of the industry. Cool that we're in the midst of an evolving artform.
• 

  By steve dodd, September 3, 2009 @ 9:45 pm

  @rinkjustice
  Jason, I totally agree, it's not all about money. Many are just social users. I was referring to the commercial aspect of Social Media only. That being said, even the content posted by those social users in public forums is regulary interrogated by various monitoring and analytic services trying to identify commercial insights for monetary gain.
• 

  By Ellen Rossano, September 4, 2009 @ 5:56 pm

  I stopped short when I came across this post in my Twitter in box today, and I'm amazed at the sheer volume of time and energy people are willing to expend criticizing someone who is successful. Full disclosure: I follow Chris on Twitter and have met him in person in Boston. In my 30 years in business and government, I can truly say he is one of the most genuine and nice business people I've met along the way. I hesitate to use the words authentic and transparent, because somehow these words have been co-opted by the social media community, and it seems like using them here makes them less…authentic. I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that Chris is pretty direct about his paid gigs or that he has written a book. He'd be a poor business person if he didn't promote his business. Chris has been blogging since it was called "journaling" – 10 years in social media is a very long time. It has always been my understanding that Chris runs a business, and like any smart business person, he uses all of the tools available to him to make a profit in his business. It would be blast if people could all just hang out all day on "The Twitter" and do all of this commenting as a hobby; that someone actually makes a living doing it is a good thing. His methods might not work for everyone, but there is plenty of room in this space for all sorts of ideas and philosophies, and hopefully, productive discussion.
  Instead of expending energy speculating, criticizing and judging someone else's motivation and success, I wonder if the efforts of Chris's critics would be put to better use being more "business-like" and professional in advancing their own businesses. I'm appalled at some of the negative comments, especially the ones that seem like personal attacks.
  There's an old fishermen's theory that goes like this: if you have 12 crabs in a basket, and one tries to climb out, the other 11 will kill themselves trying to pull him back in, rather than using their energy to get out too. Seems to me like this basket full of crabs is spending a lot of energy trying to pull one of the good guys down, rather than expending it on something useful, positive and productive.
• 

  By Bridget Cavanaugh (bcavanaugh on Twitter), September 4, 2009 @ 10:26 pm

  If I could be a fraction of the blogger, consultant, folk-hero, celebrity and all-around smart guy that Chris Brogan is, I'd be so damn happy. I've been following, learning and emulating since the first friendly DM. Godspeed and I hope you make millions!
• 

  By John, September 5, 2009 @ 2:55 pm

  This country has chosen capitalism. It may not be perfect, but it is what it is. Mr. Brogan has to participate in that to feed his family so that he is not draining money from the federal government. So, if someone has a problem with him, I wonder if there isn't a solution to their problem that lies closer to themselves? We don't need guidelines as much as we participate in improving our own judgement about who we listen to. Let the market decide about his book and value. I'm reading it and yes I paid for it and it has some good points in it. Some of it I will remember and some of it I will forget. But it takes some courage to put a book out there and I always give a writer credit for that.
• 

  By George F. Snell III, September 8, 2009 @ 10:32 pm

  Hi Mark:
  There seems to a lot of angst about this. But at the end of the day Chris Brogan makes money for being a writer – a writer who happens to blog.

  Writers are allowed to make money. Chris isn't violating any ethics. As far as I can see he is honest and transparent – and quick to admit to a mistake.

  As far as Chris' success. Good for him!
• 

  By MARK W. SCHAEFER, September 8, 2009 @ 11:08 pm

  The past few comments have turned into a fan page for Chris. That's fine. It's an open forum, but it really has gotten off topic of the social web's maturation in the areas of monetization, leadership and professionalism.

  Perhaps by using a popular figure like Chris as an example (and if you really read the post, a POSITIVE example!) this was unavoidable. I think the angle worked because he is plowing new ground and taking the most flak for it. It's interesting to me to see what that flak says about us, the social media channel, and where we are heading.

  Still, I'm proud of the conversation this has generated. I've learned a lot and have had many, many positive comments about this dialogue. As one person wrote, this article, and your comments, turned the conversation away from self-congratulations and "social media is awesome" to a spotlight on "what's next?"

  Thank you so very much to all who have taken the time to comment.

Other Links to this Post

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment