{grow} » The End of The Trust Agent?

Mar 08 2010

The End of The Trust Agent?

It’s uncommon to see much written about individual personalities on the social web — in fact it’s taboo. However, it’s important to occasionally look at Chris Brogan as a living social media business case study for two reasons:

1) It’s hard to comment on the state of the nation without mentioning the president.

2) Chris Brogan is a pioneer. The issues and opportunities he faces are instructive to all churning in his wake. As Lisa Foote once wrote, Chris is the canary in the social media coal mine.

Chris has created a tremendous amount of value and popularity through his tireless engagement but has also stirred up more controversy than any social media personality, whether through his aggressive use of “sponsored” posts or his apparent sponsorship “flip” at last year’s Consumer Electronics Show. As I said, he is plowing new ground. Sometimes you hit a rock.

But last week might have been his biggest buzz-killer when he revealed he charges $22,000 for a day of his services and then subsequently posted (and dropped) an appeal for un-paid interns for his company.

Just to be clear, I’m not in the whiney camp that thinks everything Chris does should be free. I’m probably the most capitalist, business-driven blogger out here. I like it when people make money. I like it when Chris makes money. I think he should take advantage of his white-hot celebrity, celebrate it, leverage it, and roll in the dough. I hope he can double his consulting fees.

So making money is good. But from an academic view, it would be useful to look at the “how” — the dramatic shift (or perhaps evolution) in strategy that is enabling Chris to become a money-making machine.

For years, Chris has built his core brand promise on:

Passionate audience-building through authentic helpfulness
Relentless nurturing of that audience through tireless engagement
Putting the audience above personal business needs
Never, ever “selling”

In one video from last summer, he literally screamed at an audience “This is NOT about YOU and your STUPID COMPANY!” That effectively sums up his mantra, and the “brand” Chris built around himself.

Around the time of his book release last year, Chris flipped this philosophy upside down and took steps to aggressively monetize his audience. He explained this change by saying that he had been giving stuff away for a long time and that it was time to make money. Selling of his products, services, companies, book, affiliate links, and paid sponsors became a common theme. He transformed into the social web’s most visible and highly-paid pitch-man, the Billy Mays of blogging.

Chris also increasingly put himself at the forefront of his topics, including video documentation of a day in the life of himself, photos of himself with near-celebrities, announcements of his new business ventures, and detailed explanations of how hard he works to achieve his success. As you would expect, some readers expressed disappointment with these changes, and they were sometimes categorized as “haters” instead of “creators” and implored to “get over it.”

In other words, Chris has disassociated himself from that core brand promise to his audience.

In the business world, this would be tantamount to Disney opening a Tia Tequila-themed ride, or Nike doing a fitness cross-promotion with McDonald’s. When a brand becomes incongruent by building a reputation communicating one thing and then executing another, it can be a recipe for disaster.

In the near-term, Chris and his ubiquity seem to have a limitless ability to capitalize on the goodwill of his audience (heck, loyal customers even bought Toyota cars after the first recall). From a traditional business perspective, one might predict that if Chris doesn’t practice what he preaches and take steps to return to his core competencies, his brand and his ability to monetize will be increasingly vulnerable.

The furor over the posts last week were not the first signs that people have noticed the new Capitalist Chris. If it persists, negative outbursts from loyal fans might eventually call attention to the problem with his sponsors and erode his brand and his value.

Or will it? Another possibility is that Chris is going to be just fine losing some — or even most — of his core followers because he is developing a new audience of corporate folks who don’t care what his brand promise WAS as long as he can deliver results to their bottom line NOW.

In any event, the Trust Agent as we knew him is probably coming to an end as he transitions from social media folk hero to mainstream business consultant. It will be fascinating to watch the results.

What do you think about this strategy shift?

What are the risks of jeopardizing his core audience for launching a new stage in his career?

With the new demands of the business and publishing worlds, is it possible for Chris to be successful at holding on to both constituencies? If so, how?

Illustration: www.chrisbrogan.com

Share and Enjoy:

Filed in Personalities of the social web, business strategy, economics of social media, personal branding | Mark

61 Comments

By Jon Buscall, March 8, 2010 @ 4:54 am

@Mark,
Thanks again for an outstanding post that also takes plenty of risks. Loved it.

I’m curious about Chris’s strategy flip. I’ve been following his approach for a couple of years and enjoyed Trust Agents —although it wasn’t ground breaking in the way that Mitch Joel’s Six Pixels really got me excited.

I’ve been very cognisant that Chris has been moving in a different direction for a while now and was intrigued by the reactions last week’s posts generated.

Yes, he may well lose the massive traffic he’s had from the social media wannabes and small business users, but I can see that he will continue to attract corporates given what he’s already achieved thus far.

I’m not sure it was a massive risk to flip strategy because he has to pay the bills like all of us and probably felt he needed to monitise his blog before the energy in the site wained. If anything we’ve learned from the first decades of the Net, it’s that audiences move on. Just ask MySpace.

No matter what, Chris is forging a career path in a medium that wasn’t there before. He may be a roaring success, or he may blow it. But is’t that business whether it’s on the Net or not. There’s always an element of risk.

Ultimately, my feeling is that Chris’s halcyon days as the social media evangelist are over.

Yes, some of the evangelical discourse around social media may seem a little more hollow for a while until a new voice emerges to push things to the next level. But social communications / media is here to stay for the next while at least.
By Mark, March 8, 2010 @ 7:17 am

@ Jon — I agree with your perspective but am not sure I agree that this was not a “flip.” If it were not, that would imply that Chris was intentionally misleading — advocating one approach but executing another. IMO, I think these opportunities presented themselves rapidly and Chris went for it. He may not have handled his new fame gracefully, but my impression is that he did not intentionally mislead. I think his passion has always been authentic.

Thanks for the insight and perspective, Jon!
By Jon Buscall, March 8, 2010 @ 7:42 am

@Mark, I think you’re spot on about Chris’s passion. What’s more, I do think he’s just gone for it. Hence my point about how there are no typical career paths to follow with blogging and marketing. We’re all learning as we go along at this stage in the game.
By Joseph Fiore, March 8, 2010 @ 8:03 am

Mark,

I’m a little divided on this whole thing. On the one hand, I really can’t see why it would be anyone’s business what Chris charges. On the other, it’s no different than the ribbing Scoble got when people started getting up in arms about him dividing his blogging between his tweets and friendfeed updates.

For me, this is the whole “make your own bed…” idiom, and I have as much a problem with the whole culture of “free” à la Chris Anderson, and the way we overlook the inherent risks associated with “free”, than I do with the blow-up over Chris charging the amount he does for his work.

If this blow-up has anything to do with not being able to give away as much “free” stuff because of Chris’ work commitments, then really I think the predicament is less about Chris, and more about people needing to chart their own course. I’m all for info-sharing and raising awareness, but when audiences react in this way I have to wonder how much of them begrudge Chris because he just can’t keep up with the spoon-feeding.

The paid intern thing is always a hot potato topic, and it doesn’t surprise me it’s eked its way into the controversy. Plenty of large corporations offer unpaid internships or volunteer positions, and some use is it as a way to learn more about their staff members before offering them a paid position.

If we are splitting hairs on the unfairness of this practice, then we can certainly call into question those firms that wait years before deciding to reward a volunteer or unpaid intern with a job. How does a person live on no money for 6-months or more, or worse, how can a company with a base of paid staff string along a person for that long on a volunteer basis without offering them some type of paid position?

I think you hit the nail on the head by alluding to the fact that it will be tough to hold on to both constituencies, and from his last post on the incident, it does seem like he may have had his fill with the one that got him to where he is now, and is willing and ready to usher in the new.

Joseph
@RepuTrack
By Jody Pirrello, March 8, 2010 @ 8:10 am

If Chris started out that way he would not have been nearly as successful – he would have been parsed out via our spam-blogger filters. However, since he started off more genuine and “it’s all about you” and then flipped he built a massive core audience and has the luxury of writing off a large portion of them in exchange for a more lucrative audience. So yes, I do think he knew he’d be losing some of his core followers in exchange for more a more corporate following.

I don’t feel this was his strategy from the onset though – he’s made too many blunders along the way to “the monetization of Chris” for it to have been his plan all along. The “get over it” post demonstrated that. He was emotional and defensive and that doesn’t say “yep, this is going exactly as planned” He’s adjusting to the changing market and forging new ground so he’s going to make some mistakes. I personally think it’s fascinating to watch it all unfold.

Everyone deserves to be as successful as they can be, and few of us will ever be as successful as Chris. I think we should all learn from what he’s done and how we can apply it to ourselves. Chris is going to do what’s best for Chris, and we should all do the same.
By Mark, March 8, 2010 @ 8:16 am

@Joseph — Actually, on most of these issues I side with Chris. I think he is charting his own course and should have the freedom to do it, even if he stumbles along the way. But it gets real interesting when you’ve built your reputation one way and then you change very publicly in front of 100,000 potential critics. In the old days, you could more easily “test the water” in a quiet way, couldn’t you?
By Mark, March 8, 2010 @ 8:20 am

@Jody — The spirit you reflect here really captures what I was trying to express in the post. Your perspectives made the ideas richer. Thanks!
By Bill Sledzik, March 8, 2010 @ 8:37 am

Perhaps the repositioning of Chris Brogan points to a flaw in the 2.0 mantra of “free.” Certainly, Chris has built a juggernaut of a brand for himself by “giving it away,” and he’s helped a lot of others along the way. You have to admire the approach, though I often wondered about the ROI.

You can carry 2.0 communitarianism only so far. There are only so many paid speaking gigs to go around, only so many social media books to be written.

At some point, we all gotta put bread on the table, and it’s likely to come from corporate clients. When that happens, trust agency and advocacy must learn to coexist. We’ll see how that works out.

Will the evolution of the Brogan brand hurt his populism? Probably. But it clearly isn’t hurting his bottom-line prospects. Like you, Mark, I hope Chris a ton of money. He’s earned it.
By Mark, March 8, 2010 @ 8:52 am

@Bill as I read your comment I had that Red Hot Chili Peppers song going through my head “give it away, give it away now”

I think this is why I am so fascinated with viewing Chris as a business case. He’s scrambling, clawing, shifting, trying to figure out the money side of this equation. The approaches he discovers will help us all in the long-term … if he can hold it together.
By Danny Brown, March 8, 2010 @ 8:55 am

Great post and follow-up discussion as always, Mark. It’s interesting to see how early adopters in this space are taking it to the next level. Some are doing it well, some not so much, and some fall squarely in the middle of still finding their adaptive stance.

Chris has definitely given a heck of a lot more than he’s taken over the years, and any success he finds is well deserved. Is he making an easy leap to the “other side” (monetization)? Who knows – that’s for Chris to know the answer to.

Has his approach changed? It seems to have, for the reasons you mention in your post.

Is he switching audiences? Not sure, though I do find I read his blog a lot less than I used to, but then I’m not sure if I was ever his audience to begin with.

What it does show (and as Bill points out in his comment) is that it’s not always easy to make the transfer from “folk hero indie band” to major label music success. It all depends on what type of fans you want.
By Mark, March 8, 2010 @ 8:58 am

@Danny I think balancing the demands of the dual audiences — while making money — is probably the key factor.
By Mark, March 8, 2010 @ 9:07 am

I totally see yours and Jody’s point on the way his reputation has primarily been built on being crowd-pleaser. But that’s a tough act to follow for any person, and I think that in this case, the brands splintering would have been inevitable, regardless of whether his pay rate being discussed cast a negative light on it.

From a reputation risk standpoint, perhaps a played-down version which didn’t draw out the SM monetizing critics out of the woodwork would have been preferred, but that would be an about-face to what Chris is all about. To say nothing of the hypothetical of finding out about his pay rate in another manner (through a disgruntled worker or dissatisfied client) and the toll that would take on his reputation.

Joseph
@RepuTrack
By Mark, March 8, 2010 @ 9:26 am

As I said, I don’t have an issue with the money and would have to think you’re pretty small-minded if you do, but announcing your salary to the whole world seemed bizarre. How much you make is nobody’s freaking business.

He announced his salary as a means of making his other services look comparatively cheap and it back-fired. Rubbing a five-figure daily rate in the noses of your audience when many of them are still suffering through unemployment (or under-employment) seems insensitive and mis-guided.
By Shannon Boudjema, March 8, 2010 @ 9:26 am

I’ve never really been a key member of Chris’s audience, but being in this industry you typically watch from afar anyway. The evolution of Chris has been interesting and I fully agree with your comments regarding Chris being a pioneer as well as him being in the midst of a flip…I don’t think for a minute he set out back in the day to orchestrate this. No, I think this happened for a few reasons: an industry maturing and a desire to monetize something that contrary to what most people think… isn’t and shouldn’t be free.

I’m also wondering if one can really balance two distinct audiences… particularly in this space. Is there room for both Black and Grey in this industry? I’m not sure there is. Regardless I think Chris – the pioneer – is laying some valuable groundwork for the rest of us to learn from the easy way – eg. not live the aggro ourselves. My hat is off to him… despite what I think was a chumpy, contradictory and probably a knee jerk thing to do last week re the intern blog. But then I’m never one to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Great post Mark. I always love hearing your brazen, tell it like it is thoughts on the world we live in.
By Chris Brogan..., March 8, 2010 @ 9:34 am

I can always count on you to cover me in an interesting way, Mark.

My strategy shift is an interesting perspective of yours. Here’s my strategy:

* Do as much for free as I can afford.
* Charge what I’m worth so I can do as much as I can for free.
* Introduce multiple price points so that others who ask me for things can afford that.

“Aggressively monetizing.” That’s what you call publishing a book?

In fact, when I go back and read the post, the ONLY part that bugs me about it are your adjectives. They come off as a bit too “news at 11″ for me. I like your thoughts and I find your coloring of them interesting. It’s the kind of “over the top” that makes it more annoying.

Know why there are so many negative posts about my day rate? I can only speculate. No one who’s commented about my day rate has paid me that day rate. No one who’s complained about me is my potential customer. In fact, they’re mostly quasi-competitors, right? I mean, every post I’ve seen complaining about what I charge is written by a marketer.

I’ve closed 3 new clients since those posts, so I’m not seeing blowback from my customer base.

What do I charge you to read my blog posts? Nothing. So, years and years and years of ideas provided for free right there. What do I charge for my newsletter? Nothing. Even more stuff.

The book? I make $1.40 per book on Trust Agents, and about $3 a book on Social media 101.

And is that aggressive? I dunno. Charging for my time and effort. Aggressive? Dramatic? I’m going with no. We don’t piss about plumbers charging for their services.

I’m grateful for the conversation, and thrilled by the various perspectives shown in the comments section.

As far as your commentary about my shift of branding, etc, and the new capitalist Chris, I think time will tell, Mark. Everyone tried to write me off after sponsored posts, and that didn’t happen. I’ve done more since then than ever before.

If people are mad that I charge money to businesses for my services, then I’d love to see their alternative methods.

Thanks, yet again, Mark. You keep it interesting (often at my expense, but hey).

: )
By Geoff Livingston, March 8, 2010 @ 9:37 am

There’s nothing wrong with earning money based on your value and experience. What is wrong is a BS attitude that someone should donate all of their time and experience to the commons because it’s social media. I say kudos to Chris. He has done enough to earn top dollars.
By Geoff Livingston, March 8, 2010 @ 9:39 am

One more thought. I wonder if Parisians demanded that Picasso donate his services to the commons for free a decade…
By Mark, March 8, 2010 @ 9:57 am

@Chris As far as I can see, you’re not really disagreeing with the premise. You’re disagreeing with the adjective “aggressive.” I did not get into details but this is what I mean by that …

I saw your claim of a 1:9 ratio on promotions versus straight posts and that seemed low based on my experience. So I checked it out.

In 2010, you’ve written 89 posts. 20 of them (22%) have been directly selling money-producing sponsors or affiliate links (like books). In addition, another 18 posts have been indirectly pumping your own book, Third Tribe or sponsors. This means 43% of your posts are overtly promotional in some manner. For your readers who visit your blog once a day, 38 promotional posts over 64 days means that on average, on 60% of the days we visit your blog, we could hit a sponsored or promotional post.

That’s what I mean by aggressively monetizing.
By Dan Levine @schoolmarketer, March 8, 2010 @ 9:57 am

Mark, as always, a thoughtful post. I want to say something to Chris that I hope he’ll read. Some “free” advice –> Chris: Stop defending yourself in the court of public opinion. Get on the high road and stay there. You have become a SM “celebrity” and with that comes a lot of support from adoring fans … as well as a lot of negative feedback. No “public” figure is immune. You’ve got to let it slide off your back. The defensiveness erodes your brand. It’s great to be “human” and share your heart, but it just doesn’t do you any favors to defend yourself at every turn. You’re making tons of money, you’re enjoying your work, and evidently you deliver for your clients. So long as you have integrity, follow your heart, give 100% to those that matter, feel good about the work you’re doing, and you’re good to your family and friends … IMO that’s all that matters. Let the rest roll off your back (at least publicly!) and focus on the good work you’ve always provided. Re-focus on that which matters.

Dan (@schoolmarketer)
By Mark, March 8, 2010 @ 10:01 am

@Geoff Please feel free to comment again when you have actually read my article. Thank you.
By Mark, March 8, 2010 @ 10:04 am

@Shannon + Dan — Thanks for contributing today!
By Chris Brogan..., March 8, 2010 @ 10:07 am

Mark:

22% wow. Guess I’ll have to work on my own bad math. I do appreciate the chance to think on that one.

So that’s a bit more than 1:5 posting about me/my stuff, by your making. Okay. I’ll cop to that.

Am I aggressively monetizing my audience? No. My audience isn’t exactly my core prospect, except those in my audience who also work for Gatorade, BestBuy, etc.

Is it a flip-flop? I’ve looked at a boatload of my posts lately, and I don’t remember any that said you shouldn’t charge for your work. There’s nothing in Trust Agents that says don’t make money. It’s a business book, so pretty much assumes that one will use it to help with the pursuit of salary.

And again, I’m really glad to see your thoughts, as they do help me consider myself. I just don’t like the adjectives. They defeat the potential bigger value of your intent (or what I perceive to be your intent).

@Dan – it’s funny. The moment Jeremy Pepper will see this commentary, he’ll tell me the same. He hates how I defend myself. Honestly, I don’t know how not to. I’m a sensitive guy. I really use that sensitivity for good most of the time, but when people come and shit on my lawn… it’s hard to just smile politely. Is that what you do?
By Jenn Whinnem, March 8, 2010 @ 10:18 am

I’m not really seeing how an analysis of the Chris Brogan brand is “shitting on {your} lawn.”
By Mark, March 8, 2010 @ 10:24 am

@Chris C’mon you know what I mean. I never said that you advocated that people should not charge for their work. That’s not the shift. The tone and nature of your blog and your online presence have shifted dramatically as business opportunities emerged for you. 43% (not 22%) of your posts are promotional. I would guess 24 months ago it would have been maybe 5 percent? There is an implication for that flip in strategy based on typical brand strategy. That’s the premise of the article.
By Jillian, March 8, 2010 @ 10:25 am

What’s wrong with being Capitalist? Making money is good. When people make money, they spend money, and everyone makes money together. I thought Chris’s message has always been the same – offer value. Offer value for free when you need to and offer value for money when you can. I don’t think he ever stopped offering free value just because he was also offering paid value.

Oh yeah, and what’s wrong with selling products you believe in and use yourself? Billy Mays was an AMAZING salesman because he knew how to choose AMAZING products (gotta love that OxiClean). And just because he’s profiting from selling something, doesn’t mean I’m NOT going to buy it. It’s like tipping the doorman for referring you to a great restaurant.

I guess my point is, who cares if a blogger is making money or not? If you trust them, you trust them, and I don’t think that should change.

An interesting case study, the only thing that gets under my skin is the anti-Capitalist message here. I make my way helping little businesses become a little bigger, and sometimes a lot bigger. The American dream is built on the free market, and no one in the blogosphere can say they aren’t reaching for their own American dream.

Capitalism and compassion are not mutually exclusive.
By Mark, March 8, 2010 @ 10:29 am

@Jillian I appreciate your commentary. I’m not sure how you could interpret this as an anti-capitalist article but I’m sure your sentiment is heart-felt.
By Geoff Livingston, March 8, 2010 @ 10:30 am

Mark: I read you’re article. Here’s my assessment: You’re dead wrong. Chris worked his butt off to earn the capital, and unpaid internships are standard business for all companies.

It’s easy to judge when you haven’t been there. Maybe if you were in Chris’s shoes, or if you ran a successful business, you’d think differently. I have, and agree with Chris’s practices.
By Jeff MacArthur, March 8, 2010 @ 10:34 am

I don’t really see any anti-Capitalist message here. The unpaid interns for someone who is making some serious coin is the most negative aspect of all of the above (glad it was retracted but how did that post get up in the first place?). Like the author implies, this is mostly an analysis of a change in strategic direction and what that might imply, which is certainly an interesting topic. We’ll all see how it goes :-) .

Jeff
By Chris Brogan..., March 8, 2010 @ 10:36 am

Oh. I didn’t read the % right. Sorry, Mark. One in two? Man. I suck. Better get my numbers into better alignment.

One last note, and then I can’t do more on this because I’m overdue on a slide deck (man, I hate slide decks – I prefer to just interact):

I charge money for non-generalist information. I give away time, money, attention, and advice for free for charities (at least one a month, though I’m late on picking March’s), and I give as much as I can in a day away for free, funded by the people who choose to pay for my non-generalist services.

It’s ironic that your blog URL is “BusinessGROW.” Um, aren’t I growing my business?
By Dan Levine @schoolmarketer, March 8, 2010 @ 10:37 am

@Chris — I know it’s hard to smile politely and let things slide — no question it’s difficult for any of us. But here’s the difference — you’ve made yourself into a very public figure and I think when you’ve got more at stake, you’ve just got to have a thicker skin. I only have 700 some-odd followers on Twitter, I don’t have a blog, and I’m toiling away in the non-profit world — but I’m still very thoughtful and careful about what I put out there publicly. Image is everything. And you have a public image to protect — one, that for right now, is of much greater value than mine. I understand being angry or hurt by it — you’re human. I’m just suggesting that you keep your eye on the prize and stay out of the fray. I don’t know who said this originally, but I hear it all the time now: “You’re better than that.”
By Mark, March 8, 2010 @ 10:38 am

@Geoff I’m glad you are such an ardent Chris Brogan fan and I’m appreciative that you took the time to provide your opinion.
By Mark, March 8, 2010 @ 10:46 am

@Chris First, thanks as always for taking your (extremely) valuable time to participate in this dialogue. Your ideas and perspectives are important.

And here’s a secret. I’m cheering for you.
By Stacey Hood, March 8, 2010 @ 10:46 am

This is an interesting discussion that has the social media world chatting…which is what the whole premise is of SM, right? We live in a world where most people want to point fingers and knock what others do, all the time walking around with blinders on or a sheet pulled over the mirror.
If Brogan can charge that amount of money and get paid for it…more power to him.

He’s paid his dues in a lot of ways, as we all do in our own different ways. Being able to shift with changes is what makes a successful marketer, regardless of whether it’s PR, Social or traditional media.

Personally, I could care less what he makes. I could care less what anyone makes except for my local competitors. I have enough to deal with locally in the area I live and work in….then to be bothered what someone out of my intermediate world does.

Geoff refers to Picasso. There’s a story that he was sitting in a park on a sunny day with his sketch book and a woman passing by recognized him & asked for him to do a quick, signed sketch for her. He drew some quick squiggly lines & handed her the sheet and said, “That’ll be $5k…”

Aghast she stated, “$5k!! Why that’s outrageous…all that took was 2 minutes!”

Picasso replied with a smirk, “No, madam….that took a lifetime!”

@staceyhood
By Anonymous, March 8, 2010 @ 10:46 am

This post and the fallout – especially the attack on Jason Falls on Twitter for merely tweeting the link (http://bit.ly/9uYBl) – made me realize something. The topic of Chris Brogan is very much like religion. People become very passionate very quickly, and rarely seem to change their point of view. Many of Chris’ supporters are fierce in their defense and quick to view any scrutiny as an attack. It’s a fascinating spectacle to watch (and is a testament to the amazing loyalty Chris has engendered, which we can all learn from).

That said, I would characterize Chris’ activities not as a flip-flop, but as a progression. Yes, there have been missteps, as is to be expected of anyone breaking new ground, but he does continue to be a personable and generous provider of value to the community. So is it the end of the trust agent, as your title asks? No – we still trust Chris, and that hasn’t changed a bit.
By Kellye Crane, March 8, 2010 @ 10:47 am

The anonymous comment was from me – not sure how that happened (sorry)!
By Geoff Livingston, March 8, 2010 @ 10:49 am

MArk: It has nothing to do with being a Chris fan. I have criticized him, too, as he will tell you. It’s that I have published a book and ran a business that I successfully sold. Maybe instead of vehemently disagreeing with all of your commenters, you may just want to consider that maybe they have their own experiences.
By Joseph Fiore, March 8, 2010 @ 11:17 am

Like Kellye, I posted as “Mark” (not sure how, but sorry if that created any confusion for anyone) – I also saw that chapter unfolding on Twitter earlier in the AM, and Jason’s need to explain his link sharing form.

Not taking sides as I have been a an active participant and voice on Mark’s blog for some time – this statement is something I can agree with:

That said, I would characterize Chris’ activities not as a flip-flop, but as a progression.

Joseph
@RepuTrack
By Mark, March 8, 2010 @ 11:19 am

@ Kellye – Thanks for taking accountability for the comment and your perspective today.

I have observed the same fanatical behavior. I have written about web personalities from a sociological perspective on a couple of other occasions and was amazed at the response — an onslaught of people who defend their hero without the benefit of critical thinking.

Ironically, Chris, or whoever is the topic of the post is usually gracious.

And there is another dynamic at work too. In one post, a young professional admitted that he was afraid to disagree with Chris Brogan, that it might eventually hurt his career prospects.

Whether it is fanaticism or fear, an audience comprised of only sycophants doesn’t seem like a lot of fun to me.

@Stacey thanks for the very relevant and entertaining anecdote.
By Elizabeth Sosnow, March 8, 2010 @ 12:18 pm

Mark:

First, I really admire your willingness to tackle challenging blog topics. You know full well that if you “play with the bulls, you get the horns.” So the comment firestorm was fully expected, methinks. I also suspect your blog traffic is up quite a bit today and that you consider that a fair trade-off.

I will say this about the compensation issue. Having worked my entire professional life with management consultants, Chris’ day rate is not overblown for someone of his caliber. It’s in alignment. Folks may be shocked about that, but it’s the honest truth.

As to his editorial mission evolving, I agree. Any regular reader of his has likely noticed.

Is that acceptable? So far, yes. But I now start with @julien (among others) to inspire me – that was actually the biggest gift I got from Trust Agents.

Can he continue to serve both constituencies? I’m less worried about it than you, but there’s a big caveat. It depends almost entirely on maintaining a very high level of content. Diminishing bandwidth may take a toll…and most of us know first hand the challenges of keeping the thought leadership pipeline full *and* robust.

Bottom line for me? Despite some more commercials, I see/sense the same Chris in his posts and newsletters.

His sincerity (arguably his entire brand) still feels very real to me. That’s why I’m content to stick around and also why I’m pondering joining Third Tribe.

But, then, I notice I still have not pulled the trigger to join yet…hmmm. Is it connected to your concerns? Not sure.

Thanks for starting my week off with a bang.
By Mark, March 8, 2010 @ 1:00 pm

@Elizabeth Thanks for the very personal and relevant perspective, as always. The diminishing bandwidth is an important point for all of us as new opportunities emerge.
By Mike Myatt, March 8, 2010 @ 1:28 pm

Chris is a stand-up guy who delivers on his promises and commitments. He also still provides a tremendous amount of information at no cost. What he chooses to charge for his time is up to him and should in no way impugn his character or serve as indictment on his motives. Chris has worked hard for his success and to attempt to marginalize his agenda because of said success is just more whining.
By steve dodd, March 8, 2010 @ 1:56 pm

Mark, I just love this discussion. It reinforces the fundamental that money makes this world go round……all profession get paid for work they do and for the most part they all off a certain amount of free consultation to see business development. This business is maturing and basic principles are taking hold. Strategy and tactics are unique to each individual organization but at the end of the day, if people don’t get paid, the eventually starve, period.
By Mark, March 8, 2010 @ 2:56 pm

This post has produced a good number of comments both online and offline. Some of the comments are criticizing me about dismissing Chris for making money off his content, which is of course flat-out wrong to the point of being comedic. This is what I wrote in the post:

“I like it when Chris makes money. I think he should take advantage of his white-hot celebrity, celebrate it, leverage it, and roll in the dough. I hope he can double his consulting fees.”

A large number of people seem to have skipped over this part of the post. Maybe I’m experiencing the curse of the blog post scanners. Please, go ahead and criticize, discuss, and debate — that’s what we’re here for. But I hope we can turn the debate on to a subject that we actually disagree on.

I admire and celebrate Brogan’s ability to make money. I’m happy for his success. Truly.

My central point is the implication of a radical strategy shift on his core business and audience and its implications for monetizing content in general. I appreciate that the majority of you have regarded this as a relevant and timely social media issue. Thanks! Back to you.
By Glen D. Gilmore, Esq., March 8, 2010 @ 4:10 pm

Trust is the coin of the realm in social media. No one has helped us understand this better than Chris Brogan. It is in sharing and connecting that we build trust.

In “Trust Agents,” Chris explained that “trust agents” are “the power users of the Web…People who humanize the Web…People who connect and build fluid relationships….” In introducing the subject, Chris pointedly asked his readers “to balance being genuinely part of an online community with being aware of business opportunities, and how executing the trust agent’s strategy can realize business goals.” For Chris, being a trust agent is about balancing genuine online community involvement with being attuned to and seizing business opportunities. For many, this captures much of the magic of social media.

Does it come as a surprise that Chris commands a hefty sum for his speaking engagements? Hardly. He has toiled long in the field and has demonstrated an uncanny understanding of a medium that most businesses are running hard to comprehend.

The fact that Chris also promotes some of his own enterprises through this social presence likewise does not come as a surprise to anyone who has followed Chris: much of what he has shared has focused on helping others find greater business success through genuinely connecting with others in social network communities.

Chris has given much away to many. Even with his great commercial success, he continues to share keen insights that most could not afford if sought elsewhere.

In the final analysis, we’re not witnessing “the end of the trust agent,” but simply a maturation in the understanding of social engagement: that one can be both an entrepreneur and a trust agent.

By way of disclosure, please note that I work with @HowellMarketing, a Memphis-based marketing and social media firm that is delighted to be sponsoring Chris Brogan as its keynote speaker at a May 6 event: http://is.gd/9YTpz
By Mark, March 8, 2010 @ 4:42 pm

@Glen Hmmm. Interesting concept. A sponsored blog comment. That may be a first! Crafty, but I like it. : )
By Lisa Foote, March 8, 2010 @ 6:02 pm

Mark – Thanks for, as always, a stimulating and fair post bringing up timely and relevant questions.
Like you, I’m happy for anyone who makes money from talent and hard work. I’m happy for Chris Brogan’s well-earned premium prices for consulting and speaking.
I do think you bring up a valid point when you raise the hazard in changing your brand.
While I believe it’s possible to make this transition,
I think it’s akin to crossing a fast-moving river by walking across smooth, slippery rocks. It’s possible, sure. But it’s perhaps advised only for the highly skilled.
If anyone can get to the other side dry, Chris Brogan can. But if he’s successful, it may persuade others that it’s not only possible but easy. The advice I would give most practitioners watching Chris’ crossing? “Don’t try this at home, kids.”
By Billy Mitchell, March 8, 2010 @ 7:09 pm

Mark,

It seems to me that a few of those commenting here missed the question mark on the heading for this article and took it as an obituary for The Trust Agent. I didn’t see it that way at all and like that you asked the question.

Few would argue that Chris Brogan is a pioneer and expert authority on social media. So when did it become so controversial to simply question authority? It seems to me your article poses interesting observations and questions and it only adds to the level of interest in the subject. I like that Chris commented on your blog and although somewhat defensive, engaged in a fair discussion.

I just finished Trust Agents but I first learned to appreciate Chris Brogan as a leader by attending an Inbound Marketing Summit last year and being almost overwhelmed at all the various experts giving back-to-back 20 minute presentations of mind-opening ideas.

One question I asked myself during the conference was “how do these people make any money?” I didn’t ask anyone speaking because I just assumed they weren’t doing it for their health and besides, I’d paid a reasonable fee to be there (and felt it was well worth it).

I could see so many ways to apply what I was learning to growing my own business and those of my clients there was no doubt in my mind I was going to make money from inbound marketing as a service provider.

Like you, I hope Chris Brogan makes all the money he can but selfishly hope to keep getting as much as possible for free. His speaking fee is a lot better investment to most businesses than what retired presidents and CEOs charge for reshaped history lessons.

If Geoff has the patience to keep reading (did you really read it Geoff?) and commenting on your blog, he will soon learn you are a very fair and interesting expert yourself. And I would like to see more discussion and debate between you and Chris.

Isn’t that a good thing?
By Mark, March 8, 2010 @ 7:38 pm

@Billy Thanks. I actually would love to continue a discussion with Chris on a variety of topics. Hopefully some day we’ll have a chance to do that in an extended forum.

@Lisa Good advice. Setting an example of changing a brand dramatically like this could create an interesting — and hazardous — template! : )
By Carrie Bond, March 8, 2010 @ 11:49 pm

As usual you have a talent for bringing people with diverse opinions into the blog that feel comfortable enough to disagree with you. Great conversation.
By Jim LeBlanc, March 9, 2010 @ 7:48 am

I just started reading Chris Brogan’s blog. Yes, he seems to sell a lot but he has a lot of good ideas too. As long as I actually KNOW when he’s selling, I’m Ok. When he’s selling, I stop reading.

Isn’t that part of the issue here? People tune out TV commercials. Why won’t they just tune out blog commercials too?

This has been one of the most interesting blogs so far this year. I appreciate all the comments. THANKS Mark!
By Amy Howell, March 9, 2010 @ 8:24 am

I KNEW I liked Billy Mitchell!! Great conversations by all. Congrats Mark for asking good questions and “powering” the conversation. Wish you could be with the CMO crew coming to hear Brogan in Memphis May 6th! #BroganMemphis Looking forward to meeting Billy (and Brogan of course). Rock on!
By Jeremy Victor, March 9, 2010 @ 11:03 am

Quite frankly, my favorite part of this post is the picture of Chris.

My second favorite, the engagement. (This is a great community)

And the third, Mark the statistics you pulled out demonstrates the depth of research and thinking you applied to this and all your posts.

Maybe blogging will kill trade publications after all!
By Alex, March 9, 2010 @ 11:08 am

I’ll take the info Chris gives out and understand that he has as much right as the next person to profit from his knowledge and experience. Yes, I see a disconnect from his admonitions in ‘Trust Agents’ about blatant selling when/if Chris goes into ’sell’ mode, but in my view the most pristine theory becomes a tad muddy in real world practice.
By Jim, March 9, 2010 @ 11:21 am

Great discussion. I think what Chris is doing is the perfect next step. Do I think he’s somehow flipped on his core promise-of-value? Are you kidding? The information he provides for free is more valuable than any seminar I’ve paid to attended.

Last week I DM’d Chris about a blog post I wrote regarding a new client project that utilizes social media as the ONLY marketing tactic. Chris sent my post out into his stream. Within an hour my client received a call from a prospective client in Asia. What did Chris charge me for this? Zero. And no, I didn’t ask him to promote it, but rather to let me know what he thought of it.

My point is that this new way of doing things is in constant flux. None of us have any reference point on how to monetize it yet. Brogan’s a pioneer. At least he’s trying. I have to keep clothes on my kids’ backs and need to figure out how to do it too.
By Donna Maria Coles Johnson, March 9, 2010 @ 11:58 am

Kudos to everyone generating an honest profit on the strength of their talents, gifts and experiences. To me, it’s kind of simple.
By Mark, March 9, 2010 @ 1:00 pm

Thanks for weighing in everyone. Especially wanted to call out …

@Alex Agree that theory is different in practice. Does this mean Chris needs to re-write Trust Agents and add “well, forget about that don;t sell part” based on the lessons he has learned and the practices he has implemented? BTW, I never agreed with the “no sell” schtick. Everybody sells. Just don’t be annoying : )

@Jim — Thanks for this great anecdote. Chris is authentically helpful and that has become an important part of his “brand” as well.
By Mike Campbell, March 9, 2010 @ 2:42 pm

Mark, I couldn’t help but think about Green Day as I read your post. When they expanded their music to a larger audience, their loyal early adopters turned on them. I think it is a natural progression to reach out to a larger audience. It is a shame that loyal fans can be insecure purists that don’t want the family to grow.

I find it ironic that earlier you criticized Trust Agents and their social media country club. Now I get the impression that you are criticizing the country club because one of its esteemed members is opening the doors to the likes of Happy Gilmore and his fans.

I think Chris is going to be just fine losing some or most of his core followers. The rewards are far greater than the risks. The percentage of loyal early adopters pales in comparison to the general population.

Finally, you hit the nail on the head. Corporate folks don’t know or care about Chris’ early fan-base.
By Mark, March 9, 2010 @ 4:32 pm

@Mike It’s the funniest thing. People always seem to connect this blog to rock music in some way. Must be my shimmering long hair and penchant for tall boots.

Any way, I appreciate the analogy, the contribution, and also the dissent. I try to strike a balance with my tone while also writing in a way that is interesting and entertaining. I try to focus on behavioral observations, and in this case, with numbers to back it up.

I understand why this kind of article makes people uncomfortable but in the midst of discomfort the best insight and innovation usually occur.

My intent was not to create an article with an overall tone that was critical, but I respect your opinion and take your comments to heart. Thanks for taking the time to stop by, Mike!
By Kat Jaibur (@katjaib), June 3, 2010 @ 11:54 pm

So wait a minute.

That morning that Chris met me for coffee… even though I knew diddly about social media, had been on Twitter for about 10 minutes, never commented on his blog and was a complete stranger… that morning that he spent 2 hours with me and offered me tons of free one-to-one advice… That was worth ($22,000 / 8 = $2750)…$5,500?! Hot damn!
Thanks again, Chris!