Social Media Ghostwriting: The Great Marketing/PR Debate*
February 23rd, 2009 | Author: Beth Harte
Yesterday, after hearing that there was a discussion around ghostwriting up at the recent PodCamp Toronto, I decided to share a post on Twitter that I had written for MarketingProfs’ Daily Fix on Ghostwriting, Social Media and Ethics.
From the MarketingProfs Daily Fix post:
In Richard Johannesen’s book “Ethics in Human Communication,” he analyzes the ethics of ghostwriting with a series of questions**:
- What is the communicator’s intent and what is the audience’s degree of awareness?
- Does the communicator use ghostwriters to make herself/himself appear to possess personal qualities that she/he does not have?
- What are the surrounding circumstances of the communicator’s job that make ghostwriting a necessity?
- To what extent does the communicator actively participate in the writing of her/his own writing?
- Does the communicator accept responsibility for the message she/he presents?
Those questions and the ethics surrounding them are easily answered in the traditional marketing and/or public relations arena. But what happens when you add social media into the mix? How do the ethics around ghostwriting change when companies are supposed to be authentic and transparent?
(To read the examples of how social media ghostwriting can potentially harm a companies’ reputation while they are trying to engage in social media, head on over to the Daily Fix…besides, there are a lot of great questions, comments and conversation! )
**Source: Public Relations Writing: The Essentials of Style & Format by Thomas H. Bivins
Traditional Media vs. Social Media
From an ethics perspective, most people know that marketers and public relations professionals write (or it’s outsource to an agency) the information they receive on a daily basis…whether it be a radio commercial, a TV ad, a magazine article, etc. And from a PR perspective, if someone takes credit for a byline they didn’t write (thinking about the co-worker who struts around with his/her article in hand), that’s unethical (see #2). But, most people aren’t stupid…when they know someone well enough, they can tell who really wrote it and that just makes the person making the claim look like a dishonest idiot among other things.
The issue here is that you cannot take that same marketing/PR team and say “okay, now go do social media.”
Why? The transference doesn’t work well. Let’s remember that social media tools were around long before the term social media even existed. People, yes people, not companies, used weblogs (blogs) as personal diaries, to communicate with their friends, to share information, etc. And people (there’s that word again!) used social networks like forums, Yahoo! Groups, chat rooms, etc. to be social with…people. Social media’s history lies with individuals who used these tools to communicate, solve problems, debate, etc. If you haven’t read The Cluetrain Manifesto, I highly suggest it. Within its pages you’ll find the history of the online world that I am talking about. That said, with today’s social media comes an inherent trust, authenticity and transparency that companies, marketers and PR professionals need to learn to embrace. This new form of communication is messy and it’s not your mother’s marketing or PR!
I have witness first-hand and have untangled myself from, and you probably have too if you were involved in social networks pre-2008/2009, social network attacks on people who appear to be sharing fake information or using these places for underhanded reasons. These situations (people-on-people) are typically quite vocal and verbally violent…and it’s not pretty. Typically when these situations happen, some of the people are banned from the forum or group.
Now transfer that to today’s social media situations and consumers or the media uncovering that a company, its brand or its CEO has been less than authentic and transparent and their blog or network communications were fake (i.e. ghostwritten)?
Would you want to be the agency or consultant advising them on how to survive an attack?
Or worse yet, do you want to be the agency or consultant that put them in that delicate situation to begin with?
Yes, it seems extreme, I know…but what can I say, people are people and it is human nature to act out when you feel betrayed, used, carpetbagged, etc. And in today’s social media world, that can happen in a nanosecond! And ultimately the “ghostwriting” disconnect occurs when marketers/PR folks try to force traditional media ‘norms’ onto social media, which is anything but the norm.
The Twitter Ghostwriting Debate
After I shared the MarketingProfs Daily Fix post, an interesting little debate between me and Heather Whaling (@PRtini) took place***. Heather is a traditional PR person and a new blogger. I got the sense that part of our debate disconnect lies within our different backgrounds. I admit it, I am a purist. Having spent the past 5 years of my life spent in online social networks & blogging (no, there weren’t any companies networking & no, THoM is not my first blog), I can’t disconnect from my belief that today’s social media/social networking needs to be from a “people” perspective, not a “business” perspective.
As a point of debate, I pointed out the Edelman/Wal-Mart debacle to Heather as an example of why ghostwriting is a potentially bad path for companies engaging in social media to go down and her first reaction was “but that was a fake blog.” Yep, it was…but consumers didn’t know that at first, did they? When professionals who monitor/analyze Wal-Mart started seeing a disconnect between Wal-Mart’s typical business stance and the rosy posts showing up on the blog they knew something was up. Some of the words used were: misleading, deceptive, skepticism, and questionable practices. In retrospect not very rosy, at all.
Here’s the point: If you are going to ghostwrite, you better know that company inside and out and know their negatives and positives—as viewed by the market/community—not the CEO or the company. Because if you just listen to what the company’s marketers tell you (which is always an inherently skewed view) and you don’t do your own homework, your writing will shine a spotlight on any inconsistencies that might exist and that customers, analysts, investors, etc. might find once that ghostwritten content is public. I mean, after all, you’re just writing as the CEO. Really, what’s the harm for them or you/your agency, right?
Geoff Livingston of Livingston Communications and The Buzz Bin said it best:
“Social media forces ethics upon people. There’s little mercy once things get exposed.”
Convinced yet? What do you think? Is this a valid argument against ghostwriting?
Added 2/24/09: Dave Fleet (@davefleet) has a great post on “Why Ghostwriting is Wrong” on his blog. Check out the debate going on over there too! 
***************
Note: I am not opposed to helping a company with social media consulting, providing a guiding hand when they want to blog, etc. Heck, that’s what I do for a living! But what I am opposed to is writing blog content from scratch (i.e ghostwriting). I didn’t develop the ethics around public relations, I am just a great believer in following them. And yes, I believe we are talking about the public when it comes to social media.
*I say “Marketing/PR” because that’s who is trying to transfer the idea of ghostwriting into social media. Folks who have been engaged in social networks/media as “people” for 2-10 years know that there isn’t a debate…they tend to side that ghostwriting is not acceptable.
***Others included in the debate/conversation included: Mack Collier (@mackcollier), Mandy Vavrinak (@mvavrinak), Josh Sternberg (@josh_sternberg), Amber Watson Tardiff (@jerseymomma), Justin Goldsborough (@JGoldsborough), 30Lines (@30Lines), Marita Roebkes (@MaritaR). I hope I didn’t miss anyone…
Tags: brand management, ghostwriting, marketing, public relations, social media
69 Responses to “Social Media Ghostwriting: The Great Marketing/PR Debate*”
Leave a Reply
Sitting here, I’ve been debating whether or not to respond to that last comment. I thought I had already clarified that my statement was never an insult toward Geoff. I don’t know him, but his work speaks for itself. I’d never think to criticize him or his efforts (or anyone else participating in this discussion for that matter.)
In the midst of the discussion, I noticed that there seems to be a disconnect between what people say *should* be the way something works and the way it actually works in certain situations. I thought that was interesting “food for thought” to add to the discussion. Simply an observation. Clearly, it was misinterpreted. I hope we can all get back to the topic and hand and figuring out how to best serve our clients.
Heather
[...] and blogs: Let’s take a closer look Last week, I promised Beth Harte (as part of this thread) to clarify my views on an issue as old as the [...]
All due respect, Beth. But you haven’t “proved” a thing by challenging me to write for you. Those who help their clients communicate know those clients well — very well. That’s one of the reasons they can help them. I don’t know you, and unless you’re willing to pay me a lotta money to get to know you, it’s unlikely I’ll be writing that post for you anytime soon.
As for Heather’s comment, I see no insult, overt or implied. Heather stated her position clearly and with civility. Your other guest did not do that. As for Danny, he didn’t insult him, either, he simply pointed out the bullying behavior everyone else could see.
As I said way back in comment #43, our SM space is a perfect place to discuss these kinds of disagreements, and I’m glad you’ve done so. Not every blogger invites diverse points of view. I hope the disagreements that took place here don’t change that. It was fun.
BTW, my post on this topic is up. I wrote it myself. And that’s the truth.
http://toughsledding.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/ghostwriting-and-blogs-lets-take-a-closer-look/
Bill Sledzik’s last blog post..Kent State Bateman team posting measurable results as campaign wraps up today
Hey Beth,
Pretty interesting rally here. It has been a while since I have stopped by. I was watching twitter the night most of this unfolded. I declined to comment that evening and just decided to watch, mostly because I didn’t want to take sides on a topic that I think the customer decides on, not us.
For Full Disclosure, (I guess that’s important with this specific post) I do know that Heather Whaling is a real person, the wife of Mike Whaling @30Lines. Mike does a lot of work for our small business, although no Ghost Writing! LOL!
To stop by your blog today and see (50) plus comments, on this topic cements for me just how messy Social Media really is, and how far away it is for most business applications. (I think I heard our good friend Shannon Paul use that term SM messiness, but I digress, I don’t want to steal her word!)
I am not in favor of ghost anything. But my opinion is just another opinion.
Beyond each of our personal opinions, The wonderful thing about commence and business is that the customer gets to decide, not SM Folks ranting at SM Folks. To your point, when Wal-Mart or their agency created a fake blog, it failed. It didn’t fail because some marketing company or agency or socila media expert said so said so, it failed because Wal-Mart’s customers said so.
Today, Wal-Mart’s SM efforts appear to be gaining traction, but they also appear to be going at it from a much different angle this time. (Perhaps this time they listened to their customers in lieu of their agency) And, if Wal-Mart is more successful this time at their SM efforts, it will be because their customer says so.
From the outside looking in, this rant herein “Looks” more like Social Media Mayhem, and some of the comments are harsh and personal.
I am not a marketing guy really, just a business owner, but if our intent is to further elevate Social Media to main stream business applications, Someone Needs to Lead, and we need to elevate the conversation from what we all think, to what problems are our customers experiencing and need to be solved.
@HeatherWhaling, thanks so much for coming back and joining the on-going discussion. As for social media theory vs. practice…it’s only theory for those agencies/companies who haven’t yet embraced or implemented it successfully. For the rest of us …we know it’s proven.
Glad that we agree on one thing here…it’s about what’s best for clients (actually, it’s what’s best for the customer). And what’s best is to never put a brand at risk. And ghost blogging, ghost tweeting, ghost commenting, etc. does just that. There are more than enough examples of how brands have been hurt by this practice.
@Eric_Brown, thanks for popping by. Yes, apparently this is indeed a heated debate for agencies & professors (sorry, Bill, couldn’t resist!
) that approve of ghost blogging.
Yep, you are right. Comments tend to get heated, harsh and personal when people are on opposite ends of the spectrum on a debate. Especially if it’s a debate about a topic that is radically changing the industry in which they work (marketing, PR, advertising) and especially when it’s a change that could potentially effect their income (i.e. billable hours vs. projects). We had this same spirited conversation at the recent Social Media Club Philadelphia meeting. Again, SM purists and PR/ad agencies were on somewhat opposite ends of the spectrum for the reasons I just mentioned.
The only reason I questioned if the real “Heather Whaling” was commenting here was *only* to prove a point. If an agency embraces ghost blogging, what else would they embrace? Ghost comments? How could we tell who was really writing and posting? We can’t, right? And that affects that person’s credibility. I think that’s a fair and valid argument.
Also, I find it quite interesting during the Twitter debate with me that Heather nor Mike disclosed that they were married. I didn’t even know Mike’s name until I asked him for it (his avatar is 30 Lines). Hmmm, do you think that’s something that should have been disclosed? Heck, if it weren’t for you mentioning it…we (those involved or listening) might have all believed they were two different agencies on Twitter defending ghost writing vs. a husband and wife defending each other from Beth Harte.
As for your point, in the end the customer gets to decide…I totally agree with that! But to my point, the examples of things going awry were because the customer, or in some cases, the brand evangelists really, didn’t want continued one-way push or lack of transparency.
As for Wal-Mart, it wasn’t only the customers who found the disconnect between what was being blogged and what was reality…it was analysts, journalists, etc. The people who had Wal-Mart under a microscope to begin with.
At then end of the day, it won’t be this blog post or discussion that determines what happens…it will be the customers. But as with any debate, we all learn and that’s what is important here from a social media perspective.
@BillSledzik, boy, we have got to stop debating like this!
I am really looking forward to reading your post (even if you say I am wrong!).
Sorry, by now you know…I just don’t agree. And it’s okay if we don’t agree…that’s what this blog is about–I am not going to stop anyone from leaving a comment or opinion. I don’t think anyone can ghostwrite a post that isn’t just corporate messaging, but something that is personal. And you’re right, I am not going to pay you a lot of money to get to know me, what makes me tick, what makes me passionate about marketing (but, I am pretty vocal about it…so it should be easy enough to figure out.
).
So how about this…share with me some blog posts that have been successfully ghostwritten and where customers could have cared less. I am open to saying “Okay, I was wrong. Ghost blogging worked perfectly well in this situation.” Who knows, in 3-5 years we could all be looking back at this post and discussing how it was wrong. I doubt it, but we can’t know for sure and my crystal ball is broken anyway.
As for Geoff’s comment, I am not going to explain or defend it again. At the time, Heather’s comment was taken as a slight by more than a few people who commented here and saw it (they just didn’t comment in public about it). Was it a comment that was misread in context to all the other comments, perhaps. Did Heather explain her comment, yes. But regardless, Geoff has the right, just like Danny Brown, to say what he wants.
And yes, I completely embrace all comments, disagreements, arguments, etc. here. This blog isn’t just for me, but for the readers also.
Chiming in, I agree with David Mullen’s comment through and through. There’s a time and place for outside persons to speak “for” a company, and online media in whatever form that includes should not be considered such. But offline media, e.g. that of a spokesman for a company for mainstream media, why not?
For a passionate take on both sides of the ghost blogging issue alone, Julie Roads wrote about it in December: http://writingroads.com/blog/ghostwriting-blogs-at-what-cost
Ari Herzog’s last blog post..20 Advertising and Marketing Strategies For You
i must admit to being a bit surprised that this conversation is still taking place – however it is a great forum to do so.
In my opinion it is not the issue of ghost writing that is the issue – it is how it is presented. If you would write for a company and put it out there – as a blog, article whatever then if it is done ghostlike then just sign it, “the company”.
I do however agree with many who have written above that putting the blog, article, whatever – out there under someone else’s name is flat out wrong. There really is not justification for not telling the truth and being more transparent.
It does no harm in signing it more truthfully.
Am I missing something here?
Rick Simmons’s last blog post..Blogging strictly for SEO purposes
Hi Beth,
As for the original question at hand, I fall somewhere in the middle of this debate. The Wal-Mart blog was a mistake, but that still doesn’t mean there are clearly defined rules of engagement.
Like Ann Handley mentioned last week, pieces like “how to” posts are fairly straightforward and could easily be written by a ghostwriter who puts in the time to do the research. That said, when it comes to those posts/comments/etc. that reflect more personal views, I wouldn’t want to take the raw passion of Eric Brown’s voice away from him by writing his opinion pieces for him. Personal views — whether in a blog comment or on the opinion page of the local newspaper — should be authentic.
In my business, I’ve made the professional decision not to give preference to those clients that can clearly articulate their thoughts through writing. Some clients write well, some don’t … all deserve to have their voice heard. Whether it’s a blog post, a tweet or a video, it’s all about finding their voice and communicating effectively with their audience. More importantly (and to Eric’s point), these tools enable those businesses to listen closely to their customers. In my view, the role of the social media professional is to put the client in the best position to develop these conversations and listen to the needs of their customers.
Finally, while I welcome the conversation this post has generated, I see no need to disclose or justify my personal relationships to you as part of a professional discussion. Heather is my wife … she has a successful career of her own, and she’s more than capable of holding her own in intellectual debates like this. (I should know, I usually lose.) In fact, until now, I purposely have stayed away from this debate on your site to avoid such questions.
I realize that the exact authorship of this comment may come into question, so feel free to contact me directly at mike@3olines.com if there is anything else that you or your readers would like to know.
Mike Whaling’s last blog post..When You Listen, Customers Listen Back
@ Beth. Hi Beth, thanks for clarifying your position re. the comment made by Heather. As I mentioned when responding to your email to me about it last night, I didn’t agree with Geoff’s tone. The view that that “textbook” comment by Heather was a personal attack seems odd – if anything, it’s merely a view of hers, much like everyone else’s here. I certainly don’t see it as an attack, and wouldn’t if it had been *aimed* at me.
I know that Geoff is a personal friend of yours, and it’s natural that you’d want to stand up for him. Much like it’s the same that myself and Alexis Downey *stood up* for Heather when Geoff made his remark about “I know much more than you”, implying that Heather’s opinion didn’t matter.
I don’t really see anywhere else where anyone apart from yourself took offence at the “textbook” comment, or saw it as a personal attack on Geoff. Which is why it seemed a bizarre response from Geoff. If there were people that commented to you privately about it, fair enough, though it would have added more weight to show both myself and Alexis are in the wrong camp if these had been public.
One final thing about transparency – you mention Heather and Bill’s relationship and non-disclosure. Wouldn’t the same be said about you and Geoff’s friendship? Many people may not be aware of it and perhaps that’s a reason for your understandably vocal defense of his comment?
As I mentioned to you in my email, I respect you and I do respect the work Geoff does. But his comment was out of line (imo) and that does put us on a different page in regards to it.
Thanks for offering me the space for an opinion,
Danny.
Danny Brown’s last blog post..Why Scott Monty of Ford Motors Has My Respect
@MikeWhaling (@30Lines), thanks for stopping by! Really, I appreciate it. I agree with Ann, the “how-to” posts are traditional pieces (i.e. marketing, bylines, etc.) on a website and in some cases will be ghostwritten or “massaged.” They are not, however, blog posts written for the Daily Fix, which are not ghost blogged, but written by contributing bloggers.
As for this debate, it was nothing personal and I am not sure why people are making it personal. We all know Heather (@PRtini) is a *real* person (as are you, of course!). I was just trying to prove a point (in jest) that if people feel that ghost blogging is acceptable, perhaps ghost commenting would be as well…really, where does it end? The fact is, this isn’t just a PR vs. SM debate, even though it’s understandable because I think PR/SM are more closely aligned than anything else (marketing, SEO, interactive, etc.). We also need to consider interactive agencies, SEO folks, non-marketers/PR folks, etc. because they look at ghost blogging as a moot point because it’s all about the links and monetization. Trust me, I am not naïve, I know that a lot of people see social media as only a vehicle for SEO links, monetization, messaging, etc. and not conversation. But I do firmly believe that mindset will harm brands in the long run.
But here’s where I don’t think we are on the same social media page…it is important to disclose relationships. If it were Heather (or whoever) in my shoes and me and my husband (who wasn’t disclosed as such, but just an avatar) circled in and started debating as two separate agencies (even though in reality we were tweeting side-by-side) would you find that transparent? The lines of professional and personal are blurred with social media…and that’s not going away. It’s the way we all get to know, respect and trust each other. Personally, I think it would be great if you and Heather were both here debating openly. The point isn’t that you are married, it would have been a debate of professionals anyway, the point is that we all need to be transparent. And I can tell you my husband would never join in on this conversation…he’s an engineer.
And the invitation still stands, if you and Heather will be at SXSW I would love to have a chat…and maybe even a beer if you are up for it. This debate might end here on my blog, but it’s not going away in the industry and it needs to be discussed. And if companies are successful with ghost blogging, it needs to be shared, learned from and documented (i.e. it needs to be disclosed).
I’ve shared my opinion and all are free to continue to comment, debate, etc. here. But for now, I am moving on because I don’t want to be accused of beating a dead horse…and it’s heading that way.
Little did I know that when I asked to pass the popcorn at comment #25 that almost 40 more would follow.
One of the inherent problems throughout all of this, is tone, inflexion and context. They are lost; and in some cases never recovered. But I think everyone has raised some great talking points, ideas, opinions and POV’s. But at the end of the day, they are not going to solve the issues here. And certainly by no one OUTSIDE of this space. I just trust that everyone will use their best judgement going forward, and if you don’t, then you suffer the circumstances for not doing so. Simple as that.
Marc Meyer’s last blog post..Twitter Help: 3 Simple Take Away’s.
[...] that point, Beth Harte of Harte Marketing & Communications has a helpful post on Social Media Ghostwriting. The heart of her [...]
Ghostwriting in social media can indeed be incredibly dangerous. The most ridiculous thing about it is that sometimes the communicator informs what has been written by the ghost writers without accepting or getting it.
Education blog’s last blog post..Requirements For Becoming A Ghost Writer
[...] Social Media Ghostwriting: The Great Marketing/PR Debate* Som en pendang till diskussionen runt @Msahlins twitterkonto. [...]
[...] example, ghostwriting social media content for executives and clients continues to be a hot topic. (Here’s my take on it, for anyone who’s interested) Some people think it’s a [...]
I have been really amazed lately by some of the bigger name social media “gurus” who have publicly admitted to ghost writing. You definitely want to be careful with this type of outsourcing. Elance is not your friend for this!
Brad Dohack´s last blog ..Door Lock Key – Applying to Your Life
[...] media advocates have spent a lot of pixels to call ghost-blogging inauthentic, and even unethical. These charges seem a bit dramatic to me. It’s enough to call ghost-blogging [...]
[...] Ghost bloggers/writers. Pardon me for being a purist, but I find it highly ironic that the very things that would get [...]