Social Media Ghostwriting: The Great Marketing/PR Debate*
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
Great topic and agree with Geoff. We have had several clients approach us wanting to entirely outsource social media efforts. I suggest ‘then don’t start’ instead, or help them start with listening efforts and develop a decision tree on what to do. The last thing I would advise is to have someone from our agency actually represent their company by authoring original content. I’d also add customer service into the “marketing/PR” mix.
I recall a good debate about an agency representing a fictional character like the King from Burger King. I have less of a problem with that regard so long as the persona and content is still vetted with the client. What do you think?
Adam Cohen’s last blog post..The Power of Social Media: Support for Caroline
Beth,
Last night’s debate was definitely interesting. I’d hate for people to get the wrong impression of where I stand from your recap, so let me clarify my position.
Like THOM isn’t your first blog, CDe isn’t mine. I understand the importance of transparency and authenticity on blogs as much as the next person. However, I also have experience helping companies of many sizes and varieties improve their communication — whether that’s to employees, current consumers, potential consumers, B2B, taxpayers, donors, etc. Based on that experience, I know that not everyone is a writer. Not everyone can sit down in front of a computer and pen a coherent, interesting, articulate blog post. But, that shouldn’t prohibit them from participating in the blogosphere. My point last night was that I have no problem if a CEO wants to blog, but can’t actually write the post him/herself — for lack of writing skills or time. Just because someone is good at managing cash flow or developing new business doesn’t make them a strong writer. If they want to rely on someone else to help with the writing, that’s ok. If the content is being posted under the CEO’s name, I agree with many others in last night’s discussion that the CEO needs to take an active role in developing the content. But, the actual matter of sitting down at the keyboard really shouldn’t matter. (I would never presume to post something for a CEO without their input and approval.)
As far as the Wal-Mart situation, I agree with you that that was a bad idea all the way around. It was a fake blog, written by fake people. Point of clarification: That’s not ghostwriting. It’s totally different than a real CEO wanting to express his/her real thoughts on a real company blog.
Bottom line: We both agree that *real content* from *real people* needs to be the focus. No argument there.
Heather (@prtini)
Heather Whaling’s last blog post..Tweet This, Not That
Beth, you do have a very valid point about why it isn’t productive to have someone outside your brand or company take on your social media efforts. Likewise, I also believe that it’s quite helpful to bring on a consultant or agency to craft a social media strategy, but that people in the company being represented need to take the reins and make the presence into an authentic one which can develop positive relationships with others in the social media space.
I wonder if this ‘ghost writing’ tactic has come about, in part, because of the hesitancy of some to give up control of their brand and messaging in social media?
Eric Hoffman’s last blog post..Shaun’s Private Half-Pipe
Beth, I completely agree with you. My firm does some social media consulting but the only ghostwriting we do on a regular basis in the form of bylines. Ghostwriting in social media can be incredibly dangerous – and I’m afraid all it leads to [in the end] is damage control PR.
Lauren’s last blog post..Precise Path RG3 Deployment
@HeatherWhaling, sorry if I gave the wrong impression…I went off your Twitter bio. It says “new blogger.” You might want to change that…
I still stand firm that if a CEO can’t write…they just shouldn’t. Why even put them in that potentially embarrassing predicament? (Hey, Mr. CEO…I know you didn’t write it because it goes against what you said here in this interview with Business Week.”) There are sure to be lots of other people within a company that like to write and can be the voice of a company, why not just tap into them?
And just to clarify…I am not just a social media consultant. I have over 15 years of traditional marketing/PR experience. Perhaps that’s why I have such a strong stance here. I know that marketing/PR views are skewed, I know that companies want to outsource everything, and I understand that social media is a new territory.
If consultants/agencies continue to ghostwrite for companies we’ll be sure to see more Wal-Mart debacles. And I don’t agree with you about the Wal-Mart blog…um, Wal-Mart and Edelman set it up, they setup the ghostwriting aspect of it and were fully aware of it. It’s the same thing in my book.
Heather, we’ll have to continue to agree to disagree…and that’s more than okay and the beauty of social media. Right now there is no wrong or right…just people trying to figure it out. Perhaps through our debating we can shed a light on this topic within the Marketing/PR world and help craft what becomes of it.
“As far as the Wal-Mart situation, I agree with you that that was a bad idea all the way around. It was a fake blog, written by fake people. Point of clarification: That’s not ghostwriting.”
It isn’t?
I think what Beth is talking about when she says that ghostwriting a blog is wrong, is for a company to say its CEO is writing a blog, when in fact the posts are written by an intern(or someone else) and the CEO has never seen the blog and has no idea what ‘he’ has written there.
IMO, that makes the CEO’s blog as fake as the Wal-Mart blog. Both are claiming to have been written by someone that they weren’t written by, and/or readers are intentionally mislead about the identity of the people writing the posts.
I’ve been mulling this one for a while, and I really appreciate you and Heather laying out the chess board, Beth.
I think the debate stems from the idea that, in social media, you’re expected (most of the time) to be a person, not a company.
Before social networks became a popular medium for sharing company tidbits, we were accustomed to the notion that COMPANIES made statements, took positions, took action. We were okay with faceless entities exhibiting human behavior.
Now, we want our companies to have people — faces, human names, personalities. And for most of the people behind the corporate veil, that’s scary. There’s far less anxiety when you can stay anonymous behind the company’s cloak. Being you, on the other hand, is intimidating.
Most people can’t write. They can’t shoot video. They can’t take pictures. And they know it. They also fear that appearing unpolished will diminish perceptions of their brand. And to some extent, they’re right — despite OUR opinions as SM enthusiasts, there are lots of consumers who make purchasing decisions based on shiny packaging.
So what’s a person/company to do? Embrace the rawness of our own content? Or find a way to engage in social media while still keeping the polish?
Lately, I’ve been noodling over the idea of “deputizing” your PR person, marketing agency rep, or other communications pro. These people know how to communicate, they know how to adhere to your brand standards, and they’re articulate. Instead of having them create content for a CEO or other corporate talking head, why not let them BE the face/voice of the company? Put them on the payroll, so to speak, and let them identify themselves as “Jane from Widgets, Inc.”
I dunno…haven’t fully fleshed that idea out, but it achieves the sometimes competing goals of authenticity and professional image, right?
What do the rest of you think?
Scott Hepburn’s last blog post..ScottHepburn: Oops! Did you plan your big PR event the same night as the World Series? @MyCreativeTeam reminds us to check the calendar: http://is.gd/kyie
“If consultants/agencies continue to ghostwrite for companies we’ll be sure to see more Wal-Mart debacles. And I don’t agree with you about the Wal-Mart blog…um, Wal-Mart and Edelman set it up, they setup the ghostwriting aspect of it and were fully aware of it. It’s the same thing in my book.”
Yep and the next logical step is for the consultant/agency/firm to come to the company and say ‘wow our blog is working really well! Now I think it’s time for Phase Two, and we’ll start seeding comments with positive comments, but posing as your customers!’
It’s a VERY slippery slope that a company should NEVER start down. And of course the payoff ALWAYS is that the companies and agencies trying to pull this crap are found out.
Mack Collier’s last blog post..Finding and embracing your online evangelists in 5 minutes
Mack,
Totally agree that an uninformed staffer shouldn’t be posing as the CEO just to write content. I don’t think anyone disagrees with that point. My point is that it’s not the end of the world if a person wants to blog, but needs some help finding the words to convey what he’s trying to say. While many of the people that we interact with on Twitter, blogs and other forums are good writers — the same can’t be said for *many* people outside the PR/marketing/echo chamber bubble. But, just because someone is a less-than-steller writer doesn’t mean that their ideas don’t have merits that should be presented to the online world. That’s all.
Heather Whaling’s last blog post..Tweet This, Not That
Here’s another thought for consideration:
Writers have their own style and tone―whether good/bad, funny/serious, great/bad grammar, etc.
If a corporate blog is ghostwritten―or even ghost edited―by one agency or person that person’s style and tone will appear in every post. People pick up on that…and they’ll begin to realize that the person whose name is on the post really didn’t do the writing. Especially when every post sounds/reads the same.
@ScottHepburn, as for video…I don’t think people expect companies to be great at all things social media. My argument here would be that having a “fake CEO” speaking in the video just because the CEO is camera shy is akin to having the CEO’s blog post written just because he’s a bad writer.
Totally get the whole “polished” concern. And this is another aspect that makes companies hesitant to get involved in social media. That’s completely understood.
@BethHarte I think the good thing about video is that you CAN’T fake it (well, I guess you could, but that won’t last long). With writing, it’s a little easier to do the whole ghosting thing.
Having a fake anything is bad. Fake CEO, fake customers…anything. But helping convert a CEOs thoughts into the written word is a different story.
I think the demand for ghost-created content is surging. You’re absolutely right about hesitation springing from a fear of appearing inarticulate. As long as that fear exists, the demand for content creators will remain strong, and the debate over ethical boundaries will rage on.
Scott Hepburn’s last blog post..ScottHepburn: Oops! Did you plan your big PR event the same night as the World Series? @MyCreativeTeam reminds us to check the calendar: http://is.gd/kyie
Great post, Beth. And I really love the dialogue that’s taking place in the comment section.
Scott’s idea about deputizing a person or people within the company who write and have a passion for social media seems like a great idea.
I was once approached about a job doing what Mack (above) called he next step- going around a commenting on blog posts that mentioned a certain brand. I rejected the offer, of course, but sadly, it likely would have paid better than a pro-blogging gig I have. Image that- being paid more to write spammy comments that legitimate and engaging blog posts.
As I said, I walked away from the opportunity and I later heard that the man who came up with the idea was asked to leave to leave his employer.
Authenticity and transparency are where it’s at.
@KimMoldofsky’s last blog post..Marketing to Mommybloggers: Moms, show us your stats!
I’m curious as to why this is such an issue now. I mean, hasn’t this always been an issue in some way? People, if not at first, will catch on when someone is not who/what he says he is…it’s just easier and faster to catch the pretenders now that the technology is what it is in today’s world.
The tools don’t matter as they will continue to evolve or go away. It is that company (or those people) which is authentic that will stand the test of time.
I don’t think it is unreasonable to guide a leader with regards to a blog, but to write it for him or her is asking for trouble. This is a two-way conversation where formality is out the window. Many people already expect that others are writing for their leaders, why serve the reality up on a platter? The leaders must understand that there is no curtain for them to hide behind and that authenticity will help them and their employees reach the goals they have set.
What’s annoying about the conversation is that were even having it. It’s an old issue, and one that should be put to bed. Social media is about transparency and there’s nothing transparent about ghost writing.
Geoff Livingston’s last blog post..Top 25 Ways to Stop Wigging Out
Geoff got me thinking, so I am adding one last comment on this topic: There’s clearly a disconnect between textbook theories and practical applications. If people believe SM is only be defined by transparency, you’re not really thinking about all the ways businesses might want to incorporate these tools to engage consumers. No one is disagreeing that transparency is important. But isn’t *improved communication* just as important? I would hope so.
Heather Whaling’s last blog post..Tweet This, Not That
@HeatherWhaling, textbook theories? Do you know Geoff’s social media work? It’s far from textbook…
As for transparency, that’s a huge part of social media but so are authenticity and trust…and most people who have commented here get that and get how to apply social media to achieve business goals/objectives. To imply otherwise is a bit inconsiderate, yes?
Beth,
That’s hardly what I said — I’m glad to see businesses find ways to engage consumers and meet overall business goals. My point is that there are no “across-the-board” rules for social media. While one theory may apply in a specific situation, it may not work in another. The bottom line is to help businesses understand how to incorporate these tools to help strengthen their communication.
Heather Whaling’s last blog post..Tweet This, Not That
@Heather I have significantly more social media experience than you, and think you could benefit from a good blogodrama based on some of your fudging of transparency and other ethics. But I would not wish that on anyone, so let’s hope just smelling the coffee is good enough.
Geoff Livingston’s last blog post..Top 25 Ways to Stop Wigging Out
@HeatherWhaling, Phew! Glad to hear that.
I think I see where the disconnect might be… A lot of agencies/consultants look at social media as just ‘tools’ in the regard that SM is no different than say a news release, collateral, byline article, e-mail marketing, etc. It’s easier for them to do so because then they (both the company & the agency/consultant) don’t really need to understand how to communicate with their customers/clients in authentic, transparent and honest way. Let’s face it…it’s hard to hide behind social media like companies can with traditional media.
On the other hand, a lot of us look at social media as tools that lead to conversation/engagement and indirect business benefits (much like business development) and it’s those conversations/engagements that need to be authentic, transparent and honest.
As for the rules…the community makes the rules. And when the community doesn’t like that they have been scammed with ghostwritten posts…you’ll hear about it, that’s for sure.
Time will tell…
Geoff, we don’t know each other at all, so I wouldn’t ever presume to question your ethics or approach to social media. And, I assume you wouldn’t question mine either based on just a few comments on one blog posting. Looking back at the totality of the conversation starting last night and continuing today, I think many of us were making the same point: that transparency is important, but that it’s not a simple black-and-white issue. That has nothing to do with questioning your SM credentials at all. Clearly there are lots of people being approached by clients about these issues, so I’m glad Beth provided a forum for some healthy debate. At the end of the day, it will help all of us better serve our clients. And, isn’t that what we’re all trying to do anyway?
@HeatherWhaling, I think it was this line that got us off track here:
“There’s clearly a disconnect between textbook theories and practical applications.”
As for ethics, for some of us…it is black and white. But like @ScottHepburn said, the debate will rage on as companies continue to want to outsource. It’s up to social media consultants/agencies to steer companies away from ghostwriting if they want to be authentic, transparent and honest with their employees, customers, partners, shareholders, etc.
Just one question. Is it really you commenting here or someone else with better writing skills?
Just thought I’d ask…given your advocacy for ghostwriting and all.
I’ve been watching this develop all day, and while I like a good discussion as much as the next guy, Geoff’s second comment surprised me.
I don’t know that he’ll read this, but for the record, I thought that was out of line. It definitely didn’t make me want to contribute anything to this conversation.
@Lex_D
@AlexisDowney, As I mentioned above, this line from Heather is what ruffled feathers (including mine): “There’s clearly a disconnect between textbook theories and practical applications…”
In the context in which the comment was written there was an implied slight against Geoff and the rest of us (even if unintentional by Heather, which she explained above). That said, Geoff wasn’t out of line and has a right to his opinion if being slammed by someone who doesn’t even know him or his work.
Everyone has the right to share their opinion here, so please feel free to jump into the debate.
Thanks for bringing up this issue, Beth, as I think it’s quite interesting. To me, the problem lies in our definitions and expectations of ‘a blog.’ Blogs most definitely should be authentically penned by their publicized authors. But updates on a company’s site to meet SEO requirements, and much more to provide a constant stream of excitement about their products/services are perfectly valid. They may be ‘ghostwritten’ – i.e., written more as long-form copywriting or journalism than as a personal log. They provide entertainment, education, a platform for customer relations, a forum for company communications out to the world, a regular read for fans … the list of benefits is long. So what if it’s not a bonafide blog? Call it something else other than a blog. The point is, it works, and it’s nothing to be ashamed of. The infomercial (infommercial?) has been around for a long time.
Could someone pass the popcorn? This is getting good..!
Marc’s last blog post..If you’re going to tweet from a conference..10 things I want from you.
“My point is that it’s not the end of the world if a person wants to blog, but needs some help finding the words to convey what he’s trying to say.”
See *I* don’t see that as ghostwriting, and I think this is where some of the disconnect is happening. I see that as the CEO writing the blog, but having some assistance/help/training from someone else. I doubt many in this conversation if anyone would have a problem with that.
What some of us have a BIG problem with is someone writing a blog post and publishing it with the CEO’s name signed to it. THAT is ghostwriting a blog, and IMO it’s dead wrong.
What you appear to be talking about is something completely different.
Mack Collier’s last blog post..Turning your feed reader into a powerful monitoring dashboard
Mack Collier – so how far can the ‘assistance/help/training’ go? Does it include compiling a blog from notes?
Wow! This has been a lively discussion. My take? The short version is below. The longer version is on this post I wrote on ghost blogging a few months ago: http://bit.ly/ghostblogging
It may seem like splitting hairs, but in my mind there’s a difference between ghost writing the typical PR items like bylined articles and ghost writing blog posts, Twitter “tweets,” and blog comments. That’s because there is a different expectation in place when it comes to social media engagement.
When reading a newspaper article with quotes or watching an interview on your local TV news affiliate, there’s no expectation of interacting with the person being interviewed. It’s passive.
Not so in social media. People engage with the tools because they want to connect with people. If you don’t tell people that in fact an outside party is blogging on your behalf, then your social media efforts are a sham. And when you’re found out, you will lose trust.
My two cents, for what they’re worth…
David Mullen’s last blog post..What Can PRSA Do to Demystify PR For Business Leaders?
[...] Social Media Ghostwriting: The Great Marketing/PR Debate* | Harte Marketing & CommunicationsSom en pendang till diskussionen runt @Msahlins twitterkonto. [...]
@MackCollier,
“My point is that it’s not the end of the world if a person wants to blog, but needs some help finding the words to convey what he’s trying to say.”
From discussing this with Heather the last two days, I do believe she is indeed talking about actually writing the blog post content…otherwise, we wouldn’t have had the debate over ghostwriting.
As well, we don’t know for sure that it’s even Heather commenting here. It could be a junior copywriter because…who knows, maybe she faces the same problem as her clients and being a “less-than-steller writer doesn’t mean that [her] ideas don’t have merits that should be presented to the online world.” (her words & typo, not mine. I changed “their” to “her”).
See, that’s the inherent problem with admitting to being an advocate for ghostwriting in the social media sphere…you lose all credibility. Now we don’t know who really is writing. And even if it was truly Heather…how could we ever know for sure, right? (Yes, I am intentionally trying to make a point.)
[...] How does ghostwriting in traditional media differ from social media? Beth Harte closely examines the acceptability of ghostwriting within the context of social media – where companies are “supposed to be authentic and transparent.” Beth’s says, “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.” Visit Harte Marketing & Communications blog to see Beth’s complete thoughts and share your own perspective. [...]
[...] the posts about ethics and social media, and there’s an interesting discussion going on at Beth Harte’s site about ghostwriting blogs. The pervading sentiment: ghostwriting blogs is BAD. The moral imperative [...]
Thanks for presenting this forum, Beth. I feel compelled to come to the defense of Heather’s very sensible views.
Had I not been around the PR business before the emergence of social media, I’d swear (from this discussion) that SM practitioners invented the concept of transparency. That’s simply nonsense. PR “professionals” (I won’t speak for marketing) have been promoting honesty and candor for more than 60 years. Some absolute rule about ghostwriting isn’t going to change that, and the charlatans among us will continue to do as they always have.
We all know that some clients simply don’t write well. This isn’t a tragedy, as it creates jobs for those who can. But many of our clients do think clearly, and they have much to bring to the conversations of social media. Some of them simply need help expressing those thoughts in a meaningful and concise way. By helping clients do this, professional communicators can play an important role in promoting honest, transparent discussions that might otherwise never take place.
Yes, the ideas presented should be those of the person whose byline appears. And per Johannesen, the communicator must accept responsibility for what is written. No one will argue that.
Building trust has nothing to do with who edits the messages. Trust is earned through performance, and if good performance is reflected in social media messages, no one will get upset if an editor plays a role in making it work.
I’d prefer to trust my own judgment over some hard-and-fast rule that tells me what I must never do.
Bill Sledzik’s last blog post..LinkedIn and Lame begin with “L” — Coincidence?
I am surprised this causes so much disconnect. Teach people how to blog but do it for them. Teach them to fish then they can do it themselves. We have had this question fairly often with our clients and are very much opposed to doing it for any of our clients. If they do not have the time (question arises about value here) then post to other blogs but don’t have others blog for you.
Guest blogging fine – identify the guest but I think it is very clear – DO NOT Blog for others.
@BillSledzik, thanks so much for your insights, they are much appreciated! As well, I feel like there was some unfinished conversation when it came to Heather’s viewpoint.
So we don’t go down this path again let’s be clear here as to what you are saying.
Which are you referring to as being okay:
1. Yes, I will listen to my clients ideas, do some research and then sit at my computer and write a blog post for them based on their idea. Then I will post it to their blog for him/her under their name (not mine).
2. I will counsel my client on how to arrange their blog post so that it makes the most sense. Then have them write it, in their own words. Afterwards, I might check it for grammar, suggest some relevant links and hand it over for them to post under their own name.
See the difference? Let me know what you think! Thanks Bill.
I’m in between those positions, Beth — closer to #1 than #2, and prepared to take the heat that will come with it.
First, gather the client’s precise ideas and augment with research if necessary (since the client never has time to do it). Second, draft the post in your client’s voice. Third (your #1 skips this step), return the draft to the client for review and revisions and to ensure the post reflects his/her tone and point of view.
I’ve had many clients who simply can’t write a coherent essay. I’ve also had German clients who knew conversational English only. Should their shortcomings with the language (or their lack of time) keep them from participating in social media?
I’m not sure why, but there’s an assumption that the PR professional will somehow alter the client’s meaning or intent. A savvy writer who knows the culture of social media, and his client, won’t let that happen. It’s a matter of ethics.
Bill Sledzik’s last blog post..LinkedIn and Lame begin with “L” — Coincidence?
I wrote about this same thing yesterday after being asked to post for his company.
It is tempting due to the fact that I was laid off 2 weeks ago today in an exclusive SM role, but I would rather sling coffee at Starbucks (*ahem, putting in my app tomorrow) than lie about what I am doing.
Thanks so much for the validation.
-jen
Jen Harris’s last blog post..Principles Over Income?
Jen Good for you I applaud your actions.
Rick Simmons’s last blog post..Blogging strictly for SEO purposes
@BillSledzik, if you can prove your position by ghostwriting a post for me I might buy into the notion (okay, not really). But, I have a feeling you won’t be able to do it anyway.
A writer’s style and tone always come through in their writing…and it’s hard to mimic especially when it comes to blogging where the voice is intentionally more conversational and colloquial. And let’s not forget local dialect…especially in Philly.
@JenHarris, I second Rick Simmons’ applaud!
No, I could not write a post for you Beth. I know little about you and have not studied your style of writing or speaking. Were you my client, things would be different.
This thread has inspired me to write a post on the ghostwriting issue. The “no, no, never” position taken by so many in the SM space is unrealistic and — with all due respect — a bit naive. It excludes so many of our clients who cannot and never will find the time for this one small part of an overall PR strategy. It closes the space to people without communication skills. Is that what we want to do?
As for those who would say this discussion is “old news,” let me disagree. With thousands entering the social media space every day, it’s useful to rehash key issues and to challenge assumptions. Your post is doing that.
Thanks again for an interesting discussion, and for tolerating my contrary nature! I’ll tweet you once the post is up. Next week latest.
Bill Sledzik’s last blog post..LinkedIn and Lame begin with “L” — Coincidence?
I’m with you, Bill, and in case it helps, check out my post on the subject – http://www.asthemoonclimbs.com/blog.php/2009/02/24/ethics-in-social-media/
@BillSledzik, you both just proved my point.
You (and any other PR/marketer who think they can) can’t write for me…because social media isn’t the style of “corporate writing” marketing/PR professionals are used to. And that’s the point behind social media. The style is mine, the voice is mine. Mine as in an individual contributor, not as in the corporation’s “voice/messaging” (and yes, I am the principal of a corporation). If I were to have staff blog for HMC, it would be “their” voice, not mine…and we would each have a different style. How could a marketing/agency ever mimic that?
And thanks for being open to the debate, I appreciate it. I don’t find you contrary at all…it’s something that needs to be discussed.
Looking forward to your post.
And I’ll look forward to writing that post, Beth.
Our SM space is a perfect place to discuss these kinds of disagreements, and I’m glad you’re open to it. Not every blogger invites diverse points of view.
I would caution you and others about using the word “prove.” Your challenge to me, and my response to it, didn’t “prove” anything. It simply helped illustrate our different positions on the topic.
Proof requires evidence, and I’ve yet to see any concrete evidence that social media messages enabled by professional writers and editors are somehow less effective or less authentic than others. The SM world is still a new one, and we’re all operating on assumptions arising from Cluetrain. Proof supporting one view or the other has yet to arrive.
Bill Sledzik’s last blog post..LinkedIn and Lame begin with “L” — Coincidence?
Bill – I think the bigger issue is not whether you write for the company but putting someone else’s name on the post I think is really the issue. Ghost writing is not bad per se – giving the writing – especially online – does not give the transparency that is needed if you want to be online. If you are hired to write for the company fine but own up to being a hired gun – it is not wrong to do so just be honest about it.
Rick Simmons’s last blog post..Blogging strictly for SEO purposes
Fair enough, Rick. We have different opinions on this topic. But let’s remember that’s all they are — opinions based largely on assumptions.
Your opinion grows out of Cluetrain (a book I require in my graduate classes, btw); mine grows out of years of successful ghostwriting and editing, helping clients share their expertise with key stakeholders (to mutual benefit).
The idea that our SM space somehow demands a different standard stems from a misbegotten notion that PR professionals are spin doctors who don’t get the transparency thing. Cluetrain’s authors (and I respect them all) see our business that way. I do not.
Bill Sledzik’s last blog post..LinkedIn and Lame begin with “L” — Coincidence?
One of the less discussed issues about the individual around whom the PCTO09 ghostwriting debate revolves around is that she has branded herself as a social media marketing expert. Ghostwriting for her own brand contradicts both social media expertise and marketing expertise.
Social media is about personal relationships and authentic communication. You can’t outsource who you are.
Marketing is about communications and writing. If you can’t market yourself, how can you market other people?
Mark Blevis’s last blog post..I’m a Content Paleontologist
[...] There seems to be a huge amount of debate over the concept of “ghostblogging.” [Link] [Another Link] [...]
I think one thing that needs clarifying is the difference between ghostwriting and ghostblogging.
I don’t see the harm in ghostwriting – after all, it’s usually generic articles or tips.
The big difference is in ghostblogging, as a blog should be *your* voice. Fair enough, a multi-author blog or a corporation blog can have many writers, maybe even using pseudonyms. But your personal voice and opinion should always be just that.
I’d still say that there’s a difference between ghostwriting and ghostblogging, though.
Danny Brown’s last blog post..Accentuate The Positives
As a sidenote, @Geoff Livingston re. your response to Heather: “I have considerably more social experience than you.” Do you use that approach when you’re playing in the sandpit with other kids? It’s that kind of juvenile response that enforces the view that social media is just a tool for techy people and not something that can greatly benefit business.
Danny Brown’s last blog post..Accentuate The Positives
@BillSledzik, I think I do prove a point. You (and Heather, Mary…and any other PR folks who think ghostwriting in the social media space is okay) have said that you could ghostwrite a blog posts for companies (HMC is a company) but then turn around and say “well, I don’t know your voice, style, etc.” when I say well prove it and write one for me (as a company owner). So my challenge is write a blog post for me. I would venture a bet that it can’t be done. I’ll say it 100x if I need to…social media is not PR messaging, a byline or a press release transfered to a blog post. There is a style of writing that is inherent to social media, blogging, and me, as a person who owns a company, in particular.
@MarkBlevis, exactly! Is there a possibility that Leesa Barnes has now lost credibility as a social media “expert” after divulging that she outsources her blog posts? I’d be curious how her readers, fans and clients feel about that…especially after *she* (or her ghostwriter) wrote a post on “Why You Should Never Outsource Your Social Media Tasks & What You Should Delegate Instead” (http://is.gd/jaY8)
@DannyBrown, I think clarifying ghostwriting (as in trad. PR/mktg) vs. ghost blogging, ghost tweeting, ghost plurking, ghost commenting, ghost-anything-social-media-oriented is completely fair and will help people from assuming I mean no ghostwriting period. Ghosted items in social media are not transparent, authentic & honest. At that point anything ghosted is just traditional marketing using social media tools (blogs, Twitter, Flickr, Facebook, etc.)
As for your comment about Geoff Livingston, we are not on the same page at all. And now, I fear you are out of line for coming back and insulting Geoff. Please take a moment and read Heather’s comment and my several responses regarding what transpired. It is entirely unacceptable to come to my blog and insult me, my readers and commenter’s…and that is exactly what Heather Whaling did with her snide remark ( “There’s clearly a disconnect between textbook theories and practical applications…”). I am not going to put up with people obfuscating here either. If people want to debate, I invite that…I enjoy a good debate. But when someone is losing that debate and starts insulting people, changing their tone/words/etc., it’s time for them to go. And this isn’t the first time Heather has questioned my position on PR or social media. I asked Geoff to come back and comment…and he did.
@Everyone, if we start going down the path of ghost-anything in social media being acceptable, then will it be acceptable for corporate executives, people and companies hosting groups to do the same on LinkedIn profiles, Q&A answers, and Group comments?
They can all be ghostwritten, uh, I mean, outsourced too, right? How does that effect the business industry?! “Oh, *I* didn’t say *I* went to Harvard…no, see, my ghostwriter just implied that I had an Ivy League education.”