Does Taking A Freebie Mean You Can't Trust Me?

Of course not. But I wonder if it impacts our credibility.

This has come up before and each time I take the same stance: Accepting freebies is unacceptable. Now  that's my position, and it isn't a rule that others have to accept.

First, I come out of the newspaper world where accepting anything, including lunch, was forbidden. I also served as an Executive Editor on several magazines, and I did not permit my writers to accept anything free. Finally, when I worked as a free-lance travel writer, nearly all of the pubs I wrote for forbid us writers from accepting free travel or free accommodations. (Not all publications do that.)

The reason we writers refuse free gifts is because it might taint our credibility, and that is a writer's cache. As a consultant, I still refuse freebies, even from my clients. Now, I urge you to read another point of view, which is as valid as mine, but more risky. This just in from one of my favorite people, bloggers and blogs, Mack at The Viral Garden, who I would never suspect of dishonesty:

Nikon's Blogger Outreach Program for D80 Already Generating Buzz

"When you tell a group of bloggers that you're going to send them a thousand dollar camera to play with, it's not hard to imagine them blogging about it ASAP. That's just what I and many of the 50 other bloggers that have been selected to participate in Nikon's blogger outreach program for the D80 have done."

That is Mack's opening paragraph. Please read the entire article and the comments. Here is my second comment:

"Mack,

"As I e-mailed to CK, I love and respect you, and trust your credibility impeccably. I worry, however, that the majority of readers who don't know us will paint us with broad strokes when we take freebies. It reminds me of payola in the record industry.

"Now, I have to admit something: I have been on the road for several days and did not see your earlier post saying that the camera is a loaner. I suspect that would be true of many of your readers, as we don't read every post.

"I don't have a problem with loaners; however, six months seems too much of a reward for reviewers, and that worries me. As one who actually has won a few photography contests, my experience tells me it doesn't take six months to discover a camera's good and bad points.

"At the end of the day, I prefer that writers not accept any freebies, except loaners, and that every post, every article, every photograph in this case, carry a disclaimer when the product is a loaner.

"My gut tells me, however, that for me, reviewing products that I did not purchase or businesses that I have a personal stake in, is just not the right thing to do."

In my mind, this issue is as important as any that we writers, including bloggers, face. What we say is only of value if our readers can trust us to be 100 percent honest, 100 percent of the time. Does that mean we can or cannot accept freebies of any kind? Frankly, that depends on you. Which side of this discussion do you find yourself?

Comments

[Stephen Denny]

Lewis: this is the "reciprocity" problem -- whether implicit or explicit -- that returns favor for favor. The way professional reviewers often did this (back in my Sony days) was to insist the product was bought at retail. Not only did this ensure that the product wasn't "free", but that it wasn't tweaked to perform better than an average consumer's version might be.

It would be tons of fun, though, if the Nikon blogger seeding committee were to turn the tables on them and take their customer service departments, retail store associates, and web help desks for serious spin sort of like Harry Joiner's piece on the Profs a few weeks ago.

Of course, if Nikon wants to give away cameras, please send them my address. I won't guarantee I'll say anything about it, though.

[Mack Collier]

Stephen the main reason why I decided to take Nikon up on its offer was because they specifically stated that I was under no obligation to blog about the camera. They only asked that if I *did*, that I disclose that they provided me the camera as a loaner.

But there's another issue here as well, if I simply gush about this camera because Nikon sent it to me, I risk losing the trust of my community of readers. And I'm not sure what the money value on that trust would be, but I think it's worth a bit more than a camera, even a thousand dollar camera.

[Lewis Green]

Stephen,

Great comment. Maybe Mack can pass along your name. Seriously, no one is more honest than Mack. But do all our readers know that. It becomes a perception issue. I believe that professional reviewers should purchase at retail. And when we review a product, I believe we take on that role. Avoiding any appearance of impropriety demands, I think, that we buy the products we write about.

Mack,

I believe you because I know you. You are the best among us. But we live and work within a community and what one does reflects on all of us. Your acceptance of the Nikon will likely never reflect badly on us. But is it the standard we should apply to ourselves?

[Mario Velland]

Nikon is trying to influence some product evangelism in a non-traditional manner. They framed the relationship correctly. Now the responsibility is on the recipient to act accordingly. Mack did the right thing by being open about it. The question is then, what next? Taking Lewis's and Stephen's comments in consideration, I would enjoy using the camera. If I made any comments or recommendations about it, it would be offline or through email.

Hope you have fun with it! They should have loaned you a telephoto lens as well - that's where it gets really exciting.

[Lewis Green]

Mario

While I would not accept the offer and do not believe writers should review products they do not pay for, I am respectful of other points of view and feel that every writer must make the decision for themselves. Thank you for expressing your point of view.

[B.L. Ochman]

I've also accepted the loaner from Nikon, and I immediately said so, like Mack.

A couple of other people have come forward as well. But the majority of the 50 bloggers haven't said a word.

I do have a problem with that.

As you know, I write a blog about ethics, and I take ethics very, very seriously. I joined the program because Nikon has been completely transparent and asks that we be also. I am comfortable with that.

[CK]

After leaving a book's worth of comments at Mack's (sorry Mack, I was thinking aloud) I have decided that I will not be accepting "free stuff" should it be sent my way. There is one exception: marketing books. See, out of about 10 or so books per segment we decide on 1 for each BC segment. And I couldn't afford to buy 50-100 extra books per year but we need to screen first. I do, and have since the beginning, bought each book we feature in each segment and then I give away my free copy (sometimes I give it to my Dad, I admit it, because I really want him involved. So far no luck as he's too shy to comment).

See if a marketer blogs about a book and its practices it helps the marketer AND the marketer's audience (readers) as much as it helps the publisher and the author. But a camera, PDA, car or yacht? That only helps the company (and the blogger for however long it's loaned to them). That's the line I'm drawing at present. And when did we marketers become a shutterbug audience? Geez, with all the photos I put on my blog you think Nikon would have contacted me. Guess I'm not popular enough. Oh well, I would give it back anyhow. Great post and best debate in a while, friend.

[Mack Collier]

"A couple of other people have come forward as well. But the majority of the 50 bloggers haven't said a word.

I do have a problem with that. "

I'm ok with it for now, because many could be simply waiting till they get their cameras to blog about their involvement. But if there's only a handful that have blogged about their participation by this time next week, I also have a problem with that.

But like BL, I chose to be involved because Nikon hasn't asked us to blog about the camera, only asking that IF we do, that we mention how we got it. Nikon is just fine with us using their thousand dollar camera for free for 6 months (or a year if we decide to extend the loan), and never mentioning the camera, or posting any pictures that we take with it on our blogs. And Nikon isn't keeping any monies raised from selling any of the cameras, any money collected will be donated to educational programs focusing on photography.

[Mack Collier]

Mario it does come with an 18-135mm Zoom-Nikkor lens.

[Lewis Green]

CK,

Publishers and authors set aside a number of review books for reviewers. The cost to do so is usually well under $10. These books were never meant to be sold, and sometimes they even have subtle flaws, prohibiting them from hitting the bookstores. That said, when we review books, and I do monthly, we need to point out both what we like and don't like, as it is our obligation to be honest about the read.

In your case, CK, you are doing a public service by hosting the book club, and accepting free copies to review is not an ethical issue in my mind.

[Lewis Green]

B.L.

Thank you for adding your point of view. I appreciate and respect your position.

[Steve Woodruff]

I'm not sure that anyone can make a comprehensive open-and-shut case about never/always accepting "freebies" and reviewing them, but two words about the practice will always be in season:
Full Disclosure.

[Lewis Green]

Steve,

I agree. No single standard applies for all, except full disclosure. Whatever we choose to do comes down to a personal decision, except when required by business practices of the companies we work for or our clients.

[Gavin Baker]

I think about it this way. Would I tell my friends? If a company sent me a widget--no strings attached would I tell my close friends here about it? If I would, I'd probably blog about it. But the disclosure would come via conversation. I'd be using the widget and a friend would say, "hey where did you get that?" or "is that new?" and at that point I'd tell them the story behind it.

I probably wouldn't walk into work and say, "hey everyone company x just gave me this widget, just FYI"

So why do we want to disclose on the front end? Is it the human condition to assume deception? Thoughts?

[Lewis Green]

Gavin,

Good question: I don't know if it is the human condition that makes so many of us skeptical and cynical about recommendations from people who received a free widget and then tell us how good it is. I think we feel that way from personal and interpersonal experiences. We learn in Psychology 101 (and Journalism 101, as well) that when we give someone something, they feel indebted to us. Especially if that something is expensive. And when the giver is a business, we as recipients of the widget usually know that they expect something in return, even if they say they don't.

As a basic example of reciprocity (Pay It Forward), networking is based on building relationships that result in referrals and leads. The concept works because if I get a referral or a lead from you, I feel indebted and am going to work doubly hard to return the favor. When we change referrals and leads to product recommendations, most of us know and relate to the reciprocity principal and, therefore, are skeptical of the recommendation when it comes from someone who received a freebie. I believe that at the end of the day, that hurts the recommender's credibility. That is to great a risk for me.

[MotorsportBabesAU]

Wow I really think that some of the people who have been chosen to be a part of this program should be a little more thankful for the opportunity. Not only do they get a chance to play with one of the coolest pieces of technology going around at the moment but they must all be gaining a lot of traffic to their blog because of it!

Damn I wish I had one of those cameras! lol

[Lewis Green]

Motorsport:

Great comment. Thanks! Maybe you should contact Nikon and tell them how much press they will get if they send you a camera.