Fizzy drinks and computers famously don't mix, which is why I no longer drink Coke during BBC Question Time. But it turns out that they don't work too well in blogs either, as Seed Magazine are finding out to their cost.
The story, in a nutshell, is that Seed - the company behind ScienceBlogs - and Pepsi - the company behind obesity and tooth decay - have entered a partnership in which Pepsi will pay to have their own ScienceBlogs blog. This is obviously a break away from the usual model in which bloggers apply to the site, are accepted on merit, and receive some pocket money from advertising.
The existing bloggers at ScienceBlogs are pretty unhappy about this, and a number of them have either left or are thinking about it, including such famous faces as Brian Switek and Rebecca Skloot.
Some have questioned whether these bloggers have over-reacted, but these criticisms generally miss the point, which is that this isn't really about the evils of corporations per se or Pepsi's right as a company to blog about science, or even about preventing Pepsi's views from being aired on Seed's platform.
Instead, the scandal that will inevitability be dubbed Pepsigate, is ultimately about three things. The first is community identity - the fence that delineates the ScienceBlogs community from the rest of the world; the second is respect; and the third is the line between editorial and advertising.
Identity
The first point is really so simple that it's banal, and it's quite staggering that Adam Bly, Seed's CEO, doesn't seem to understand it. To its bloggers and readers, ScienceBlogs was always a meritocracy built by top science bloggers. They attracted the best science bloggers from the US and increasingly around the world, and allowed a community to organically develop in which everyone had a stake.
In doing that, they turned ScienceBlogs into a powerful and prestigious brand, and that brand in turn attracted more writers and readers. For a couple of years, until about 2009, being offered a spot on Science Blogs was a giddy achievement. As GrrlScientist puts it:
I and my colleagues were recruited by ScienceBlogs based on our track records of productivity, topic choices, traffic and whatever ephemeral talent that their corporate masters thought we possessed. Not one of us had to buy our way in.
It should be immediately obvious that selling a seat at this table damages the brand, whoever it is. It's like watching King Arthur hand-pick eleven knights of the Round Table, and then sell the twelfth seat on Ebay. If anyone can buy themselves a Seed Blog, then one of the main reasons to blog there - the prestige - is gone. And the effect of that is doubled when King Arthur himself doesn't bother to tell the knights until some rich kid in Gucci armour wanders in the room asking where the bar is.
Respect
"The SEED management team has repeatedly failed to treat me and my fellow bloggers with courtesy and respect, and this latest event goes beyond disrespect into actively undermining our credibility."
The above quote is from Brian Switek, one of the top science writers on the web, and a jewel in Seed's crown until yesterday, when he quit.
The latest insult for Switek was that the bloggers who helped build the site weren't consulted on such a fundamental change in direction. I'm not privy to the internal world of ScienceBlogs, but when your best writers are saying things like...
"...the skanky clandestine manner in which it was executed is a fucking slap in the face from Adam Bly and the ScienceBlogs overlords, reflecting their overall (lack of) respect for our collective contributions and investments."
...then, my friend, you have fucked up very badly. As Abel puts it: "You reap what you sow."
Advertorials
The following guidance comes from the American Society of Magazine Editors, and was highlighted yesterday by Knight Science Journalism, who point out that this is an issue that traditional media have wrestled with for years. It's worth reading in full:
"For magazines to be trusted by consumers and to endure as brands, readers must be assured of their editorial integrity."
"Editorial-looking sections or pages that are not produced by a magazines editors are not editorial content. They should be labeled Advertisement, Special Advertising Section or Promotion at the top of every page in type as prominent as the magazines normal body type…"
"Advertisers should not pay to place their products in editorial pages nor should they demand placement in return for advertising."
This is one of the fundamental rules in US magazine publishing, and one that a website indexed by Google News ought to take seriously (the comment by a reader of Jack of Kent's blog that "these are only blogs, not published content" is spectacularly naive). It's also one of the scummier practices we see in British newspapers - all those Daily Mail stories about products with telephone numbers and websites at the bottom.
Let's be clear first of all that this is advertising material. This not a blog primarily about food science, but about Pepsi. The blog is intended to promote Pepsi's products and the company itself, as Pepsi's own introduction to the blog very clearly states:
"...we'll hear from a wide range of experts on how the company is developing products rooted in rigorous, science-based nutrition standards to offer consumers more wholesome and enjoyable foods and beverages. The focus will be on innovations in science, nutrition and health policy. In addition to learning more about the transformation of PepsiCo's product portfolio, we'll be seeing some of the innovative ways it is planning to reduce its use of energy, water and packaging."
And of course the blog already exists on Pepsi's own website, where it consists of basically a feed of press releases.
Some people have made the valid point that it's good to have corporations engaging in the science blogosphere, and that's true, but this is completely the wrong way to do it. To see why, it's interesting to think about cases where it might be okay for Pepsi to join ScienceBlogs. I can think of at least four scenarios in which this could work:
- They produce their own science blog so good that other science bloggers love it, and they manage to get a place on merit.
- They sponsor a discussion blog, which is open for a variety of ScienceBlogs members to contribute to, with their own submission limited and very clearly marked as such. A sort of "engage with Pepsi" group blog
- They provide guest posts, accepted on merit and again clearly marked, putting their point of view as part of a wider cluster of posts on a topic (like the last point, but less formal).
- Seed host a special 'sponsors' blog section, distinct from the main blogs and not indexed on Google News, for advertorial submissions. You could even play on the infamy, and use it as good discussion fuel for the 'real' bloggers.
Any of those approaches would allow Pepsi to join the debate while maintaining editorial integrity. The problem comes as soon as Pepsi are paying for their editorial content to be inserted in amongst the other bloggers at ScienceBlogs, regardless of merit, and with (originally) very little to mark them out as advertising.
Ultimately though it all boils down to one simple truth - any blogging community is as good as it's writers. When they start leaving in droves, you need to fix it. So far, Adam Bly and Seed show no signs of doing that.
----------------------------
You can keep track of bloggers leaving ScienceBlogs and their new locations at Carl Zimmer's blog.
And of course if any rogue sciblings want to reach out to a new audience (and you don't have to be exclusive, I'm a promiscuous host), they can always join us here!
Ah this whole pepsi thing makes sense now. I read their blog and just thought it was dull but couldn't see any huge problem with it.
I'm sure they could make money in other less obnoxious and more helpful ways.
It wouldn't be too much work, for example, to put together a monthly printed publication of all the blogs on there and sell them for a couple of quid.
A bit of editing to make it suitable for offline publication (removing "click here!" etc), printing it and distributing it should be a piece of piss for a company that already puts out a bimonthly magazine.
The more I read about it, the more it looks like an issue of "identity" and identity alone. Way too many people appear to have blogged and commented on ScienceBlogs mainly because they "needed to belong" to a community: a community that is more a form of mutual aid than a tool to disseminate information, knowledge and profound truths.
Why can SciAm have advertorials, but not ScienceBlogs, I wonder?
ps now I understand why people complain to me about other Wordpress.com bloggers...
I think identity is important here (although don't underestimate the commitment of many bloggers to certain journalistic standards), but I think that's perfectly valid too. The bloggers at ScienceBlogs didn't just join the site, they basically created it, and gifted it their readership.
In doing so, they very consciously created a community and brand, over which they had a considerably degree of ownership. Over time, that brand has been eroded, their ownership of it has been sidelined, and 'PepsiGate' was the final straw for many.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to belong to a community.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
Maurizio
I think if they had TOLD the bloggers beforehand:
"We're thinking of having paid-for blogs / advertorials. How can we identify/host them in a way that you guys could live with? Who exactly would have to author the "paid-for" blogs?"
- and started a dialogue, then the outcome might have been different. They are now trying to do this, and have pulled the Food Frontiers blog - but it has been a spectacular own-goal in the meantime.
Pepsi have now apparently had their blog taken down, and Adam Bly has sent a letter around the bloggers, according to PZ.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/pepsico_has_been_expelled.php
Dr Aust - I disagree. Yes it could have been handled differently. If "identity" is so important, there is no way to put any "advertorial" alongside everything else in ScienceBlogs, unless the advertorial's author is a trusted holder of the "identity".
Martin - There's nothing wrong with wanting to belong to a community. There might be something wrong with _needing_ to belong a community: because the community's needs may then take precedence over the individual blogger's. Groupthink, sectarianism and all that. Especially after a story like this, every Scienceblog blogger will be very aware of his/her limits on what can and can't be written, as the community will respond to anything that is deemed to be outside some boundaries.
Blog pulled
Teacup. Storm.
Maurizio:
Clearly the bloggers leaving the community don't have a "need" to belong to it!
As for 'groupthink', it's one of those terms that's easy to throw around without really making much of an argument. ScienceBlogs bloggers have a common set of values and standards based around science and how they relate it. There's nothing wrong with that. The whole point of ScienceBlogs is that you have a community of high-standard science bloggers - that's why became such a powerful brand in blogging. The same is true for virtually any magazine or publishing venture that builds a brand based on the quality of writing.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
Andysnat:
Except that they've now lost a dozen writers include Brian Switek, David Dobbs and Rebecca Skloot, three of the most prominent science writers on the web. That's a big, big fuck up.
But the story has a much broader importance as an example of the growing pains of online communities looking for new business models, as an insight into the role of community in writing, and as a case study of how companies can screw up social media engagement. Episodes like these are key to the future development of online media.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
Anyone else getting queasy reading this kind of PR-pseudo-language? Despicable.
So what's gonna happens to those refugees? I count on you to get them over to our little blogging community, Martin ;)
History only repeats itself if one doesn't listen the first time.
Um.... this is a cop out "...Pepsi - the company behind obesity and tooth decay -"
I think people are responsible for obesity and tooth decay. Should we also blame couch companies for making such comfortable couches that people want to sit on their ass all day? And what about X-Box. God damn x-box keeps kids playing at home instead of getting exercise. And then we should also blame 24 hr Fitness for making people have to pay to come and exercise. Maybe they are responsible for people being fat.
Oh- and if you don't know enough to brush your teeth, then the pepsi you drink at lunch isn't the only thing that will give you tooth decay.
If you blame someone or something else for your problems in life, then yeah, you won't be able to change anything.
Next "They attracted the best science bloggers from the US and increasingly around the world"
Give me a break. Best in the world is stretching it a bit. Half of the blogs are one paragraph long or an embedded video. Lame.
Next "The latest insult for Switek was that the bloggers who helped build the site weren't consulted on such a fundamental change in direction."
The owners of scienceblogs do not need your fucking permission for anything people. Who do you think you are? Do you pay the web designers, the graphic artists, the hosting service and all the rest of the bills involved with running a business? Do you pay the corporation fees and taxes and the accountant who has to do your corporate tax return? All you do is post an article- and sometimes it can't even be called that. You are given a space- a free space- to be creative and to write. That's it. I don't know where everyone gets off thinking their permission is needed or they are owed anything. You are not even employees. You just have a venue to write that gets you a whole lot of views. That's it. And great writers are everywhere. Don't think you are irreplaceable. NO ONE is irreplaceable.
And the fact is, that many of those "jewel writers" were planning on leaving anyway. Some of them even admitted it. There is no way on this planet that a person can have a webpage of the quality of Skloots done in a couple days after bailing. No way. Just saying. If you believe it then you've never built a webpage. She had that baby finished long before she left.
Last "They produce their own science blog so good that other science bloggers love it, and they manage to get a place on merit."
We never got the chance to know if the blog would be this good. It just may have been this good. Too bad the SB writers used their collective power to censor the voice of another group of scientists and prevent the freedom of speech. They should be ashamed of themselves.
What kind of journalist would judge a piece of writing before it is written? Oh yeah, they're not journalist.
One more point, networking is key in science and with Pepsi R&D writing the articles, it would have been a perfect opportunity to get to make new contacts and friends and maybe even discuss jobs with pepsi...in marketing, science writing, PR, and maybe even R&D- or to get grants from Pepsi for nutrition research projects.
It is a lost opporutnity on many levels.
I think they will earn money in other less obnoxious and helpful ways or methods.
It will not be that much work, for ex: If they put monthly printed publication of all the blogs on there and sell them for a couple of quid.
A bit of editing to make it suitable for offline publication (removing "click here!" etc), printing it and distributing it should be a piece of piss for a company that already puts out a bimonthly magazine - Michael
"I don't know where everyone gets off thinking their permission is needed or they are owed anything. You are not even employees. You just have a venue to write that gets you a whole lot of views. That's it. And great writers are everywhere. Don't think you are irreplaceable. NO ONE is irreplaceable."
Well, if ScienceBlogs has every right to irritate their existing bloggers foul up their own brand, then the bloggers also have every right to complain loudly about their treatment, if not on ScienceBlogs, then elsewhere. And ask yourself: is ScienceBlogs really that irreplaceable? There are already tons of free blog hosts out there: WordPress, LiveJournal, Blogger, Typepad, you name it.
"Too bad the SB writers used their collective power to censor the voice of another group of scientists and prevent the freedom of speech."
You said it yourself: bloggers have no intrinsic right to be on ScienceBlogs. And bloggers, of course, include PepsiBlog.
So do existing ScienceBlogs bloggers somehow have less rights than PepsiBlog? Why are existing bloggers supposed to be treated like dirt, and yet PepsiBlog is supposed to be able to say whatever it wants on ScienceBlogs in the name "freedom of speech"? Why the double standards?
-- frank, Decoding SwiftHack