Send this issue of The Lowbrow Lowdown to a friend!

12.17.04
And Now A Blog from Our Sponsors
-- OR --
Blogging for Dollars
The growing pervasiveness of manufactured word-of-mouth marketing finally hit the radar screen of The New York Times Sunday Magazine editorial staff recently. This only reaffirms a prognostication I presented over three years ago in my Sales Pitch Society screed: in the coming years, more and more marketers will use this covert form of co-opting our words, and as a result, human relationships will become corrupted.

Chances are it'll take another three years for The Times and its media apostles to catch on to the so-called blogosphere's contribution to personal communication corrosion through advertiser-inspired word-of-mouth.

The personal honesty of blog content and its organic blogger-to-reader promotional aspects piqued advertiser interest about two years ago. It didn't take long before ads on blogs became a typical sight. Then came the blog-for-hire type outfits which began creating blogs on behalf of companies and brands. And let's not forget the ad agencies dedicated to exploiting the blog brigade as a promotional vehicle. To anyone who follows the evolution of media, none of this should have come as a surprise.

Here's a shocker: now advertisers have started on the path towards destroying the very genuine quality of the blog medium that drew them to it in the first place.

Yep. Corporate-constructed word-of-mouth, a.k.a. viral marketing, has hit the once righteously unadulterated blog sermon. As reported in an 11/24 Internet News story , "a squad of around 15 independent bloggers will begin inserting mentions of Marqui's hosted communications management services into their blogs for money." The chosen few seem to be folks who focus on IT issues in their blogs, including RatcliffeBlog and Read/Write Web. They all appear to feature prominent images that read, "I get paid to talk about Marqui." After perusing the Marqui site, I hope their blog posts are less laden with indecipherable sales-speak than Marqui's site copy.

According to the story, the blog branders each get $800 a month to link to Marqui once a week, plus 50 smackers for every qualified sales lead they drive to the communications software outfit. Evidently, they've been told they can post negative comments about the company and its products, without danger of losing their gigs. Suckers!

In the blog posts alluding to the deal, some liken it to product placement. Stowe Boyd of the science- and tech-centric blog, Corante, writes that in TV or movies, "when Matt Damon is swilling down a Hieneken [sic], you always wonder if it is being paid for, or is it just random….Now, when you are reading some shill blogger of the future, will you have to read the dozens of potentially complex and conflicting provisos and disclosures in order to determine whether the blogger is saying something for cash or not?"

The Sales Pitch Society virus is mutating. This time it's spawned a blog doppelganger. Sure, the "I get paid to talk up some company I'd probably never write about otherwise" disclaimer may be comforting to those Pollyannas who still cling to the delusion that blogs are the only true form of media with integrity we have left in this biased Fox News world. But if you believe that all bloggers who get compensation for writing about a company, brand or product will be forthcoming about it, I'd be willing to bet you also paid to name a star after somebody this Christmas.

In the Internet News piece, Marqui CEO Stephen King comments with blood-curdling bluntness, "We hit on the idea of [connecting with] heavily read, influential bloggers who create public discussion groups and get feedback…. But there are no mechanisms for them to make money. So we came up with idea [sic] of paying them." If that's not a clear indication of the firm's viral marketing intent, call me Carrie and prick me with a corsage.

Well, at least the Marqui minions are getting paid, which to me is a more respectable explanation than the ones given by the misguided schmucks featured in the aforementioned 12/5 New York Times Magazine article. According to the author, those interviewed who tout products to their friends and acquaintances do so not for the cash or rewards offered to them, but for the empowering feeling of being an insider -- and perhaps most pathetic -- the feeling of belonging. Yech.

It's almost as if being a part of this dubiously elite group of brand insiders is the draw, as opposed to membership being a means to another end. Just think: rather than buying products in order to be accepted by other shallow materialists, some sheeple seem to crave acceptance from the companies and products themselves!

In fact, one wonders whether some of those participating in the Marqui program also signed up because the company deemed them special, rather than for the money alone. The Internet News coverage states, "Participants in the program were personally recruited, with an emphasis on those who might be read by potential customers."

Hey, flattery and recognition can easily go to one's head. In the case of the Marqui bloggers, it's too bad a little conscience couldn't have crept in, too.



Watch HOTT Reportr Lose her JOBB!
-- OR --
Vast Spamming Conspiracy
At this point, stories about the ubiquity of spam are becoming as annoying as their subject. And while any unwelcome ad, be it in the form of relentless charity group telemarketer or obnoxious Old Navy t-shirt logo, is annoying, it's probably best just to blow it off. There's no doubt Rachel Buchman wishes she had.

But no - rather than letting the ol' spam strike slide, Buchman let it get the best of her. Although she seems to resent all spam senders, it wasn't the penis plumping promises or unexpected porn that drove Buchman over the edge. As inferred from her story in the December 8-14 edition of Philadelphia Weekly, it was the insinuation that she is (gulp!) a conservative. Yes, the Philadelphia-based public radio reporter had fallen prey to Laptoplobbyist.com, a right-wing Web community site that sends faxes to political officials on behalf of members for a fee.

She never had previous contact with the fetus-huggers, and it appears she didn't want to be connected with its vast conspiracy. So, displaying a remarkable lack of Web savvy for a reporter, she "tried to unsubscribe from Laptoplobbyist.com's e-newsletter list." Of course it didn't work; more likely it alerted the firm that indeed her email address was a working one that someone actually checked from time to time. "Eventually," she writes in her account of the harrowing experience, "I felt forced to contact them directly."

Not surprisingly, an answering machine picked up, and in yet another incomprehensible display of naďveté, she actually left her name and phone number! Strike three: Buchman absentmindedly rattled off her office number instead of her personal number, easily revealing her place of business and profession. Doh.

Oh, and did I mention she gave Laptoplobbyist.com a hint as to why she had called? Her message tickled the Laptoppers so much, they made it available in mp3 format on their site! In deceptively dulcet tones, Buchman comments, "Hi my name is Rachel….I wanted to tell you that you're evil, horrible people. You're awful people, you represent horrible ideas, God hates you and he wants to kill your children. You should all burn in hell. Bye."

Wait just a minute now. Since when do public radio reporters believe in God?

"It was a terrible message," explains Buchman in her piece. "I apologize to anyone I offended." She continues, "I didn't mean it seriously….Laptoplobbyist.com claims Armageddon is imminent because the Supreme Court has ordered religious symbols out of the nation's courthouses. I was invoking the very hyperbole I associate with the radical right ... of God and hell."

Well, somebody's wrath was upon her in no time, because it didn't take long before Laptoplobbyist.com's campaign to get her canned became a success.

Denying her obvious complicity, Buchman concludes, "This was a personal issue. Laptoplobbyist.com made it public." Either way, the fact remains that she lost her job because she flipped out over a few easily-deletable email messages.

Well, it's a good thing I forwarded Buchman that email I just got from ChillTheF-Out.com advertising "BST Deals On Kava-Kava And Natral Progesteron For STRESSS RELEEF."



Say It Ain't Cell
-- OR --
Luddite's Lament
Hypocrisy is my middle name. I'm a vegetarian who gladly dons leather. I'm a cookie pusher who strives to remain goodie-free for the sake of my aging waistline. And now, I've become an ad skeptic who can't bear the thought of a Manhattan pay phone ad ban.

You see, I'm one of the last cell phone holdouts I know. For one thing, I can't stand cellular interference which I find anathema to clear communication. I hate speaking into those wimpy devices, and I find their ringtones maddening. So, as a cell foe, I rely on pay phones when I'm gallivanting around the city.

Now, as if pay phones weren't already at risk of extinction, my good buddy Bloomberg is more than willing to book their trip to dodoland. According to a 12/13 New York Daily News report, "the city agency that regulates pay phones has recently banned ads on all new kiosks in Manhattan below 96th St."

Hey, to one who regularly rails against the intrusion of ads into all facets of our lives, I should be happy, right? Well, here's where the hypocrisy rears its familiar head. No ads means less value for pay phone franchises which means bye-bye pay phone and hello cello.

As if Mr. Business hasn't already harmed pub proprietors and bodega owners through New York's asinine smoking ban, this latest decision (over which I'm sure Bloomberg held sway) will also strike a blow to small biz. According to the story, $25 million in ad revenue subsidizes operating and city permit costs paid by small telecom operators. In the past five years, the number of pay phone franchisees in the city is down from 100 to 65.

Robert Brill, the attorney representing the pay phone franchisees "believes the ban is another way for the Bloomberg administration to promote more ads on bus stops, public pay-toilets and newsstands." According to the report, bids for city bus shelter and newsstand ads went out in March.

Despite its pernicious qualities, I've never hesitated to admit that advertising provides benefits from time to time, such as enabling free TV, radio, and Web content. In this case, it's also helped provide phones to the public. However, whether or not the Bloomberg administration has an ulterior motive in the ad ban, the fact remains that pay phones are soon becoming a thing of the past.

That's OK. I'm good at cutting my nose to spite my face. And anyway, I guess even though it seems like a futile effort, I can take solace in the fact that there might be a few less ads to encounter. As long as Steve Jobs doesn't become mayor and force me to replace my trusty Walkman with one of his flimsy iPods through a ban on dangerous alkaline battery waste, I guess I'll live.


Send this issue of The Lowbrow Lowdown to a friend!


The Lowbrow Lowdown is available for syndication.

Disclaimer
The The Lowbrow Lowdown™ is a registered trademark. Any use of The The Lowbrow Lowdown™ name or content without consent of Kate Kaye is strictly prohibited.

While best efforts were used in collecting and preparing the information contained herein, The Lowbrow Lowdown™ does not assume, and hereby disclaims, any liability for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions resulted from negligence, accident or other causes.