© olly
Ahh … sponsored posts. A bit of a dirty word in the blogosphere if you ask me. There’s quite a divide between bloggers who are okay with sponsored content and bloggers who aren’t. Either way, there’s no denying that brands are reaching out to bloggers more and more these days to reach their audience. One of the best ways to ensure guaranteed exclusive mention of said brands are via sponsored content.
I’ve seen debates in the comments on a number of blogs for the past year or so where the comments from readers were not so savoury of the blogger’s post. These were often articles on products that were sent to the bloggers for review and while the bloggers did receive the items for free, they were not paid to write the posts. Consensus of comments was that the bloggers should have disclosed that those were sponsored posts because the products were high in value, therefore the posts should be disclosed as advertorials. I even remembered a particular blogger who went through it and she had a tough time explaining to her readers.
The question is, what is considered a sponsored post and what isn’t?
If the blogger did not receive any cash remuneration for the post, it is not considered a sponsored post. This is something a number of people fail to grasp. A blog post cannot be considered a sponsored one if the blogger did not receive any compensation in cash terms for it. Regardless of how expensive the product sent for review is, if the blogger was not paid to write the post on that product, it’s not a sponsored post.
I read this often: “These items are very expensive! They have value to them, therefore the blogger who wrote about them should disclose that the post is sponsored because he/she was given such an expensive item”. It’s true that the products do have value in them but said value only exists if those products were exchanged for cash. Unless those items were sold and the blogger receives payment for those products to make any future payments, those items cannot be used to, say, pay the rent. For example, very expensive skincare like SKII cannot be used to pay the utility bills. Expensive gadgets that were sent for review cannot be used to pay the mortgage. Unless the barter system still exists, of course.
“But if the blogger sells the products, he/she gets the cash!”
This is a huge no-no. Bloggers can pretty much say goodbye to their reputation if they’re caught selling press samples. This is not to say it doesn’t happen. It does and several bloggers have been blacklisted by brands when they were caught selling press samples (I heard this on the PR grapevine). Believe me, word spreads around so if you’re thinking of selling press samples, don’t.
Bottom line is, if the blogger’s not paid in cold hard cash to write a blog post, then it’s not considered a sponsored one. It doesn’t matter if the products they received were very costly; at the end of the day, if the blogger was provided those expensive products AND given a cash payment to write a post on those products, then yes, that post is considered a sponsored one. If the blogger was provided those expensive products but didn’t receive remuneration for it, then technically the post is not considered a sponsored one.
I hope this sheds some light on what is considered a sponsored post and what isn’t. I’m not trying to be snarky on those who think that bloggers who receive expensive products to review should disclose their posts as sponsored ones when technically, they aren’t actually sponsored to do so. It’s unfair to force bloggers who don’t receive any payment for their blog posts to disclose that the post was paid for when it wasn’t.
If only SKII could be used to pay the rent, eh? 🙂
I’m with you on this, Tine. If I receive a product for consideration, I label it either “Promotional Product” or “Press Sample” (though I have a hard time considering myself “press”). If someone pays me and no one ever has, I would label it Sponsored Post. If a client wants me to use their links to go along with the review and I get nothing out of it, I label those separately as Sponsored Links. In the US, we have to disclose. Do you?
Allisonl recently posted..Revlon Photoready Eye Art: Ready for Holiday Parties!
By law, we’re not required to disclose but personally, I believe it’s a must. In fact, I wish we had a law here that states that all bloggers must disclose on press samples and sponsored content. A lot of bloggers here get away with it, especially the big ones. It’s very frustrating. Here we are telling struggling bloggers to disclose left, right and centre and yet it’s the big bloggers who keep getting bigger but don’t even disclose.
Al, I think you shouldn’t label links that are unpaid for Sponsored Links. Technically, you received no payment out of it. If for any reason Google starts to get antsy about websites that mention “sponsored” anything (who knows, they change their mind about everything every second!), I wouldn’t want you to be slapped with a penalty especially when you didn’t even receive any remuneration for those links. Just a thought. 🙂
Thanks, Tine, for your quick reply and clarification on labeling. What should I call the links that a client has asked me to include that go to their site? If I’m not getting any affiliate fee, do I have to disclose them at all, and if so, what are they?
Allisonl recently posted..Giveaway & Holiday Gift Idea: High-Quality, Affordable ShaveMob Razor & Cartridges
This could just be me, of course, but if I get bupkis out of it, it’s up to me to include whatever link I want with a review, whether it’s an affiliate link or not. If it’s an affiliate link, I will disclose it as such. However, if it’s just a link to the product on the website, it’s not necessary to label it anything. Those links are considered organic as you’re linking to the product. I wouldn’t call it a sponsored link because I’m not paid for it at all.
If I received the product for review, I review it and again, it’s up to me whatever link I want to use (unless specified by the PR/brand). I can use an affiliate link and if I can’t find one, I’ll just link to the product on their website. As I’m already disclosing that the product was given to me for review, I don’t have to say anything about the link (again, unless it’s an affiliate one, which means I’ll also add to the disclosure).
I don’t know the extend of FTC rules in the US so how I do it may not be how you do it or how you’re supposed to do it. It’s difficult when different countries have different rules. 🙂
Thanks again, Tine. I just went into my posts, and changed out those Sponsored Links since you are correct, they are not sponsored. And I didn’t mention the links at all.
No worries, Al. 🙂 x
Excellent article, Tine! It’s really important for people to understand the differences and I think your post has put it very clearly.
lyn recently posted..Aveda Light Elements Defining Whip
Thanks Lyn! I guess I’m just tired of bloggers being coerced into disclosing wrongly. 🙂
My biggest pet peeve is those who don’t declare press samples or other gifts you get out of it. While you’re right that Tom Ford lipsticks won’t pay the bills, getting generous samples definitely should be declared to your readers. When I see “Sponsored”, I generally assume it’s a paid review.
I know what you mean Ekta and it irks me too when bloggers don’t declare press samples. I’ve noticed that the bigger the blogger is, the worse the level of disclosure becomes.
Sponsored technically does mean paid content. E.g. some beauty bloggers in the UK were given a whole set of Charlotte Tilbury lipsticks. I’m sure you can imagine how expensive that entire set of lipsticks are. I don’t think those bloggers were paid to talk about those lipsticks (I could be wrong, of course) and I’ve seen a lot of comments from their readers complaining that the bloggers should have disclosed that the post was sponsored because of the value of those lipsticks. I don’t think that’s right if the bloggers weren’t paid for those posts regardless of how expensive that entire set of lipsticks were.
Great post! And yes I agree – no payment as in CASH payment then it’s not SPONSORED. Let’s put it this way, take television for example, when we hear the voice over say, “This programme was brought to you by…” that means the brand PAID for that. It does not mean the station was given products by that brand. So why when it comes to blogging some people expect us to disclose products given as SPONSORSHIP???? I catch no ball. If products were given then a disclosure saying it was would suffice. Same goes with affiliate links. If one was PAID to write the post then it’s considered SPONSORED. I’m so over people who keep on saying, “Oh but it’s expensive and because you were given it, that means you don’t have to fork out money to pay for it”. Hello… you can’t feed your family, pay bills – or get taxed (?) from the gifts you receive.
Norlin recently posted..Beauty, Skincare & Fragrance Gift Guide
My point exactly. With the issue of lack-of-disclosure circulating the blogosphere, bloggers are now what I’d call over-disclosing for the reasons of “just in case”. The problem with saying that a post is sponsored when in fact it’s not can hurt bloggers. Google gets antsy with the amount of “sponsored” tags in websites. Can you imagine being slapped with a penalty from Google , stripping you of your page rank and visitors, just because it thinks that your blog is being sponsored left, right and centre but in fact, you didn’t receive any $ from brands but still used the term “sponsored” … just in case? What a waste!
It’s disheartening to see bloggers being coerced into disclosing something that’s not a fact. Products are not payment. No matter how expensive the products are, they have no value unless sold. Oh and don’t get me started on the tax man about this!
Hey Tine. So true. Never did I personally face this problem but then people do doubt whether the review was honest.
Btw, what do you think about product reviews without being paid to do them?Should bloggers ask for compensation for reviewing the products? Because ultimately it’s a service they are doing and it is promoting the product unless it is thrashing it.
Take paid reviews with a pinch of salt. There’s a reason why magazines and print media doesn’t do paid reviews (mentioning products, yes, all the time but detailed reviews on a specific item? You won’t see that), and it’s because it’s very difficult to remain unbiased when it comes to a paid review. Advertorials that don’t go into detail on a specific product but added into a story are different. To be honest, I’m wary of taking on paid review opportunities because it’s always difficult to remain objective (which is why to date, I’ve only done two).
In terms of asking for compensation for reviewing products, this one’s difficult to say. Most PRs won’t have the budget for paid reviews but they’ll be more than happy to send you products. I’d say do it at your discretion. I usually say that “there’s no guarantee that the product may end up mentioned or even reviewed on the blog. However, if you’d like guaranteed and exclusive mention of the product, then it will be a sponsored post.”
I’ve never been paid to review anything ever haha but that being said I am always careful to say if something was sent for review.
Items sent for review should be disclosed as such. Easy peasy. Funny enough, with the lack-of-disclosure going around the major blogs, the smaller bloggers are, in my opinion, “over-disclosing” these days, which really isn’t necessary. 🙂
I agree with your definition of “sponsored” – something written in exchange for monetary compensation counts as a sponsored post. I do think that bloggers should always disclose free products/press samples as such though – I don’t really understand why people don’t, honestly. I feel like the majority of readers don’t care if you got something for free, and they’re more likely to trust you if you’re honest about it!
Rebecca B. Bird recently posted..Stocking Stuffer Giveaway Alert! Win an Old Factory Candles gift set
Oh absolutely no doubt about it; press samples and free products should be disclosed as such. Yeah I agree; at this day and age, majority of readers understand that most bloggers do get sent products to review and they’re all right with it as long as you disclose the fact.
Beats the heck out of me why some bloggers don’t disclose though. I often wonder if it’s because the brands they worked with told them not to? Or perhaps it looks “ugly” on their website? The one that shits me the most is that they think that they’re above other blogs, that they’re digital magazine editors or something which sets them apart from run of the mill bloggers like us, which they perhaps might think that they’re on par with magazines (which don’t disclose anyway). I’m rambling out loud of course. Could be false but really, with the lack of disclosure, who knows what’s what any more.
I think that for me to make a clear judgment of whether the product truly will be good for me or not, I need the blogger to disclose that he/she has been sent the items.
I also feel more comfortable that way. I like it when the you tuber say straightaway that the items were sent. For me, it gives much more credibility, as I will then recalibrate my judgment accordingly. I don’t need the you tuber/blogger to shift their stance, be particularly demanding/critical. They can rave all they want, but on my side, I know that I have to shift my own yardstick to accommodate for the bias in the review.
I say this objectively, not personal, and would like to make with reference to Rolf Dobelli, author of The Art of Thinking Clearly. He has made reference to many reliable studies in the book.
Studies have shown that there is no such thing as a fair and objective judgment/review if the product had been “paid for” in some way or OTHER. For example, if you were invited to a bloggers’ tea party, and all the food and drinks were paid for, it WILL affect your review, whether you like it or not. It is in-built. Human beings cannot prevent themselves from being biased in such situations, and so there is no one to blame.
Even if you have paid for the tea party, your judgment will still be affected if you were given vouchers of equivalent value that you eventually used to exchange for items. Judgment will still be affected even if the vouchers do not have enough value, and you needed to top up to get a certain item, because then you would bought the item at a much lower price than the readers will.
I hope that sheds some light on the matter. My two-cents.
PS: “You” not referring to “you” specifically.
Jyoan recently posted..Bebe Poshe Sexy Brow Shaper
Great comment, Jyoan! There’s no doubt about it; disclosure on items received for review should be disclosed. Hands down. YouTubers like Emily Noel (Beauty Broadcast), while may not be as massive as some of the really big British YouTubers, has an incredible influence on her audience and people trust her words explicitly because she always discloses at the beginning of videos when she’s reviewing an item that was sent to her. The disclosure doesn’t just appear in the description.
I agree; there’s no such thing as a purely objective judgment if the product has been “paid for” in some way. I’ve definitely been swayed and I’m sure I’m not the only one.
As for the definition of sponsored, I won’t argue with that. I guess your point is really more that bloggers should be more media literate and not put themselves down when they don’t need to. And readers can also be less demanding, critical, and judgmental, and not ask for things that violates other people’s rights.
Actually, all the bloggers need to do is say it in one line, right at the beginning. That’s it. No need to go back and forth to repeat, or put any banner, whatsoever. A simple, “these items were sent to me” period. That way, the onus is on the reader to practice some media literacy.
Another good add-on. Yep, my point exactly. It stemmed from reading a number of blogs where the readers were not happy with the bloggers because even though she clearly mentioned the item was sent to her at the beginning of the review, readers argued that she should have also mentioned that the post was sponsored even though she wasn’t, purely because the items were expensive.