Good thoughts all around. As for your last query, I think the reason why journalists *can’t* while athletes *can* is because the nature of their profession.

Athletes are paid to hit a ball, throw a ball in a hoop, or hit each other. Their integrity is secondary to that (although it shouldn’t be).

Journalists are paid to report on the news, and the implicit message is that what they report on is truthful (if not truthy).

Because journalists need to be truthful, their integrity is paramount. You can’t believe the news if you think the reporter is a faker — because then you start doubting what they’re doing.

Hey — my $0.02. ;)

Cheers
t @ dji

While I agree that “good advertising tends to be targeted, proactive and at least manipulative”, I think perhaps what you also mean is that “traditional” advertising is all of those thigns as well.

Designing strategies for an interactive and social ecosystem is something that Federated Media was trying to do. Sure, give John Batelle and Neil Chase small pats on the back for trying something new if you want (you probably don’t — but you know what I mean ;)

But its a stilted frankenstein of a product nonetheless, being neither a genuine “conversation” or a “real” ad.

Which, I think, is something we can agree on.

I’ve written about the need for media literacy in the past, and I think this kind of misadventure is in part why. Sure, Federated Media’s clumsy ham-fisted attempt at a sponsored conversation is easy to detect (and criticize). I am a little leery of when it gets so sophisticated that I can’t.

(or, the average person can’t)

Cheers
t @ dji

Now here is a clarifying question… the ask.com ads that feature arrington and others – were those paid as well? I was assuming that they picked up some text from a blog post and used that. Or was this paid as well?

This is the line from Mike’s inital comments that worries me: “generally FM suggests some language and we approve or tweak it to make it less lame.”

Had Mike said, “These are my thoughts…” I would be more comfortable. Of course, this happens on tv everyday. Do you think that Sally Field really wants to say every word about Boniva? Do you think Jeff Gordon drinks Pepsi because its just plain better than Coke?

Part of this leads me back to Suze Orman, the supposed financial guru. I won’t go into why she is or isnt a guru but a marketing machine with Digg-like fanboys/girls. But about 4 yrs ago, she signed on to do a deal with GM for their cars and loans. Within weeks the backlash started. You are supposed to be non-biased and now you are pushing one car or loan over another came the cries. The ads seemed to stop pretty quickly.

I also struggle with why a journalist should be so limited in their ability to generate revenue while an actor or sports star can sign to the highest bidder without thinking twice. Believe me, Air Jordans would have been Reebok’s had they provided more money.

I think that there’s a huge difference between what Leo did and what’s going on with Federated Media. I left a comment on your own blog over here:
http://scobleizer.com/2007/06/23/why-can-leo-laporte-and-disney-do-it-but-mike-arrington-and-techcrunch-cant/#comment-662128

But, to sum up those opinions:

1. Leo shouldn’t be treated any differently.
2. On traditional media, there is an expectation that celebrities of all types shill to some degree — “its no big deal”, compared to the blogosphere where standards are different. It probably has to do something with how blogs and bloggers are received, that is, with more credibility.
3. The product that Leo is sponsoring or shilling for is pretty inocuous and isn’t incongruent to what Leo talks about week to week. If it was, then you’d have a problem. And that problem is what’s going on with Conversational Marketing and Federated Media.

Namely that the “conversation” is lame and forced, and when you have the incongruency — it makes everyone question your integrity, your products integrity and pretty much everything else.

Cheers
t @ dji