I’ve decided to close this post to comments. It wasn’t my intention to create a forum where people could pick on Katie, especially since I asked at the beginning whether I was picking on her in my previous post. Bigger (food) bloggers hawk products too, so let’s keep that in perspective.

Thanks to everyone who participated, even if it got a little hostile at times. It was a good discussion, but it turned into a runaway train, and I regret that.

So. Yes, I think you were a bit harsh on Kate. Yes, I think it’s a valid issue as a JOURNALIST who happens to be well known and writing a blog to be concerned about freebies and endorsements. At least you are taking it on the chin and being honest about your toe in the blog world pool being stomped (not smashed) on. Obviously it’s a big issue. I mean, 15 years ago (and I’m being very generous with time), you had to be an established and published writer in the print media to have anyone ask you to endorse anything. If you got a freebie, it was some survey group willing to pay you to try their product, and you just HOPED you’d get on that list. What person (dare I say Mommy?) didn’t want a free box of ____?

A little perspective please, folks. From a distance of using the computer for live interaction since before there WAS anything called the internet, or any www. anything, I find it rather shortsighted to deal so arrogantly (not you, Dianne, but many many of your responders) with this woman who really wasn’t the dog in this fight except by happenstance. And for someone to say she should be glad because it got her a lot of hits…wow! What’s the motive behind YOUR blog? Maybe you can get called out too…

A little history could go a long way here.

Jamie, good point about getting compensated, although getting a free pitcher certainly isn’t worth much.

Jeanne, yes, advertising may be distasteful, but it’s everywhere these days: ads, infomercials, faux newsletters (I have one) product placement, blogger giveaways, movie product placement, Twitter promo, etc. Re giveaways feeling wrong, I don’t know that they are. They’re fun and people love them. I did one myself on this site, for the Food Blogger Camp coming up in January.

David, thanks for weighing in with the voice of sanity. Content is definitely king, but many big food bloggers also do giveaways. You and I did, with the Ixtapa trip. Are we culpable? I don’t think what we wrote was advertorial, but we did promote it.

Cheryl, I have had these thoughts also, and wonder what the poor woman thinks when reading these comments, some of which are vitriolic. (Katie, if you’re reading this, it’s mostly a larger discussion about how bloggers operate on the subject of giveaways. You’re a good writer and your blog is just fine. I hope you don’t regret contacting me.)

Paris Breakfasts, yes, the purifier is satisfactory, thanks. I think Kathy below had some problems with it, if you’re curious.

Celeste, good points too. The media certainly isn’t perfect. I don’t think it’s about a code, though. Writers for newspapers and magazines can’t write super-promotional copy and expect an editor to print it. That’s just common sense.

How many freelancers/bloggers abide by the code of the Association of Food Journalists? Hell, I know working reporters in daily newspapers who don’t adhere to the AFJ’s code (see it here at http://www.afjonline.com/afj.aspx?pgID=874)

But my larger point is this — why does anyone care what Katie does on her blog? It’s *her* blog. Leave the poor woman alone. Blogging is the only media form that’s nonhierarchical — you don’t need an all-powerful editor handing down assignments, telling you to re-write 10 million times, telling you what is, and isn’t, “appropriate.” Each person should be free to do what s/he wants. If she wants to shill for a free water purifier, let her. Who cares? No reason to embarrass/criticize/demonize this poor woman. She has her standards, you have yours, I have mine… why isn’t that okay? A newspaper has an editorial voice/mission/philosophy and crafts its own standards. Each blogger should be able to follow his/her own standards as well.

The most successful food bloggers that I know (I’m not really familiar with other niches, like the mommy blogs) are people who build readership by providing good content. By success, I mean, they have a lot of readers and make some income from their blogs. But none of them, I believe, started out with that intent and you’d be hard-pressed to find advertorials on their sites. Almost all the content is food writing, photography, and recipes of high-quality. And they get helluva monster traffic.

In the short term, I guess, one can get some freebies here and there. And perhaps make some money. But content is always going to bring people back and generate repeat traffic and visits. I wouldn’t go back to visit a site that was full of paid-reviews, and am not sure others would find that compelling content in the long-run. But it’s good that she’s getting Google rankings so someone must be visiting the site and she got a nice water filter, too! (Although I read the review and didn’t buy one, so am not sure how effective these kinds of posts are…)

I think one of the reasons why this type of behavior feels wrong to me is that we have a society-wide distaste for advertising. Ask most people, and I’ll bet they would say they would prefer not to see advertising anywhere. Part of this is that advertising is boring and gets in the way of the thing you’ve actually come for–whether it’s a TV show, a magazine article, or a web site. Another part of this is that many advertisers go to great lengths to try to hide the fact that their advertisement is actually an advertisement. For example, pages in a magazine that look just like the magazine content (with a tiny disclaimer at the top that says “advertisement”); or infomercials. This type of advertising feels inherently wrong. Like the advertiser is trying to “put one over on you”–which they are. And no one likes to be duped.

So, when you get people who spend a good part of their time advertising on purpose (i.e., giving good reviews to products they got in return for the good review), in the content section of their blog, it feels icky. Like an infomercial. It feels at the best, distasteful, and at the worst, dishonest.

I don’t think Katie’s (or any other blogger’s) disclaimer is helpful in this instance. It still “feels” wrong. And I have found that in my life and work, if something “feels” wrong, it is wrong. Regardless of whether or not I can articulate it. And that’s what many of us are struggling with.

By the way, I also hate the term “mommy-blogger”. It’s derogatory and somewhat misogynistic. Why not just “blogger”? Qualifying it with “mommy” seems to put it into a realm that’s not quite worthy. But, that’s a whole different discussion.

In most arenas, you’re considered a professional once you start getting compensated. Blogging isn’t any different, whether it be monetary or product compensation. In the Katie example, I think advertorial is the better description of her review. But she goes beyond being “just a teacher” when she starts running advertorials and listing herself as a product reviewer. That’s when professional standards apply.

I do understand and agree with some of your points about the reviews and giveaways, I just don’t agree that there is a “standard” that is generally accepted by all.

I guess, then, I don’t agree that bloggers are journalists (or interchangeable), even by definition, and yes, I do remember that earlier post. I think most people who go into blogging have entirely different reasons, and acting as a journalist is not necessarily one of them.

I haven’t read Gold though you mentioned him the other day, and agree that good reviews are well rounded with all the things you suggest. I don’t disagree there.

At any rate-yes Julie Powell may have had a degree in writing, but that doesn’t make her a food writer. In that way, it also gave her the freedom to pursue writing about food in the way that she saw fit, and outside the typical realm of food writing.