I noticed on Twitter today that several bloggers have been given $500 gift cards by KMart to write about the savings you can earn at KMart by shopping there. They are also giving the bloggers gift cards to give out to readers and subscribers who retweet their post or write a comment describing what they'd buy from KMart for $500. After retweeting their URL's to enter myself into the contest (cause who doesn't want $500 from KMart?!?!?!), I tweeted "With all the people Retweeting Chris Brogan, I'm guessing no one has sees credibility issues with taking compensation? Great! Me neither! ha" to which blogger Chris Brogan replied, "@erob1 - the key there is disclosure. Say it up front. Be clear. Provide info. Done. : )". So I wanted to check and see, was this experiment with social media by KMart "upfront"?
In class in October, we talked about citizen marketers getting compensation for blogging from companies and whether or not it adds to they're credibility, and in this case, I don't think it does add much. I mean every blogger had some form of disclosure or disclaimer stating that they were compensated/sponsored for their post, but where is the connection to what they are blogging about? Shoemoney.com blogger Jeremy Schoemaker wrote a full post about the KMart and Izea campaign, including pics of his shopping trip with quirky comments and all, but what does that have to do with what he posts about, which is normally financial stuff and tech stuff. Also as of the time of this post, Sears Holding Corp., for KMart, had not released a press release about their campaign and I couldn't find anything about it on Izea's site...why not???
I agree that disclosure is important but can you really pick and choose what to disclose and what not to? Doesn't that defeat the whole point of transparency?
I hope this doesn't take me out the contest :-D
I didn't realize that Chris Brogan didn't have a post on his blog because he did it on another blog, Dad-o-matic. But still, where's the KMart backing?