Product Outreach Among "Influentials"

Karl Long has tagged myself and a few others with the following question:

"If you're a blogger and you got an Nseries “multimedia computer” in the mail what would you do with it? How would you feel about it? Obligated? Bribed? Important? Valued?"

I'm going to answer this question as honestly as I can:

First off, I would disclose that I know Karl who happens to work at Nokia—we've  been in touch  over the past year.

So now let's go through Karl's question in more depth:

Obligated?
Yes, I would feel obligated to write about using the device simply because I've been given something of value.  I think that's the least thing I could do.  However, I would not feel obliged to say positive things unless they were true.  I would express honest opinions because that's worth more to me than any gadget.  Also, since I'm not a professional reviewer and this is not Consumer Reports, I would probably talk about what I know and avoid things I don't know enough about.  I know a thing or two about product and user interface design, so if anyone were to send me a tech gadget, this is what I would talk about most.

Bribed?
No, I would not feel bribed unless there was some condition that came along with it that implied that I had to say only nice things.  That's how bribes work.  You don't pay someone unless you know for sure that they will do what you want.  If I'm sent a product, there is no guarantee that I might not critique it.

Important?
I'm going to be very honest here.  Yes, absolutely it would make me feel important.  I am after all only human and sometimes having a blog with steady readership goes straight to my big head.  The good news is that it doesn't stay there too long because I've lived long enough to know that although I enjoy this—there are much more precious and important things in life.  But yes, I think receiving something of value would make me feel special.

Valued?
No , I would not feel valued.  If I were sent a product from a large company—I know it's all business and not because I'm being sent something because the company "likes" me.  That said, I have received some very thoughtful items recently including A Whole New Mind which was sent to me from Kevin and a signed copy of Mavericks at Work which Valeria sent my way.  I felt really valued when Tom sent me his book Sandbox Wisdom because it was like he was talking to me through it.  I felt valued because in all cases they read this blog and knew I would appreciate the books.  This is different than getting a freebie from a company.

Lastly I would add this for any company with a formal seeding program.  I for one would be happy to accept an item with full disclosures, but I would ask you to ask yourself if this is the right forum or not.  If it were Nokia to use Karl's example—I would say yes because they are a design-driven organization who's products deliver a user experience.  This is something I talk about here.

OK Karl, all that said you can now have Nokia send me an Internet tablet since I'm probably not buying an iPhone and wouldn't mind moblogging on something other than my Sidekick.   :)

Comments

[Graham Hill]

David

I wonder how much of this is due to the novelty of getting stuff for free and to the delight you evidently feel at being important enough to warrant this attention from others.

I suspect that the novelty affects are likely to quickly wear off, if the flow of free stuff grows.

As for not feeling bribed, your suggestion does seem to fly in the face of what we know about the psychology of influence. Psychologists like Robert Cialdini (http://www.influenceatwork.com/present.html) have shown clearly how giving creates a sub-conscious desire to reciprocate. Unless of course you feel that you are being purposefully bribed; which evidently you do not.

Enjoy your Nokia. And do tell us what you think.

Graham Hill

[gianandrea]

the transparency in Karl's approach is a great way to perform correctly operations. we all have seen lately bad executions of similar operations. but Karl is clearly a guy into the blogosphere, talking the language of the bloggers.

[DA]

Just to clarify, Nokia has not contacted me about getting anything. I am using a hypothetical scenerio to answer Karl's question. And clearly Karl is using his blog to help get insights on this subject matter.

That said, Graham—you bring up a very valid point about sub-conscious feelings and emotions that come up in this kind of situation.

But without over-analyzing this, I'll use a simple analogy. I'm in a committed relationship (married), but this doesn't mean that I'm immune to "impulses" if you catch my drift. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.

However, I make conscious decisions not to act on those "impulses"

So in short, feeling like you are obligated to say nice things about the person/company who gives you something might indeed be an impulse. But we have to make conscious decisions not to act upon it. Integrity rules.

Last thought. We're just people who use personal publishing platforms to express ourselves. Ethics are important. Honesty is the best policy—but to quote a co-worker "it's not like we're saving lives".

[Lewis Green]

Dave,

This is tricky. Your honesty is to be praised.

For me, I'm not sure I (or the gift giver) could overcome the quid pro quo that goes unspoken but is most often expected.

Perhaps it's my journalism background, but I don't accept gifts from anyone I might write about.

It is a dangerous game and can negatively affect credibility, no matter how honest we are or what we say.

[DA]

Lewis, that's a very good point! I'm chewing on that thought.

[Jamey]

I think the psychological aspect of the gift and feedback is interesting. You have to consciously decide to avoid the impulse to say something nice and choose to be honest in what you report. You have to maintain the overall integrity of your product (blog).

I also think it creates an interesting opportunity for the giver. Is nokia ready to deal with the results if the product is reviewed and consider junk or impractical? Will they use that feedback to improve the product or ignore the information because you may not be considered a tech expert.

I think if there is transparency in the presentation and the feedback, negative or positive, is utilized to improve the end product, then there is value in engaging the consumer.

[Karl Long]

Great conversation everyone, I certainly do agree with Graham's comment that "influence" is almost impossible to avoid in a scenario like this. I know I've been sent some t-shirts in the mail as I blog about t-shirts, and when I get an awful design I feel a little guilty for not posting about it, and wonder if I should send it back.

Mind you with many of these blogger relations programs clear communication goes along with the product asking for honest opinions. That communication framework that surrounds the product is pretty critical.

Some of the comments about identifying the right bloggers, relevant bloggers etc. made me think of the http://www.fiskateers.com/ "brand ambassador" program that Brains On Fire did for the Fiskar brand. What if we went beyond a distribution of products for "review" if we did it in the overt name of creating brand ambassadors?

[DA]

Thanks Karl,

The "brand ambassador" idea seems like a really interesting way to look at this.

[Roger von Oech]

Interesting discussion. Where does one make a stand?

In the past, I've done seminars for cigarette and beer companies (although I'm very anti-smoking). I figured the products were legal.

Several years ago, I was contacted about doing a creativity session for a company that makes sexual aids (dildos, vibrators, gels, etc.) and also distributes videos (read pornography). I turned them down not for the sexual appliance side, but for the porn side. Even though the "performers" were consenting and getting paid, I felt that it was demeaning to women (and probably to the men as well), and thus wanted no part of it.

[DA]

OMG, Roger...

Thank you for this comment! It adds a whole other dimension to the discussion. And don't take this the wrong way, but I couldn't help chuckling while reading it. I think it was the "sexual appliance" reference which triggered my funny bone.

But seriously, thanks for sharing. Your experience is so valuable and underscores that ethics in business/life is nothing new.

[Valeria Maltoni]

Roger asks a very important question: "Where does one make a stand?"

I've had this kind of conversation before and my answer is to go back to your personal values and the core that makes you who you are.

I think the trickiest piece is that we do feel valued, at least in that someone values our opinion enough to send something our way. You are correct in saying it's not a friend or someone who puts thought into it... yet what if we could really do that? Match more closely the influential audience with our offering.

For years I was on the receiving end (and grateful for it) of books sent through Fast Company (FC) to the volunteer organizers of readers' network groups. The authors were offering the books and sometimes their time and dime to join our group for a more in-depth conversation on their book.

The books were always interesting and the authors I met were amazingly generous with both time and effort in reaching out. I was looking for good content, they were looking to spread the word: it worked both ways.

More recently I received a note from Random House asking if I were willing to be on their mailing list for future copies of business/communication books. I said I was and received a copy of "Made to Stick", which I was planning to buy anyway.

I don't feel an obligation to say I like the book if I didn't. It just turns out I am already using it.

I've been a brand ambassador for FC for years. Does it mean I don't tell them what I think is not working? Heck, no. I was even invited to give a critique of the magazine at staff meeting a couple of years ago.

Jamey has a great point: if the company takes the feedback and does something valuable with it, it works. And now I've made a post of my own in the comments...

[charles]

Long time reader, first time commenter (I feel like I'm calling a radio show).

In response to the first question from Karl, I think that, for me personally, it would be very difficult to fight the knee-jerk reaction to deliberately find something negative to write about the product in an attempt to maintain some sort of "objectivity" cred in the blogosphere. It would feel almost necessary to have something less than positive to say so as not to get torn apart for "selling out". A positive review for a product that has been gifted to you can be seen as purchased by the gifter no matter the intention of the giftee, especially if the site/blog is not established as a source for objective opinions and reviews. It is such a difficult balance to strike and even if you proclaim your objectivity during a positive review, it can almost become a "me thinks thou dost protest too much" situation for some particularly jaded readers. Ah, this cynical medium in which we live.

I have now completely over thought the situation and have also probably ruined my chances of getting anything to review (not that i was anyway), but does that make sense?

[DA]

"I have now completely over thought the situation and have also probably ruined my chances of getting anything to review"

Charles, this is probably all true, however as a consolation prize you have left a thought provoking comment here. Graham's comment talks about the sub-conscious need to reciprocate—while you talk about the knee jerk reaction to feel like you HAVE to be critical in order to save face.

Very interesting to see the multiple sides of this coin play against each other.

One thing is for sure, it's a fairly grey topic unless we make it black and white by deciding to neve accept (or talk about) anything.

And Charles, thanks for commenting!

[Graham Hill]

David, All

Revisiting Cialdini's book to check my earlier comment confirms what I wrote. We do experience a sub-conscious urge to reciprocate when given a gift, particularly a small one. Evolutionary psychologists believe that this is because of the role that gift-giving played in our evolutionary development as social animals.

That is the basis of the 'Lucky Charm Scam' where traditionally-dressed women (rarely men) thrust a so-called Lucky Charm into your hand and then ask you for a donation in return. The Lucky Charm cost nothing to make and the small change they typically receive in return is more than recompense. Cialdini has a great photo in his book, The Psychology of Influence, of a line of Santas being loaded into a Paddy Wagon for pulling a similar scam during Christmas at a US airport a few years back.

However, the sub-conscious urge to reciprocate can be consciously overridden if you think the gift was given other than out of the goodness of the giver's heart. Nokia did not give you the gift out of kindness. They gave it to you so that you would write about it. You already have done so, albeit, perhaps not in a way that Nokia would expect.

Where individuals draw the line is up to their own personal psychology and morality. I have no doubts about your morality whatsover.

Graham Hill

[Graham Hill]

David

John Dvorak comments on free stuff over at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251753,00.html. It seems that not everyone has the moral backbone that you have. Either that or they have never read Cialdini's book.

Perhaps bloggers should sign-up to the WOMMA Code of Conduct (http://www.womma.org/ethics/code/read/) before lavishing too much praise about the free stuff they receive.

Graham Hill

[Karl Long]

I think honesty and transparency are paramount in any of these endeavors and agree with Dvorak that attempts to manipulate will back fire. We've seen Walmart in several social media debacles, from unedited "talking points" distributed to bloggers sympathetic to the walmart cause, to the Flogs they set up etc. I think any blogger with a reputation to maintain would be very careful to not write a bunch of hyperbole about a product just because it's free, I would expect criticism and feedback if there were problems. As I had noted I think Nikon's campaign with top flickr users was an exemplary campaign and rather than targeting loosely coupled bloggers, they went after a tightly coupled community which I think was very smart. I highly recommend taking a look at Greg's response to my post, he really took the community activation question and ran with it:
http://gregverdino.typepad.com/greg_verdinos_blog/2007/02/karl_long_respo.html