CATEGORIES
- WEB STARTUPS
- CONFERENCES
- WEB JOBS
- MICROSOFT
- INTERVIEWS
- VIDEO
- AMAZON
- ALL TOPICS
CONTRIBUTORS
Follow-up: Federated Media’s Network Show – WebbAlert and Disclosure
Yesterday, I discussed the potential issues of disclosure with FM's new TV show, "Webb Alert." The feedback I have received (mostly on Skype and in email) agrees with me that there is something wrong here. So I thought I would provide some additional information.
First up, is the official reply to my post by FM. Neil Chase provided the following reply (snipped):
Federated Media's relationship with WebbAlert is explained in this morning's posts on the FM Blog and on John Battelle's SearchBlog, and in the press release we issued. We helped Morgan Webb develop the site, using the same technology from Castfire that we had used to help AskANinja. We love helping our authors develop new sites and expand existing ones.
When Morgan came to us with a proposal for a show using blogs as primary sources and asked us to help develop it and sell ads for it, we jumped at the chance. We didn't need a secret plan to get our sites mentioned. Eleven of the 21 tech sites in Technorati's Top 100 are FM authors, so our sites will show up in any tech news roundup.
Our financial arrangement is like the ones we have with all FM authors: We sell the ads, provide all the services related to ad serving, and take a commission.
While I completely understand that FM authors are the "big boys and girls" of the tech sector, I can't imagine that Webb walked into FM's office and said, "I want to link to your blogs more than other blogs." And Neil's link to John Battelle's blog makes my point crystal clear. The post on John's blog contains only the video. Check it out and tell me if you saw the disclaimer about the links contained within the video.
My continued issue with this program is simple: there is no disclosure. If I embed her video on my site, the only way a person would know that its a "family-link-network" show is to:
- first click on the video,
- then scroll way down on the page,
- then click about the links,
- then try to understand her statement. Here is my (sarcastic) take on the statement piece-by-piece:
The blogs listed on my front page are among the blogs that I read daily, and they're all blogs that I strongly endorse and recommend to you. They're not the only blogs that I love and endorse – but they're all among my favorites, and if you haven't already spent time with them, I recommend that you pay them a visit.
The blogs listed are those that are in FM's network. You should visit these using my links because by doing so I help support those sites and then those sites will continually link back to me. Oh yea, and they are the best!
I also have a traffic-sharing relationship with each of these blogs. In other words, we link to each other. The important thing to stress is that there's NO editorial element to these traffic-sharing relationships. In other words, I have made no commitments to cover stories on their blogs, nor have they made commitments to cover what I do. But since these are all blogs that I endorse, respect, and read daily, you'll probably see me talking about stories in them on a fairly regular basis.
I will post links to lots of sites, it will just so happen that those links will mostly be to sites in FM's network.
Mike Arrington from TechCrunch has given Webb two posts in two days. Today he notes, "Some will comment below that I’m only giving the show a thumbs up in the hope for TechCrunch mentions (there was one today for our Amazon/Webvan story, for example). They’re right, but for the wrong reasons." When Mike embeds this video into TC, the FM disclaimer doesn't follow. So to the untrained eye, it looks like Mike found a great piece of content or an awesome story. I believe Mike when he says he thinks the show is awesome. While the content might be great from his point-of-view, he is no-doubt linking to this video show because of what he expects in return. Mike has linked to me a few times, I have linked him as well, that's how the open Web works. Could you imagine if a site like TC was to link only to FM blogs?
Mike went on to say, "bloggers are going to see a mention on the show as a badge of honor and buzz about it." Sure, the FM network will blog about it. Let's be honest here. More links from FM sites = more traffic to Webb. More traffic to Webb = more impressions for FM to sell. More links back to FM sites = more ads to sell on those FM sites. It's a great marketing strategy, I can't fault them there.
So to be fair, let's look at who Webb links to today (similar to what I did yesterday):
- The Sun UK – n/a
- Rate My Teachers – n/a
- WSJ – n/a
- TechDirt – FM
- Ars Technica – FM (both shows)
- Kotaku – Gawker (both shows)
- Insomniac Games – n/a
- Read/Write Web – FM
- TechCrunch – FM
- NewTeeVee – FM (both shows)
- Boing Boing – FM
- O'Reilly – n/a
Today we have 12 total links, of which 6 are FM sites, which is 50%. However, what skews these numbers is that the sites she links to for non-FM are the only ones she could basically link to.
So here are my net concerns with this TV show. There is no real disclosure on either end. Embeds carry no disclaimer and the on-site disclaimer is hidden, wordy and hard-to-read. I would think they would want the best stories reported on the show, not just those that the FM family covers.
From the FM bloggers who link in perspective, should they disclose? This is a bit tougher for me to answer but wouldn't this type of post be considered a paid post in the same vein as Payperpost and ReviewMe? What do you think?
In any event, keep your objectivity Morgan, the Web is a big place, and this will help you build a bigger fan base.
Thanks for stopping by Mike, I appreciate your reply. Let me comment on each piece individually.
Oh, I thought you all had everything worked out.
I agree that if she was smart, she would link to as many sites as possible. Eventually linking to the same set of FM blogs (Neil said there were 11) will get boring for the viewer. But I disagree about nothing to gain.
Let's look forward a year. She is massively big in the tech news video market. Millions of daily viewers. If she links to all FM blogs, you don't think there is something to be gained there? Sure there is. Let's say that JoeTech was a FM blogger and on the "good list" with Webb. She continually links to JoeTech. JoeTech now has an incremental 1 million visitors a month which equates to an additional 2 million page views. Those pageviews are monetized by FM. JoeTech stands to gain and so does FM.
Why isn't it relevant? I know you like the show (see below) but isn't an infomercial (her show) for FM blogs important to note?
Traffic today is minimal, but if the statement she makes on her site about traffic-sharing plans are true, then the traffic won't always be minimal. She clearly says she will send FM blogs traffic and expects the FM blogger to link back to her.
Can you help me understand why you think this is such a great show? She stands there and reads yesterday's news. That's it. Her facial expressions, head bobs and in my apt stance are really a bit much from my perspective. As you note, she is knowledgeable about the industry. You noted yesterday, "and enough technical knowledge to do a fairly deep dive into the subjects she’s discussing." It's a 4 minute show, is there enough time to do a deep dive on anything? Can you give me an example of which story on day1/2 were a deep dive? I don't get why after 2 episodes you want to buy it. I hope you can help me understand what I am obviously not seeing regarding the show itself.
I am not suggesting anything Mike. I am merely presenting facts that seem to indicate that this FM TV show is created for a sole purpose. And the discussion (as I noted) is not really about the FM blogger to the show, it's really about the show to the FM blogger. And I have said that FM is doing innovative things in the space, which is great. They just need to make sure viewers understand what the show is and what it isn't.
Allen,
I think you are forgetting that I am in open warfare with FM and am actively looking for a replacement.
Webbalert will need to link to stories that build her audience. If she does that, the money will come in. There is nothing to be gained by linking only to one set of blogs, for any reason.
FM emailed me before the launch and requested that I mention them in the post. I didn’t mention them because I don’t see how it is relevant. FM sells their ads. Big deal.
I like Webbalert. Hell, I’d like to own Webbalert. And yes I enjoy seeing links to TechCrunch even though the traffic it sends is minimal. I’m doing nothing more than supporting the ecosystem and giving my honest opinion. Please don’t suggest that there is some evil motive.
I agree that FM loves the page view, but none of the authors really give a damn what FM thinks or wants. I want mentions from webbalert becasue I want them. I have nothing to gain by FM’s success. So I just don’t see any logic in your argument. Webbalert has no incentive to link to FM blogs. They have an incentive to link to big blogs, though. Ones that will link back. Occam’s Razor, dude.
Thanks for the clarification on your viewpoint.
I actually need to make a correction…FM did send me an email about this but didn’t ask me to mention FM in my post. The language was slightly confusing and I read it only briefly. But when I re-read it it was clear they were only asking if I could mention webbalert. My bad.
This thread is a brilliant read – do keep it up! Let’s see, where are we… either
1) Morgan Webb, Michael Arrington, Richard MacManus, John Battelle, and Neil Chase (whoever he is) are a deeply coordinated, tight-lipped pack of liars,
or
2) You’re wrong.
Since self-immolation makes for great theatre, I do hope you’ll disgrace yourself further by continuing your efforts to drag so many names through the mud – and please do add more to the list! But your friends would perhaps advise you to direct your zeal toward more fertile investigative targets – like blowing the lid off of that whole lunar landing hoax.
Simon H
I am confused on the double underlined links on this post…. They seem to be ads.
Can you disclose at the top of this post that all double underlined links are in fact ads.
Thanks!
Allen, I commented about this on my blog too — but I think the facts are already beginning to be muddled and so I wanted to nip this in the bud before it becomes gospel. WebbAlert has a link/banner agmt with only 6 FM blogs (ars technica, boing boing and 4 others). R/WW is not one of them, neither is TC for that matter. There is no quid pro quo going on here. I have no problem with the banner agmt either, as it is fairly disclosed.
Thanks for clarifying Richard, I appreciate it. You did disclose the FM relationship which is good as well.
Let me try to explain my point from another angle which seemed to hit me while asleep.
FM has launched a "product" called WebbAlert. I think we all agree now that this is a FM product and not a standalone tv show. FM authors then post about the FM product. FM authors have a financial/fiduciary relationship with FM. Shouldn't there be a disclosure that "This new FM show is created/managed by the company who provides the banner advertising/revenue for this site."
Arrington and other elites’ compensated coverage/linking has been PPP for as long as I can remember (heck, researching elite practices was part of my due diligence before investing in PPP), but in a more nuanced and more lucrative fashion than exchanging $20 for a post. The elites have a larger circle to launder the money/links and a taller soapbox to claim what they’re doing is completely different than PPP.
I love Mike “People Ready” Arrington getting compensated for his posts, but I’d recommend he and FM be as intellectually honest about their model as Ted Murphy is with PPP.
You hit the nail on the head with your quote:
“More links from FM sites = more traffic to Webb. More traffic to Webb = more impressions for FM to sell. More links back to FM sites = more ads to sell on those FM sites.”
You could add the last step:
“more ads to sell on those FM sites = more money in FM blogger pockets — therefore, more Webb PPP posts from FM bloggers = more money in FM blogger pockets”
I love it!
I was wondering why there was suddenly so much TC coverage on the show, as TC is normally just a more verbose and less complete version of mashable.com. My prediction? Within a day or two, a very indignant sounding TC post over the whole issue, which for no apparent reason will take a shot at Technorati in the middle.
None of this seems very important. I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but to people in the audience who just find informative and reliable tech/gaming news satisfying, it doesn’t matter whether FM or any company for that matter is trying to get higher hits for their other blogs.
I like Morgan Webb. I like WebbAlert. What more is there to discuss? I don’t pay attention to the links, I don’t hunt down and investigate the information. I just watch the five or so minute podcast, then move on to reality. Why does anyone care THIS much?
But please, for the enjoyment of others and myself, continue with the feeding frenzy, while the rest of us watch Morgan and other FM leaders succeed.