-
Website
http://www.socialmediaexplorer.com/ -
Original page
http://www.socialmediaexplorer.com/2009/08/21/the-ethics-of-ghost-blogging/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
It's a good point that there are many types of blogs and thus applying blanket codes of conduct can be difficult. But I still think full disclosure is most in line with user expectations, and is the safest and most credible approach.
It's a contentious issue. My take is it's trivial whether you call someone a ghost blogger or a copywriter; if the person/agency creating the content is suddenly fired or quits, the style of content is destined to change--and readers will notice and perhaps ask why the change in style. What's the answer, then? Or, if the person/agency is also the social networking responder, what happens at said personnel juncture? Won't someone notice if the style of twittering changes? Will that style change be good or bad?
Which goes to the bigger picture and the need for a long-term strategy that answers such what-if questions.
But good writers also write in the style or tone dictated, so if it's ghosted and noticed, you probably didn't hire a very good writer. Differences are always subtle and unnoticeable if the writing is good.
Thanks for chiming in.
But I also recently blogged at length about ghost-blogging, and there's still a lot left to explore on the topic. For me - as a reader not a writer - the ethical differences between ghostwriting and ghost-blogging arise from the medium.
The value of static content (e.g. articles, speeches) is in the information or perspective of the by-lined author. I'm interested in whether the position they take has any merit or value. I'm not thinking about whether they wrote it.
Bloggers also take a position. But the position they take is an invitation to discussion. That's the difference.
Blogging is - or should be - a conversational medium. If I make a comment, I want to know that the by-lined author will read it, and that they'll be the one who responds. I want a relationship with them, not some middle-man toadie.
So, frankly, ghost-blogging has less to do with ethics as it does with effectiveness. Why have a blog if you don't intend to engage with your readers? Either take an active role, or fashion your blog to present a more anonymous authorship and delegate accordingly.
The "company voice," as you put it, can then be be legitimately delegated to one of the thousands of unemployed trade journalists out there who understand that sort of mission.
Bottom line: I think ghost-blogging is a symptom, not the disease. If a business feels it needs to hire a ghost-blogger to write for the CEO, it's a good bet the blog (and business) lacks a clear marketing strategy.
I think the hang-up here is associating 'deception' with 'ghost-blogging'. They are independent of one another. If you choose to deceive, I'm going to slam you. If you simply have a ghost-blogger who methodically studies you, writes it, reviews it with you, and publishes it with your permission - that's not deceptive.
Keep in mind that many CEOs and executives are crappy writers. I'd rather read a blog that's well-written by a ghost blogger and reflects the message and vision of the executive than not read any blog that provides some insight into the executive of the company at all.
Personally, I've got too big a head to have someone else pen a blog post under my name. But I would not hesitate in recommending a ghost blogger to companies struggling to build a relationship through social media with their clients or prospects.
Writers on TV shows get credit, so I don't see how that works against my point.
I think our biggest gray area point here is on the point of deception. You say "reviews it with you," indicating the named author has a role in the writing. Depending upon how large a role, I don't think it's "ghost-writing". I think it's copy writing. But if the writer pops off an article the named author didn't instigate, had no role in crafting and only reads it over and says, "yeah, I'd say that," that's deceptive in my book. I understand it's not definitive for everyone, but I feel duped if that writing goes live under the named author's byline.
I wouldn't rather read a well-written blog by a ghost writer. I'd rather read a well-written piece by Kathy Writerperson who authors the CEO standpoint blog on CompanyX website.
I don't disagree with you overall sentiment here, just think "ghost blogger" is an incorrect label for what we're talking about for the most part.
Imagine calling a blogger with a ghost-blogger one of the 'greatest bloggers of our time'. People would have a stroke!
This is the talent I'm speaking to when I say that I appreciate ghostwriters. Not some kid chained to a desk in a third-world country who hasn't ever seen nor talked to the company they're blogging for... a professional writer who does the homework, understands the message and vision, and delivers it effectively.
I realize I might be standing on a bit of a weak leg here and that speechwriting may be an exception area to my rule for consideration, but I just don't buy that Obama just reads the words and never participates in writing his words.
Thanks for the comment.
The reader will then have a clearer understanding of the author's motive.
As someone who left the corporate world after 28 years, I was truly impressed by my initiation into the social web at Blog World Expo 2007. It was my first exposure to a community of people who were citing "authenticity", "passion" and "transparency" versus the traditional business world descriptors such as "revenue", "profits" and "market share".
It now seems that some members of the blogging community are re-interpreting their actions to still appear as "authentic" and "transparent" while being compensated for their work.
Ultimate transparency would then seem to be (a) reveal who is paying you, (b) how much you are being paid and (c) your checking account balance. The community can then decide what might be motivating the composer.
It will interesting to hear what the community has to say at Blog World 2009 which I am planning to attend (paying for it myself).
Thanks for the comment.
I pushed the point to make a point.
As a relative newcomer to the social web, i.e. two years and after having been in the corporate world for 28, I was struck by the blogosphere's writers who kept stressing their value of being authentic and transparent (as compared to the "dark side", for profit world).
It seems that the argument for authenticity and transparency has its holes too and I suspect the economy's state is compelling bloggers to exploit them and hence spinning modes of justification.
The lesson learned for me is that the blogosphere has its own issues similar to the corporate world.
The following New York Times article, "Study Says Ghostwriting Rife in Medical Journals" published on 9/11/09 reminds me that neither side is alone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/business/11gh...
I will be sure to introduce myself to you at BlogWorld '09.
I will take the stance now that, Ghost Blogging does not work. I know we have tried it on more than one occasion. I now tell companies that I'm sorry but we could not possibly represent the writer as passionately or as knowledgeable or in the manner that would do them justice.
Most of the difficulties for this is that the CEO or "writer" wants to be seen as the hero but has only so many hours in the day and pout very little emphasis on the time necessary to show they care. I now tell them that writing their mission and message and representing that should be a priority. Again, another blog post altogether.
Our bloggers are hired by the company to be their evangelist. If they don't believe in the company or want to make the world know about that company they won't be good at the position ad I usually end up replacing them with someone that does.
Blogging works. I have numbers and case studies to back that up. Ghost blogging does not. I also have these examples. I wish now that I was able to make it to Blog Indiana, as one of my bloggers told me it was a wonderful event and now I know why. Thanks Jason for this post. Perhaps we can carry on this conversation further.
I don't think it's unethical. Pen names in and of themselves have been a part of the craft of writing for hundreds of years. In more recent times, V.C. Andrews ended up "writing" a few books after her death. Tom Clancy has also used ghost writers for some of his novels. It's said that Mozart was the ghostwriter for several wealthy patrons. I suppose when it's a real person taking credit for someone else's work, and not a single pen name used to represent multiple collaborators, that could be an ethical issue.
As the writer, though, who has agreed not to claim credit for what she and her team has written, I have agreed that I've given up creative control once the content has been paid for and left my hands. I have no control over how the client presents it on his or her site, byline or whatnot.
I'm a big advocate of transparency, but it's not a reality in many aspects of business. I am hired by a lot of SEO/Intenet marketing companies to do the writing for their clients. Since their client relationships are confidential, our relationship is likewise confidential. It's just the way it works. If I demanded a byline on everything I wrote, the bills would not get paid. So until the world changes, my team will remain uncredited, and we write all of our content in a voice appropriate for each client with the expertise and care it deserves. What happens to it after that is out of our hands.
Thanks for the thoughts.
Overall, this experience has made me go sour on ghostwriting. In some instances it's a great opportunity for a writer to challenge themselves and write in another voice, but if the "author" of the blog isn't that involved, then you're pretty much just guessing at what they'd really say. The challenge doesn't lie in writing a good piece then, but rather becomes a challenge to keep wanting to write for them in the first place. In the end the transparency is very muddled. At least that's been my perspective.
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about "ghost tweeting." I have a hard time believing that all the famous folks out there (Oprah?) are always publishing their own tweets. Thoughts?
As for celebrities, I'm sure some of them are having people Tweet for them. They don't get it and probably won't ever get it. Each one of them will be outed at some point and we'll be disappointed in them. But it's also not the end of the world. Celebrities will always disappoint us because we hold them to standards they can't possibly attain.
Thanks for the comment.
BTW Andy Swan did not type this comment but I think it's something he would probably say.