General Discussions

**Learning Newbie** · 02-25-2008, 03:02 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/featur...,3951899.story

Quote:

Two years ago, when beauty bloggers called makeup companies to request free samples, many calls went unreturned.

"Bloggers' inquiries for products started out as an annoyance," said Alison Brod, whose namesake public relations firm represents the Laura Mercier and philosophy brands. "It was a cost for our clients. It didn't seem fair that anyone could say whatever they wanted about a product and have an audience."

But in the last year or so, as more women turn to blogs for advice on bronzers or facial scrubs, and magazines such as Allure and Glamour have started their own beauty blogs, the cosmetics industry has stopped seeing bloggers as bottom feeders.

I like this bit

Quote:

The same bloggers who once begged for samples are now being sent the latest lip glosses and perfumes, all the free makeup they want and, in some cases, what many beauty editors commonly refer to as swag -- luxurious presents to keep them happy, such as designer purses or all-expenses-paid trips to Paris.

Ethics policies vary

For years, beauty editors at many magazines took perks, and some still do. Others must follow ethics policies, corporate limits on how expensive a gift an employee can accept. (The cap varies from $50 to $500.)

I'm hoping this can jump start a discussion on (1) the seemingly growing power of the blogosphere movement, and (2) the question of whether conventional law applies to bloggers. Are we like detectives from the film noir era? Already, the law that governs contents and the law that governs fraud don't apply to us. Are things like professional ethics the next outdated, quaint things to be struck down by the God given right to make money online?

**blue-dreamer** · 02-25-2008, 03:10 PM

That was a good read thanks.

It's interesting to read "big brand name" opening up their corporate front door and realising new technology can work for them. There is a huge marketing and PR exercise in there and great ways to market a product. Of course they'll have to take negative reviews well, but if they do it properly there's trmendous scope for product improvement.

**Learning Newbie** · 02-25-2008, 03:31 PM

What do you think about the part where they used to think it was "unfair" that people could say what's on their mind and other people were interested?

**fastreplies** · 02-25-2008, 03:37 PM

I should start "Domino Pizza" and "Coors" blogs thus insuring endless supply of samples

fastreplies

**ADAM Web Design** · 02-25-2008, 06:36 PM

I'll guest blog on that if you're throwing a Super Bowl party, fastreplies.

Seriously, this isn't all THAT new an idea. This is just an extension of the PayPerPost concept, and one that would be a lot more difficult to track. My big issue with it is that the industry continues to find new and creative ways to prey upon the self-esteem issues of women and create the illusion that they actually need the crap they're buying to look good. Most women actually look worse when they put the stuff on.

**Learning Newbie** · 02-25-2008, 07:20 PM

I have to disagree in an agreeable way. I think it's not that new, like you said, but I think it goes back to even the days before there were blogs.

Consumer Reports has never taken advertising, for this very reason. Taking money from the people they grade would create an unavoidable conflict of interest - this has long been their position. One of the girls in the article was quoted saying she withholds information from her readers when it benefits her and her owners. Print publications are constantly accused of this sort of thing, and while geeks know Consumer Reports sometimes get the details wrong, we still trust them more than a lot of their competition. And then think of the guy in the Old West selling snake oil with the help of a paid shill in the audience? Pay Per Post is a cheap imitation of the horse trading that goes on in the offline world.