Why I’m Staying Gone from ScienceBlogs
I knew when I left ScienceBlogs that SB might well reverse and kill their ill-considered Food Frontiers. But I knew that would happen if and only if the reaction to that lame decision was so toxic and threatening to SB that they’d feel they had to kill Food Frontier. How would it get toxic? It would get toxic if they lost some top bloggers and suffered a horrific PR kickback throughout the blogosphere.
Some have questioned from the start whether those who left or went on hiatus were overreacting. To some, SB’s reversal seems to have confirmed we got our panties in a wad over not much. Two answers to that:
1. The only reason SB has reversed is because several of their bloggers, including some heavy hitters like Skloot and Laelaps, got their panties sufficiently wadded to up and leave.
2. Sb’s fail was as a big fail. The objections that it wasn’t that bad miss the mark. Some have asked, well, why shouldn’t Pepsi have voice in the conversation about science? But no one was saying Pepsi shouldn’t have a voice. In case no one has noticed, Pepsi can put up a blog on its own, and it had; it already had a voice on the blogosphere, even aside from the zillions it is free to spend on advertising.
But having a voice and buying a place at a table where places are usually earned through credibility rather than cash — that’s a different can of soda. I and others objected because when SB decided to take money to give Pepsi a blog alongside the nonsponsored blogs at SB, and almost virtually indistinguishable fromi them, it crossed all sorts of lines. And these lines are fundamental.
I alluded to some of those in my own exit post, but no one has summed it up more neatly that Martin Robbins did in his post. Robbins hits it on the head: SB’s Pepsi move created dyspepsia because it violated important principles and practices about identity, respect, and the crucial distinction between editorial and advertising.
Identity
The first point is really so simple that it’s banal, and it’s quite staggering that Adam Bly, Seed’s CEO, doesn’t seem to understand it. To its bloggers and readers, ScienceBlogs was always a meritocracy built by top science bloggers. They attracted the best science bloggers from the US and increasingly around the world, and allowed a community to organically develop in which everyone had a stake….
It should be immediately obvious that selling a seat at this table damages the brand, whoever it is. It’s like watching King Arthur hand-pick eleven knights of the Round Table, and then sell the twelfth seat on Ebay. If anyone can buy themselves a Seed Blog, then one of the main reasons to blog there – the prestige – is gone. And the effect of that is doubled when King Arthur himself doesn’t bother to tell the knights until some rich kid in Gucci armour wanders in the room asking where the bar is.
Respect
“The SEED management team has repeatedly failed to treat me and my fellow bloggers with courtesy and respect, and this latest event goes beyond disrespect into actively undermining our credibility.”
The above quote is from Brian Switek, one of the top science writers on the web, and a jewel in Seed’s crown until yesterday, when he quit.
The latest insult for Switek was that the bloggers who helped build the site weren’t consulted on such a fundamental change in direction. I’m not privy to the internal world of ScienceBlogs, but when your best writers are saying things like…
“…the skanky clandestine manner in which it was executed is a fucking slap in the face from Adam Bly and the ScienceBlogs overlords, reflecting their overall (lack of) respect for our collective contributions and investments.”
…then, my friend, you have fucked up very badly. As Abel puts it: “You reap what you sow.”
Advertorials
The following guidance comes from the American Society of Magazine Editors, and was highlighted yesterday by Knight Science Journalism, who point out that this is an issue that traditional media have wrestled with for years. It’s worth reading in full:
“For magazines to be trusted by consumers and to endure as brands, readers must be assured of their editorial integrity.”
“Editorial-looking sections or pages that are not produced by a magazines editors are not editorial content. They should be labeled Advertisement, Special Advertising Section or Promotion at the top of every page in type as prominent as the magazines normal body type…”
“Advertisers should not pay to place their products in editorial pages nor should they demand placement in return for advertising.”
This is one of the fundamental rules in US magazine publishing, and one that a website indexed by Google News ought to take seriously (the comment by a reader of Jack of Kent’s blog that “these are only blogs, not published content” is spectacularly naive). It’s also one of the scummier practices we see in British newspapers – all those Daily Mail stories about products with telephone numbers and websites at the bottom.
I hope that’s clear. These are not particularly fuzzy lines. And they are not trivial. They are fundamental. I may catch flak for this, but I think it significant that some of the earliest, most empatic, and sharpest actions and objections came from people with some grounding in journalism. As Robbins points, out, journalism has long recognized that it’s vital to have clear distinctions between advertising and editorial, and the entire point of the Pepsi blog was to blur those lines, and give a commercial message some of the dressings of editorial content. It let Pepsi buy a credibility that should be earned otherwise. In doing so, it threatened the credibility of the bloggers who established ScienceBlogs. In that sense it was a zero-sum game that created winners and losers: Pepsi bought the right to siphon credibility from SB’s bloggers. That’s what that giant slurping sound was.
Now SB has reversed itself, killing the Pepsi blog, and some are asking if we can just move on now.
Please to give me a break. That SB would make such a mistake to start with signals, to me, so profound a disregard for both the bloggers and the principles of good journalism that I can’t see returning there.
That said, I don’t question the decisions of those who stay on; there’s some day good people and bloggers that appear to be staying, and I’ve no problem with that. But I must say that, having not questioned for a moment the wisdom of those who are staying, I find find it irritating to have any of them question my decision to go.
Tags: journalism, PepsiGate, SBFail, Scienceblogs
July 8th, 2010 at 11:31 am
“Moving on now” does not mean pretending it didn’t happen, or going forward on the same old course. There are real structural problems in how Seed is managing the blogs, and they’re going to have to take steps to fix them, or we’ll just get another debacle, and another, and another, and then we’re all done.
I wouldn’t question anyone who left. There were some discussions going on behind the scenes between me and some third parties that had me thinking, too…and there was maybe a 50/50 chance that I’d have been out the door, and it’s only that they finally ended up doing the right thing that tipped me away from the exit.
Another such incident, though, or a continuation of the neglect we’ve been struggling under, and alternatives would look much, much more attractive.
July 8th, 2010 at 11:32 am
David: what’s your take on Bly’s comment that SB already had several blogs done by corporate entities (he mentioned Dow and some others) that did not inspire a grass-roots revolt of the sort that PepsiCo set off?
July 8th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
PZ: Duly noted, thanks for the note. It’s conceivable that the heat wave and other factors — wadded knickers, etc — made me, ah, overly tetchy. (It’s happened before!) V much appreciate your clarification and as always wish you all good luck with any work, anywhere.
Best,
DD
Pete: That requires an answer a bit longer than I can provide right now. Short short: The priors were similar, but the differences in this instance took it over a line. Also the movement toward more blurring was troubling.
That may be less than clear or adequate but regretfully I lack time for more. Thanks so much for reading and writing.
July 8th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Interesting post, David. (And hi – you may remember me from chatting after you spoke at ASJA in April.)
I don’t see how anyone can say the Seed course reversal means you overreacted by leaving. If anything, it may give proof that you did the right thing! As for whether to stay away … certainly one thing this incident highlights is how little power the content creators have over this particular network’s decisions. That’s an argument for creating your own space where you can have more say in community standards.
That’s what I did by starting CurrentMom.com for entrepreneurs – which is how I learned about this whole flap in the first place! (from our science/tech blogger Lyn Millett) http://www.currentmom.com/currentmom/2010/07/corporate-sponsorship-blogs-and-credibility.html
I’ll be interested to see what happens next!
July 8th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
I’m an outsider but I think the way to make changes is to stay and threaten to leave – if you just leave and never go back there is little incentive for things to change.
I think institutional blogs that are just PR organs are a negative, be they profit or non-profit. There is no difference in low value to the audience if Pepsi writes puff pieces or CERN does. Pepsi was just the tipping point, since Schering-Plough, Dow, Loreal and others were no problem previously, but Adam was not being malicious, he was trying to improve the presence of the site and therefore the audience for your writing.
I wouldn’t have let Pepsi pay to blog but I would have let them have a blog and then get clobbered by you and the audience if they were not posting real stuff and it was just a campaign to endorse HFCS or something.
July 8th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
I was searching for good reading material and my first experience of SB was the Pepsi mess. How interesting. It has given me the opportunity to experience science writers in the raw.
I felt the title of the PepsiCo blog (which could have been PepsiCo or Profit Frontiers)was deceitful, and this deceit had been condoned by the editors. I am not a scientist, so I have to be sure I can trust the vehicles of information. I will not visit the SB again.
I have several sites now for independent writers, which I will follow, trust and share. I obviously prefer scientists in the raw to ones wearing silly disguises.
July 8th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
What about the other changes that were proposed: removing that blog from the google index, clearly stating it was an advertorial?
I agree that the way this change was implemented was shitty, but is there a way they could have gone about giving a platform for corporate science without pissing everyone off? It seems like there should be a middle ground, and from the outside, it looks like the Seed overlords were trying to find it (after their fuck-up that is).
July 8th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
I’m sure they could’ve come up with a way to integrate Pepsico bloggers without this outrage, but a severe lack of foresight prevented that. Unfortunately, there were writing samples on the Pepsico Food Frontiers site which strongly implied that the ScienceBlogs Food Frontiers would be the same kind of pure PR speak. This may or may not have been correct, but it was unavoidable that people would jump to these conclusions because there was no other source of information about the intended content.
Pay-for-placement is one of the major reasons why Google completely decimated their competitors. Google didn’t engage in it, whereas their competitors did. Google earned a reputation for being honest, and their competitors let themselves be painted as dishonest.
If they wanted to use scienceblogs as a platform, there would’ve been a number of things that could’ve been done differently. They could’ve sponsored individuals instead of making it a monolithic corporate blog. They could’ve avoided drenching their opening post in PR-flack-speak. Few people will deny that Pepsico does employ scientists that would be able to produce an interesting blog about topics that are appropriate to scienceblogs, but what was presented gave everyone the exact opposite impression.
July 11th, 2010 at 1:58 am
Bly lost my respect with his BS about not moderating comments. Maybe my subsequent comments will turn up… but it’s too late to matter much now.
If that behavior is even slightly similar to the way he treated individual bloggers, I can understand where a lot of the frustration comes from.
I’m not going to stop reading SB and wouldn’t have even if the Pepsi blog didn’t go away.
July 11th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Donna-
I’m not one to speak up for Adam Bly, but there’s some evidence from the behind-the-scenes commentary at Sb that he’s having technical difficulties with comment moderation rather than anything more sinister.
I’m overjoyed, of course. Getting the CEO of Seed to experience the frustrations of the truly godawful blogging platform they set up might be just the thing for righting the technical problems at Sb.
July 12th, 2010 at 12:38 am
#14 – that is funny, but in no way restores respect for the man. One does not have to be sinister to be incompetent. And incompetence is what the whole deal with Pepsico smells like.
After having been “introduced” to him through this fiasco and now his blog, I wonder about the future of ScienceBlogs whereas before that had never crossed my mind.
It’s good to know that he doesn’t have much power or control over the bloggers in more ways than one.
July 12th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
David: As a member of the science journalism community, I’d to offer my thoughts on why I’m still at ScienceBlogs.
First, I never like to make rash decisions. As bad as Adam Bly’s decision to sell out the SB name was, I decided to give it 24 hours. And just under the wire, Bly reversed course. I had threatened to leave unless Foot Frontiers was killed, and when it was, it only seemed fair to withdraw the threat. Of course, I think it’s safe to say that FF would still be here if you and the others hadn’t left, so I guess I’m only still with SB because you’re not. Thanks.
Second, the traffic that SB provides means I reach more readers. I will be honest about that. So pulling up stakes had seriously consequences that have to be taken into account.
Still, the story ain’t over. I remain extremely uneasy. You are entirely correct: science journalists were among the first to leave for good reason. An ethical line was crossed, and no matter why Bly does now, his and by extent our reputation has suffered. The fact that all the best journalists have left SB says it all. And without the departure of you, Skloot and Switek, among others, I doubt FF would have been killed.
The news that SEED axed one of Gaia Vince’s columns because she criticized an advertiser is to me just as serious a transgression, one that has me again looking at my options, and one that can’t be undone. But I will wait at least until the promised conference call with the entire community before deciding what to do as all I’ve heard so far on that matter is Vince’s side of the story. Jumping to conclusions is not part of my journalistic training.
July 12th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Thanks for writing, James. As I’ve said several times elsewhere, I think it’s the combination of leavers and disgruntled-might-yet-leave stayers that pressed SMC to react to this. Whether they’ll do all the right things is still to be seen. But I’ve no problem with people who understand the problem and stay. I’m all for a diversity of responses to challenge.
I may post on this some more when I catch up with some other work.
July 19th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
[...] David Dobbs [Update: Despite the end of Pepsiblog, Dobbs ain't coming back.} [...]
July 20th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
[...] David Dobbs Update: Despite the end of Pepsiblog, Dobbs ain’t coming back. [...]
July 20th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
[...] complained. Due to this issue, many people have left ScienceBlogs, including Bora, Deborah Blum, David Dobbs, grrlscientist, and many [...]
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s server IP (72.233.2.72) doesn’t match the comment’s URL host IP (76.74.255.123) and so is spam.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:34 pm
[...] and “cowardly” motives for which he offered zero evidence, and for which contradicting evidence lay within the exit posts of many of those he accused. Where in my or Rebecca Skloot’s posts [...]
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s server IP (173.201.196.26) doesn’t match the comment’s URL host IP (173.201.233.109) and so is spam.
July 25th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
[...] who earned their invitation to be a part of ScienceBlogs through respect. David Dobbs wrote a great post on the matter. Dobbs was just one of many Sciblings who took part in a mass exodus from [...]
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s server IP (69.163.160.191) doesn’t match the comment’s URL host IP (69.163.162.166) and so is spam.
July 30th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
[...] announcing my departure — A food blog I can’t digest — and a more considered explanation at Why I’m Staying Gone from ScienceBlogs. And as you can read below, I’m not the only one, even among “legacy media,” [...]
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:43 am
About those who stayed with Seed . . . Seed really messed up, and they got a good spanking for it. There’s something to be said for waiting to see if the punishment changed the behavior, and something to be said for cutting a tiny bit of slack to those who fronted you the resources for several years.
About those who left . . . there’s something to be said for seeing to it the same snake doesn’t bite you twice.
August 8th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
[...] Then, getting back to chrono, Why I’m Staying Gone from ScienceBlogs, which was the plainest explanation of why I left and stayed gone. [...]