Post by account_disabled on Apr 30, 2024 4:24:20 GMT -6
About seven years ago, I wrote the Seinfeld of all blog posts—a blog post about nothing. Literally. It got nearly 400 comments and remains one of the pinnacles of my entire writing career. I mean, it didn’t even have an image. It was just 300 words about nothing with a couple of links to motivate you to go elsewhere that day for inspiration. While I certainly cannot replicate that—and it’s been a loooooong time since we’ve had that number of comments, I thought with the holiday and all, it’d be fun to give you some timely digital marketing articles to read. So it’s not really a blog post about nothing. It’s a blog post that may inspire your own content production, and some conversation. #WeLoveGeorgia In the Spin Sucks community, we have lively conversations about the digital marketing happenings around the globe. For instance, Sara Hawthorne posted about Love Island and the drama it invokes. She says: After a particularly drama filled episode which saw a favorite female contestant heartbroken, a brand called In The Style jumped in with, what it called, a girl power tweet.
It used the #wehatejosh to push a joke discount code to shoppers and said heartbroken contestant. Just a couple of weeks ago an ex-contestant committed suicide allegedly because of the trolling she received, so it’s a sensitive issue right now and the question is, is this brand is encouraging that with the promotion of such a hashtag? They came out with an explanation—not apology—nowhere do they say Optometrist Accurate Email List they were wrong. But, were they? Surely going for a #weloveXcontestant would have been a better option than #wehatejosh. What do you think? Should they have apologized? Bound By a Code of Ethics…and Disclosure Jon Christian, a freelance writer who has some big bylines, says this: I wrote a thing. Forbes and Entrepreneur are letting marketers and PR agents write as freelance contributors—and they’re they’re stuffing their articles with flattering coverage of paying clients. His article about it is here. Even Neil Patel, one of the most respected in the digital marketing space, is caught up in it all. What do you think? Clearly the guy should have disclosed—and most of the publications have removed his articles.
But is disclosure enough in this case? As communicators or agency owners, must we do better? Sometimes Naivety is Good…Very, Very Good Aliza Freud, another community member, posted: Very curious to hear what the community thinks of this article that attacks PR agencies for being complicit in the “fake follower” situation in influencer marketing: “PR agencies are encouraging this. Wait, more than that. It’s not encouragement—it’s active participation in fraud. The PR agencies are playing both ends.” Apparently digital marketing agencies not only participate in the fraud, they buy followers for their clients, and they ignore the fake followers of their influencers. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about how the onus is on the brands to research influencers before hiring them. But if their agencies are complicit in this, we have an even larger issue at hand. Man, I’m so naive. It would never even occur to me to do something like this.
It used the #wehatejosh to push a joke discount code to shoppers and said heartbroken contestant. Just a couple of weeks ago an ex-contestant committed suicide allegedly because of the trolling she received, so it’s a sensitive issue right now and the question is, is this brand is encouraging that with the promotion of such a hashtag? They came out with an explanation—not apology—nowhere do they say Optometrist Accurate Email List they were wrong. But, were they? Surely going for a #weloveXcontestant would have been a better option than #wehatejosh. What do you think? Should they have apologized? Bound By a Code of Ethics…and Disclosure Jon Christian, a freelance writer who has some big bylines, says this: I wrote a thing. Forbes and Entrepreneur are letting marketers and PR agents write as freelance contributors—and they’re they’re stuffing their articles with flattering coverage of paying clients. His article about it is here. Even Neil Patel, one of the most respected in the digital marketing space, is caught up in it all. What do you think? Clearly the guy should have disclosed—and most of the publications have removed his articles.
But is disclosure enough in this case? As communicators or agency owners, must we do better? Sometimes Naivety is Good…Very, Very Good Aliza Freud, another community member, posted: Very curious to hear what the community thinks of this article that attacks PR agencies for being complicit in the “fake follower” situation in influencer marketing: “PR agencies are encouraging this. Wait, more than that. It’s not encouragement—it’s active participation in fraud. The PR agencies are playing both ends.” Apparently digital marketing agencies not only participate in the fraud, they buy followers for their clients, and they ignore the fake followers of their influencers. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about how the onus is on the brands to research influencers before hiring them. But if their agencies are complicit in this, we have an even larger issue at hand. Man, I’m so naive. It would never even occur to me to do something like this.