Personally I don't think it's that bad a thing that bloggers who work for EMC (There's a difference between those and EMC bloggers. Bloggers who work for EMC are more likely to be blasted by the company for one, I still have some buckshot in my behind from being shot by corporate), are exuberant about what they've been working on.
Known bias does add context to information. And if you read something written by someone who knows something about what it is you're reading about and both they and you think it's awesome afterwards, well then maybe it is actually awesome.
Or not.
the storage anarchist
· 2 years ago
I think you may have missed my point. I'm not really talking about censoring bloggers opinions and biases...
If you track back to my previous discussions on blogketing (entries 14, 15 & 17 on my blog at http://thestorageanarchist.com), you'll see I'm really asking whether Corporate bloggers have the same truth-in-advertising responsibilities as the other more formal marketing communications vehicles, or can they get away with making misrepresentions and unverifiable assertions simply because they're "blogging" and not "copy writing?"
Every Corporate Blog I've seen is governed by a Code of Conduct and/or a Business Conduct Guide, and in most cases, the CoC/BCG also applies to employees who blog outside the shadow of the corporate logo (EMC's blogging policy indeed covers my blog).
It's one thing for industry analysts to make outrageous assertions about a vendors' products - it's how they make a living. And if the vendor doesn't like it, they have every right to persue correction or retraction (although this works better with some analysts than others).
But I think it is very different when a Corporate Blogger crosses over the line into the land of fiction or omission. In my book, if you couldn't print the assertion in the front page of your company's web site, it probably doesn't belong in your blog.
Despite all the CoC/BCG's, I've seen many misrepresentations posted as fact on corporate blogs. Some of these wouldn't have been appropraite for even internal "Company Confidential" communications back in the pre-blog days. And I for one don't think it's right - I'm not sure what's to be done about it, though...
All Comments
Known bias does add context to information. And if you read something written by someone who knows something about what it is you're reading about and both they and you think it's awesome afterwards, well then maybe it is actually awesome.
Or not.
If you track back to my previous discussions on blogketing (entries 14, 15 & 17 on my blog at http://thestorageanarchist.com), you'll see I'm really asking whether Corporate bloggers have the same truth-in-advertising responsibilities as the other more formal marketing communications vehicles, or can they get away with making misrepresentions and unverifiable assertions simply because they're "blogging" and not "copy writing?"
Every Corporate Blog I've seen is governed by a Code of Conduct and/or a Business Conduct Guide, and in most cases, the CoC/BCG also applies to employees who blog outside the shadow of the corporate logo (EMC's blogging policy indeed covers my blog).
It's one thing for industry analysts to make outrageous assertions about a vendors' products - it's how they make a living. And if the vendor doesn't like it, they have every right to persue correction or retraction (although this works better with some analysts than others).
But I think it is very different when a Corporate Blogger crosses over the line into the land of fiction or omission. In my book, if you couldn't print the assertion in the front page of your company's web site, it probably doesn't belong in your blog.
Despite all the CoC/BCG's, I've seen many misrepresentations posted as fact on corporate blogs. Some of these wouldn't have been appropraite for even internal "Company Confidential" communications back in the pre-blog days. And I for one don't think it's right - I'm not sure what's to be done about it, though...