There's been a lot of discussion about Joe Jaffe and his trade of a sponsorship of his podcast in exchange for an iPhone, which he got. In fact, he ended up with two. And on the Webwalker discussion of this topic, I posted the following comment. what's your take? New, groundbreaking and paradigm-shifting or just a new coat of paint on a very old way of doing things?
What’s amazing about this discussion is that we’re talking about something that’s been done for years — probably decades — and discussing it as a “paradigm-shifting” of the advertising industry. When I was in the non-profit world in 1983, this is what we called in-kind sponsorship. Who cares that it’s being done on a blog or podcast, this is nothing new or ground-breaking. It may or may not hurt his content, that remains to be seen. And it may become something that more bloggers do — I’d like to get someone to buy me a plane ticket so I can travel the world and write about cool experiences. But the fact is, it’s not really that big of a shift in the advertising industry or anything new.
We say a lot that those that do not know history are destined to think they’re the first one doing something. And through this entire discussion thread, I didn’t really see that addressed. What’s new or groundbreaking here? I don’t see what the experimentation is? He asked for something in exchange for a plug. Has that never happened before? I mean, I was doing it in the mid-80’s and I know folks were doing it a lot earlier then that. And how long have we been seeing “advertorials” in the print world? It’s not new just because it was done on a podcast. I don’t see how it’s groundbreaking, paradigm-shifting or experimenting.
Like the advertorials in the print world, people will make their own decisions about how this impacts podcasts in general, and ATS in specific. If people feel that it becomes too much of a sales pitch, they’ll make their own decisions about whether or not to continue listening. But, as an industry, we need to really be looking at what really is new and different, not simply repurposing something from somewhere else and pretending it’s new.
Joseph Jaffe to me has become the poster boy for self-aggrandizement through podcasting. His recent plea to his audience to buy him an iPhone in return for a sponsored show (turns out he got 2 iphones), followed by getting a new computer (although this was partially spurred on by Lisa Barnes issuing a challenge to him). I don’t see why this is such a grand social media experiment and I whole-heartedly agree with Dave and Terry at InsidePR who also feel it was a bit of a misstep. As a listener I find it alienating to know that he gets tech toys, just because I listen to his podcast and then have to wade through big chunks of the show where he says what a great marketing idea this is. Anyone with an audience can ask for and probably get free stuff, but a news anchor offering sponsorship, advertising or placement in return for a Nintendo Wii for his kids would be just as cheap and certainly get me to discount anything that comes from that anchor’s mouth in future. That is why advertising is usually separated from content (to protect the integrity of the content). I get that this is a value exchange between two parties and I do respect it when people try new things, but this to me just feels a bit like social media payola.
Link: Webwalker -- The Podcasting Cult of Personality.
Link: Jaffe Juice: iPhone for an episode - fair trade!.
Link: Blog monetization; how do we ALL win? - The Viral Garden.
:)
Posted by: Joseph Jaffe | August 19, 2007 at 07:33 PM
This is a fascinating blog post.
What's so amusing about all of the mentions of Joseph Jaffe is that anytime his name is mentioned he feels compelled to say something even if it is just a completely lame emoticon. Talk about a cult of personality - among any blogger, podcaster or media personality he seems to be on an ego-trip extraordinaire! In my opinion, his excessive rattling and obsession with blogs that write about him only make serve to invalidate his ideas and points about marketing and perhaps points to a sense of insecurity and lack of self-esteem.
Posted by: winkiedus | August 19, 2007 at 08:31 PM
Hilarious.
If I say nothing, you'll berate me for being absent.
If I say too much, you'll call me defensive.
If I smile , you call me smug and/or insecure.
Responding to the conversation is something I feel strongly about...even if it is a smile to say I've read the post. I don't have time to respond to everything but I try my best.
Posted by: Joseph Jaffe | August 20, 2007 at 02:09 PM