The blog is nothing but fluff... all about the product, little about the condition it wants to correct. It answers few questions (and the ones it answers have answers like "Yes, I still see occasionally undigested fat floating in the toilet").

This is advertising, not blogging. As such, it will fail, despite Weil's best efforts -- which can't have been much to produce this little monster.

At least she knows her request is "shameless"... let's how fast she comes around to owning up to "shameful."

David - this strikes me as similar to the Wal-Mart "hired" (read-fakers) bloggers.

It seems to me that a blog about a product, or any blog for that matter, should be able to stand and gain participants on its own merits or die on the vine.

Debbie says that people are "shy" about posting comments. Maybe they just don't like the product or don't want to tell the world they need a weight-loss drug. I'm not sure why seeing larger numbers of comments would necessarily get more people to participate.

Plus what would you, David, who presumably have not used the product (you look pretty svelte to me!) possibly say about it? Is she asking you to make up a comment about a product? Or say you think the company is great? I don't get the thought-process behind asking random people to comment on a blog.

But then, I like to think I'm "ethically pure" too!

I am more likely to comment if someone else has commented, but mainly because I'm commenting on the comments moreso than the blog.

Generally, I don't dig corporate blogs any more than I dig advertising.

I, too, wondered why random people who don't use the product would be asked to comment just to get it going. It should, as you say, stand or not on its own.

That said, I am tempted to leave a comment about how I don't believe in weight-loss drugs and that if we ate and lived the way we were meant to, we wouldn't be pumping ourselves full of chemicals to try to "fix" what shouldn't be broken. And I am most definitely the antithesis of svelte. I have a lot more to solve than "alli" can do for me.

But, hey, she did get someone to talk about the product in their blog, albeit in a roundabout way.

It would be interesting if they allowed that post of yours, Diane--and if they did, how they'd respond.

Allan, Kristen, thanks for reaffirming my judgment here.

It's not quite outrage I feel; more like, "Hey Debbie, self-appointed blogging expert: Do you think your blogging buddies love the 'cause' of corporate blogs so much they'd put up phony posts just for the glorification of your client's new drug--or the glorification of you, to your client?"

I hope she comes here to answer the my question: What were you thinking?

There is a comment, "With the phen phen scare, you'll excuse me if I'm not an initial believer of the hype produced by the drug manufacturer."

Which is pretty much how I feel about these types of corporate blogs. The enthusiasm of the "first" team rings so inauthentic to me, and maybe it isn't, because it's so ra-ra positive.

I'm on one medication and much as it's helped, I wouldn't be so ra-ra about it. It works, one side effect I can live with, thank you very much. End of endorsement.

You know, I'm not too offended by the 'ask' portion of this.

What gets me is the line: "No need
to say that you know me, of course."

[Red Flag Up}

Why not? Isn't blogging about disclosure and honesty? What's wrong if I said, "Debbie Weil sent me an email and asked me to check out this comment..." and then went on to post my comment.

If I have something to say, and someone turned me on to an interesting conversation, why shouldn't I credit the person who turn me on...so to speak.

Unless there's something to hide.

David,

With friends like you, who needs enemies?! I'm sorry my email got on your nerves. Unfortunately, you don't have much of an argument. I have nothing to hide. Those who know me know I'm pretty transparent. I blogged the same request today (asking for comments on GSK's alli blog).

And as far as blogging etiquette goes, I'm comfortable re-stating that it's OK to ask for Comments as long as you don't do it very often. As for using email, it's an accepted back channel that all bloggers use.

Brad, that's the line that got me, too. I know that Steven Lewis has a different view on it (http://snipurl.com/1o6rj) and that she's not behaving unethically, but for my view *that* line and the whole point of *writing a comment* (note that she didn't ask 'just visit/review the blog' or 'link to it from your blog'). It is telling that even she remarks "This is a shameless request" - you bet it is, especially when the recipients of the email don't know who else has been asked.

Debbie--

Want to make clear: I don't consider this a huge deal either. I don't have a "case," nor am I trying to build one.

But I think your group e-mail request (and others' reaction to it on this blog and elsewhere) somewhat undermines your authority to declare what the mores are, a la:

"it's OK to ask for Comments as long as you don't do it very often. As for using email, it's an accepted back channel that all bloggers use."

Says you?

All bloggers? Really? Is that measurable?

About Debbie Weil's request for comments: Wow. Just wow. Totally out of line.

As for why the blog isn't getting any comments: It IS an advertisement, and I don't think people are going to feel particularly compelled to comment. (Does anyone know of a similar blog that DOES get a lot of comments?)However, I also don't think they're doing anything to engage readers or encourage two-way conversation. Perhaps they need to ask a question in each post to spur comments. That seems like a pretty basic blog technique - I figured it out all by myself (no consultant needed!) for my personal blog.

And as for all the posting about the "treatment effects" - enough already please! That would turn me off the medication AND the blog.

With regards to the medication itself, I'm pretty much of the opinion that if the medication REQUIRES you to exercise, eat well, limit fat, etc. - well, why not just DO that? You'll have great results and no, um, treatment effects.

Debbie is asking folks to help her create an artificial demand for a product in which she has a vested interest. I saw lots of this when I was in sales: sales manager stops a kid on the street and hands him $5 to go into a camera store and ask to see a certain brand of 35mm camera which the store refuses to push; cosmetic salesman "volunteers" to straighten the shelves in a drug store, but in the process reduces the shelf space of his competitor's product and increases shelf space for his own, or moves his own product up to eye level; etc., etc., etc.

At least she was honest enough to call her action "shameless," even if putting honest and shameless in the same sentence creates an oxymoron.

Will

I agree with Brad on this one as well, and you, my friend, David. I don't mind that she's asking someone to come and check it out, and "If you're inspired or provoked, leave a comment on any entry." But being the blogging expert, or just being someone professionally involved in blogging, having any sense of recent PR bungling history in the blogosphere, she should have known better than to expect anything less than complete candor in this realm.

By that I mean that she should not have encouraged hiding a relationship with the commenter to attempt to present completely objective third party participation.

I also mean that she should also expect that the commenting that does occur is going to involve challenge, debate and criticism of the product and the company's attempt at promotion through what some would like to see as a "corporate-free" medium.

I also mean that she should have expected to be called out for her flawed attempt to less-than-complete transparency and artificial objective endorsement of her product, just as Edelman has been called out very publicly for their blogging debacles (aren't they legend now??!!). Does her response here seem a trifle defensive? In that, I agree with Andrea -- Wow. Just wow.

michael clendenin

FYI, pharmaceutical industry pub Pharmalot did a piece ...

http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/07/is-glaxos-alli-blog-not-working/

I was hoping that Debbie would address the real issue with her note.

"If you're inspired or provoked, leave a comment on any entry. No need
to say that you know me, of course."

The last sentence is the crux of my issue with this and calls the rest of the email into question.

Interestingly, in that Pharmalot article, Weil says about the blog in question: "But it’s not supposed to be about Alli. The blog is about weight-loss issues."

I read every entry on the blog. Every entry is about Alli or its "treatment effects." If it's about weight-loss issues, where are the posts on topics like fitting exercise into a busy schedule, ways to reduce fat in your diet, dealing with a spouse or children who may not support your new eating/exercise habits. etc.?

I'm not saying it's wrong to have a blog that focuses on Alli. That's perfectly fine with me. However, it seems disingenuous to say the blog is about weight-loss issues when it's clearly abot the drug.

"The blog is about weight-loss issues.”

Well, no, and there is the heart of that problem. The blog is all about Alli, like one never-ending, confusing, multi-colored ad. I didn't see ANYTHING that would make me want to interact.

IMO, it's just a very, very bad blog -- not what a blog should be, a lot of things a blog shouldn't be.

The lack of comments isn't about being SHY, as people can post anonymously. I've been happy to blather about health issues at length, anonymously, in a forum that encourages it.

Here's what a blog about weight-loss issues would do (or some -- I'm doing a brief brainstorm).

- Ask about experience of casual dieters ("I need to drop 20 holiday pounds to get back into my bikini"), serial dieters ("I'm always fighting my weight"), and the morbidly obese who have given up hope but whose health requires both that they have hope and support.

- Ask about personal reasons behind weight problems -- comfort food? bad genetics? stress? pregnancy? lack of time for exercise? lack of support? etc.

- Discusses the risks of dieting (and the risks of repeat weight loss)

- Discusses eating orders in general

- Encourages information sharing.

- Encourage support.

- Build a community of people with something in common.

Etc.

Not that I know anything about this; it's just what I've seen.

@Lee, @Michael, I think this whole thing would not have been an issue if that “No need to say that you know me, of course.” line was not included in the message.

The other issues (blind email, Shameless, etc) don't strike me as over the line -- unlike the one that set off the red flag.

I know blogs are a new and different medium and that we're still experimenting with - and trying to work out - the "rules" about them (if there are any rules). But in the context of public relations, I think we need to apply the same ethics and principles to blogs as we do to any other medium.

Does this blogger's request pass the test of these codes of ethics?
* Honesty - Adhering to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of clients and employers (PRSA Code of Ethics)
* Enhancing the Profession - Public relations professionals should work constantly to strengthen the public's trust in the profession (PRSA Code of Ethics)
* Professional communicators are honest not only with others but also, and most importantly, with themselves as individuals; for a professional communicator seeks the truth and speaks that truth first to the self (IABC Code of Ethics)

Asking friends and colleagues to post comments on a blog that promotes a client's product or service seems to border on deception. The request was not for friends and colleagues to lie outright or to blatantly pretend to be "fans" of the new product, but in my view fulfilling the request would enable results that are misleading. Asking friends and colleagues to post comments would artificially inflate traffic to the blog site. It's akin to a newsletter editor "planting" letters to the editor so that other readers might be encouraged to write, believing that "everybody else is doing it."

Is the communicator prepared to reveal to her client that she asked friends and colleagues to post comments to the blog? Withholding that information could be a sin of omission.

If this issue is generating this much debate and discussion, it seems to me it wouldn't be worth the risk. When in doubt, err on the side of complete honesty and total transparency. Even if the request doesn't blatantly violate any codes of ethics, why even approach the line?

Robert

I find myself agreeing with much of what is being said here. I'll add that it isn't the request for comments that seems unsettling per se, it's asking people, many of whom may have no need for a particular product, to place comments anyway. As a take off from what Robert wrote, it would create a false sense of interest in the blog.

Debbie shouldn't have mentioned that she not be named...because she's only hurting herself by saying that.

And also, I don't understand this new rule...asking others for comments, via email, on blogs that may not pertain to someone's interests...as long as it isn't done 'very often'. How often is very often.

Again, I have no problem when a blogger solicits comments from others if the subject at hand relates to the interests of those being asked. Better yet, it may make more sense to ask people to read the post in the first place.

I'd also potentially chalk this up to a client that's become overdamanding and impatient because they haven't received the amount of comments they thought they'd get on a month old blog.

This is indeed scandalous. I would be offended as well. Debbie's intent, tone and non-transparency are off-base and no better than bad spam. You need to build from within your audience and if that's not working, you need to rethink your media and/or communication style. Perhaps you just need to reconnect with your own consumers -- who surely will tell you why it's not working.

I'm all about transparency and blunt honesty, and I make that very clear both publicly and with any client wanting to work with me. I also specialize in online PR, as well as owning and managing nearly two dozen sites and blogs of my own, so I'm intimately aware of online promotion from all sides.

Blogs are important tools in PR now, and it's all about building a discussion. Getting comments kicked off can be next to impossible, just as it is when launching a new forum or social media site. If it was her job to get them going, then that's her job, and that's it. There's nothing unethical about asking people you know to check out a blog and comment on a post if it tickles their fancy (which is all she did... she said to comment if they felt so inclined, and not to simply comment even if they didn't for her benefit). That's a point a lot of you are completely missing. If she had handled that differently, went with paid commenters or some other kind of incentive, there would be an ethical breach without a doubt from a PR standpoint.

As for the last bit in her email, it was a bit inappropriate, and if it had gone to people she didn't know where she was saying "don't say I sent you", I'd be disgusted. But she's not. She's leaving the decision in the commenter's hands, and the ethical decision is theirs as to whether or not they feel like being transparent.

As for you reposting a colleague's email... that's the larger ethical violation in my opinion, not even because you did it, but because you did it with some kind of air of moral superiority while sinking to a debatably lower level in the same breath.

I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. If the blog seems too corporatesque then, yeah, the average reader may not feel that sense to comment. Getting some good writers or peers to stir up a conversation could help the site and get a conversation rolling. The only question I can think of is why did she ask you to help?

I think this an excellent new case study on why using traditional media relations approaches in blogger relations is a difficult path to tread. To me blogger relations is more about establishing trust through authenticity and credibility. Pitching, however best intentioned takes away from the reputation of a credible blogger. If you have to pitch, and people do, have the public relations contact do it for you.

Then the traditional approaches in media relations apply, read the blog first and see if the blogger will be interested in your story.

Dear Jennifer:

Debbie Weil is not a colleague of mine. I consider her a consultant. I consider myself a journalist covering the corporate communication business, which includes consultants.

Debbie's interest in making corporate blogs come off great differs with my interest in seeing and reporting on what happens with corporate blogs, and why.

She overlooked this when sending me this e-mail; don't you overlook it when writing about this imbroglio.

David

Debbie had a legitimate interest in soliciting feedback of any kind from people who have an understanding of corporate blogging; you included. You're free to be annoyed by the email and to have whatever opinions you possess, but please don't mistake a broader view of a subject as me overlooking something.