Jalopnik- "How Honda Pays Bloggers to Write about their Cars" (1 Viewer)

[seremify007]

Interesting and controversial article in today's e-news:

[h=1]How Honda Pays Bloggers To Write About Their Cars[/h] The new Honda Civic is so boring you'd probably have to pay me to write something positive about it, which is exactly what Honda attempted to do via a third-party European company. Welcome back to the world of pay-for-post blogging where automakers desperately try to generate positive social media buzz — and fail.
I first received an email from Russell Thomas in January saying there was "a major car brand" that was willing to fork over cash to Jalopnik to write about their car. While my journalistic pride means I have no intention of actually accepting a check in a money-for-coverage scheme, my journalistic curiosity led me to write him back and and let him know I was interested.
I was informed by Thomas that all I'd have to do is sign up as a "publisher" on the website of eBuzzing, the company he works for, in order to access campaigns. I did, and, after filling out their form telling them my primary language and general traffic stats, I was "validated" and assigned my first story.
Sadly, the first story was not the one originally promised, but a chance to earn £200.00 (approximately $315) to write about Red Bull's experience in the Dakar 2012 Rally. Since I wasn't interested in Red Bull I passed, although we did end up writing a few articles on the event — they were mostly centered around Robby Gordon, who is sponsored by a different energy drink company.

[h=3]Emails[/h] View the gallery

I continued to wait for a few weeks wondering if, perhaps, someone at eBuzzing figured out our site would never allow this to happen and quietly pulled the plug. It wasn't until this week that Russell contacted me again to let me know that he'd be able to pay £50 (a paltry $78) to post a video from Honda about their new Civic (technically, the European version, which I like). He even provided me with text:

Apologies for the brevity, but here is the copy we were supplied with:
If we never venture into the unknown how do we get anywhere new? When Honda engineers set about designing the new Civic, they ventured into the unknown. They pushed boundaries. They took every path along the way. And in doing so, they created something amazing. Exploring is part of the fun. That's why we took a 360º camera off the beaten path. Go on, take a leap. Use your cursor to explore the environments and click on the arrow to venture forward. You'll find things you can't imagine.
Please let me know when you've published by sending me the URL.
This time around, it's payment by invoice, so please send me an invoice for the £50 as soon as you have a chance and we'll pay it on our next pay-day (these are the 2nd and 4th Thursday of every month).
​

Now that I knew what the video was I'd be able to see if anyone had taken up Honda on their offer.
A search revealed a few smaller websites already posted this video and similar videos from Honda using the same eBuzzing player. Some sites, like Tech Patio, did mention this was a "Sponsored Post" in small text at the bottom of their entry.
This is technically a requirement of their Code of Conduct, which is something Russell failed to mention to me in our conversations. Perhaps this explains why sites like Parent Wheels neglected to mention it. Ironically, that site bills itself as putting forth "Real Opinions" for family motorists.
Honda, sadly, isn't the only one trying to accomplish some social media "buzz" with a little post-ola. Both Jeep and Peugeot are listed with campaigns, though entirely for Europe, which makes sense since eBuzzing is a European company.
Formerly the "Wikio Group," eBuzzing's portfolio comes from a mixture of European web properties including portal Overblog.
According to a TechCrunch post from August, the company made $15 million in 2010 with a staff of just over 160 across Europe. They also took on $25 million to change their name from the Wikio Group to eBuzzing last year.
They have numerous ad campaigns running at this moment from major brands like Microsoft, Addidas, Lacoste, Chico, Sprite and many others. Some pay by the view (around $0.05 to $0.13 per) or by the post (as much as $104 for an Air France video).
Honda appears to be an active client with multiple campaigns running in three different countries based around these same promotional videos.

[h=3]Screenshots[/h] View the gallery

The interest eBuzzing has in Jalopnik might be because of our very large European audience, as they don't list America as a target for their advertising. In America, you don't have to directly pay for content anyways, as Chrysler so inexpertly demonstrated last week. Numerous contests allow automakers to skirt paying bloggers directly by offering them trips and goodies, either for themselves or their readers.
A direct payment from car companies seemed unlikely, even to my jaded expectations, until I got the email from Russell.
If there's any consolation in this post-ola scheme is that Ebuzzing doesn't seem particularly good at this trust-gaming exercise with regards to English audiences (the French might be an exception).
Most of the sites I tracked using this specific campaign were relatively small and around half appeared to mention somewhere that it was a sponsored post.
That Honda would want to pay people to talk about the Civic wasn't surprising given the almost universal loathing for the American version, but the European version doesn't have the same problems.
A spokesperson for American Honda said they don't work with eBuzzing but can't speak for their European arm.

Statement From American Honda
I can only speak for American Honda. We do not do any business with eBuzzing nor do we pay for coverage in the U.S. Our European operations are separate from our U.S. operations including promotion for the Civic—-which, as you know, is a completely different car than is sold in Europe.
​

Technically, if I pasted the video from Honda in this post I'd still be able to invoice the $78 since Ebuzzing states that they value authenticity and honesty.

"Be yourself! Your style, your tone, your words and your editorial angle are the basis of your identity and success within your community. No ad campaign justifies betraying who you are."
​

Indeed.

Source: http://jalopnik.com/5893022/how-honda-pays-bloggers-to-write-about-their-cars

 

[Azamakumar]

This is effectively guerilla marketing, right? What's so bad about that? Ultimately they've made a product to sell, it would be silly not to market it. Heaps of companies do it with testimonials and strangely enough they seemed to get shirked more than if they didn't. Why should this (or product placements etc) be any different?

I'm surprised this warranted a thread from you of all people...

 

[seremify007]

I agree that it is common and given the industry, there's always going to be the element of supporting journalists (e.g. providing nice hotels, nice cars to drive, plenty of perks, etc)... but then to encourage promotion so overtly with cash (i.e. here's some money) reminds me of the "cash for comments" affair. I guess it's hard to tell at what point does it cross the line, but when I read this I was surprised that it was Honda's new tactic. There's a clear difference to me between providing a favourable reviewing environment, and outright paying someone to put up something nice.

ps. I'm all for marketing provided it is very clear when reviewers/journalists distinguish between what is their own opinion/video/materials and what was provided to them. This is more of an issue for the reputable reviewers whom the public are more likely to place weight or reliance on- I am a huge supporter of independent reviewers, but I would hope that they would disclose any such incentives as disclaimers in their reviews.

 

[Azamakumar]

Actually the more I think about it the more I'm disappointed it's honda that's done this. Maybe because they've always been an engineering perfectionist.

How do you distinguish this from say guerilla marketing? You're more or less duping people into talking about your product (it's not always meant to be obvious that it's a plug for something). The journos may be in on the promotion and if they're happy to sully their title by pushing an agenda for money that's their business, but the readers aren't always clued in (esp if the writers are skipping out on the 'sponsored post' disclaimers).

What makes cash any different than say giving them a car/holiday etc?

There are also a couple of other model releases that come to mind when you mention 'favourable reviewing environment'. The ducati diavel and the mass production (2010 i think) bmw s1000rr both had their strengths and both played to it. There were 15 or so diavels taken to a windy stretch of road and given to journos to punt up and back then write about (it's the fastest accelerating ducati ever, quickest stopping, and given it's a cruiser it is the most comfortable ride but at anything above walking pace you don't tend to notice how much it weighs), and the beemer touting best-in-class motorcycle ABS had a similar thing done but on a soaking wet racetrack - everyone given a couple of laps and then told to grab the front brakes as hard as they could on a skidpan/gravel trap and watch the bike not fall over. obviously everyone was raving about them, in the real world, however, both didn't seem so popular.

What's the difference between paying someone to give a favourable review, or setting up a PR/testing day in an environment that plays solely to a couple of amazing strengths, when the reality is they will form an overwhelming minority of use of the vehicle? Nobody's going to come out and say 'yes it can do x but it sucks dong at everything else' of their own product. It's a bit hard to take someone else's word for something, especially when they have a vested interest in you believing them (ie honda saying the civic is a great car).

 

[seremify007]

Re: Guerrilla marketing- I guess the difference between them is in guerrilla marketing, you are just splashing the name everywhere and using unconventional means to attract potential customers to see your brand. In contrast, this is more along the lines of misleading potential customers into thinking that independent reviewers or journalists have come to a positive conclusion on the product- i.e. the companies are paying influential (or potentially influential) people to have a favourable view of their products and spread the good word. I guess it's more akin to using a celebrity to market a product than anything else- except in this case, the celebrity is really just a journalist who is perceived to be offering an independent view.

I agree with you that there is always that vested interest (after all, you don't want to get banned from future car launches and hence losing your ability to write a car review), but I think there is still a difference which can be identified between setting things up to be as favourable as possible for the reviewer to have a positive experience with the vehicle whether it is playing to the strengths (e.g. ability to corner and hence a curvy stretch of road) or just to keep the reviewer comfortable (e.g. nice hotel before the press day), and outright paying for favourable feedback/comments totally ouside of the scope of the product review and journalistic integrity.

Your example of the holiday is a difficult one purely because if it was a pure holiday (i.e. not work related at all) then yes that would be the same as paying for comments, but it's when it's a nice hotel/flight/etc to the venue then it becomes a bit more grey. Either way though, I still feel that in the latter case of grey, it's still better than outright saying we'll give you $50 if you write something positive about us.

I guess at the end of the day, car reviews are much more about entertainment than they are about professional, and skeptical journalism.