I have worked in media for more than ten years (radio, tv and advertising) and have worked in professional blogging for five. As much as I do tend to find the issue blown out of proportion, there is merit in what Marketman has said. But I must say that what the lady has written is not as malicious as it sounds. She may lack discretion and finesse. And I do find listing blogs that they didn’t ask permission for in their website to be reprehensible and irresponsible. But in my honest opinion, MM’s outrage is clearly coming from someone who’s not aware of the realities of the current practices of advertising, marketing and promotion.

I feel something need to be clarified.

Let me put this on a certain perspective that I think most longstanding media people (and I mean people who ply their trade in professional writing) will agree. When you go to this business, you write to be paid. You write so you can eat. Not because you are poor, but this is simply a trade. The same way Chef Gonzales and Dr. Bello are paid so they can pay their over head and afford to pay for their children’s education. The so-called prostituting yourself to the establishment is something that’s as acceptable as going to a
pharmacist so you can get your medicine.

Being paid to write good things isn’t corrupt. It’s just business. I am quite sure that the late great Doreen Fernandez who became my English teacher also does the “reprehensible” thing.

But the thing is, how to write that paid review doesn’t necessarily mean changing your truth. It is your own prerogative to write it without dignity (like some columnists do) or show how it with the same aplomb and brilliance you usually do. The difference is, you only receive money for it.

Now, I find that people who have issues with this are those who aren’t professional writers. And I don’t mean this to say for someone who write well. I just mean those who ply writing as their trade.

If the people who condemn this sentiment should also penalize copywriters, and speechwriters. Because we’re doing the same thing. It is a job. We do this to get paid. (But please note, I’m not being paid to do this.)

On a bigger scale, media companies develop partnerships with companies like Nestle and Unilever because they’re the ones footing the bill. I bet you can agree that newspapers, tv stations, radio and bandwidth don’t pay for itself. Ads and paid content keep media companies afloat. And media companies should strive ways and means to get their demographic so that advertisers will come to them. That’s the way it goes.

I think approaching MM is good strategy. Because Nestle would like to reach out to your readers. Your credibility, that if you think about it, can be real valuable. But by not acting too negatively, I do think MM would have made this a win-win situation and exploited this to his gain.

There’s an Ad Council commercial years ago that about how really advertising is what keeps media what it is today. We can all bitch about it, but it’s true. They have the money and a sizeable amount of control. I bet you, if there are other ways to do these things, then M’s outrage may have more meaning.

That’s why I agree with the spokesperson that MM is an exception, because you can afford to maintain this lovely blog. Other people would gladly add their two cents by way of a glowing review (or maybe a few constructive criticism), accept their payment and see it as form of good karma. It is business. It is not meant as a personal attack on someone’s honor as a writer nor is it an insinuation. The same way banks can be so insinuating. But that’s a different story.