Ghostblogging
Maggie Fox writes that ghostwriting a blog is just a bad idea. But is it?
Flogs and astroturfing are definitely wrong, and should be viewed upon with full disdain. Flogs, for the uninitiated, is a fake blog. Often these take the form of a ‘independent third party’ who writes at great length why they love Brand X … all the while the blog is authored by members of the Brand X marketing team. Lesser known but still heavily used are the blogs or comments to blogs that take the point of view of a citizen concerned about a particular political issue, yet the ‘citizen’ is a paid member of a particular lobby. This is also known as astroturfing, as opposed to the more authentic grassroots movements.
I’m not against the idea of a character blog. I think a blog in which it is fully known that the situation is fictional can be a great creative outlet. It’s just too often the one heading up the character blog is a hack, and so the results tend to be lame. But just because the majority to date have been lame does not invalidate that particular use of the medium. Sooner or later someone will craft an incredibly compelling and moving work using blogs as their medium and a lot of people will be left scratching their heads wondering ‘why didn’t we think of doing something like that?’
Ghostblogging. Is it an outright bad idea, or is there room for it given that best practices are followed?
I have a web design client who is currently using a ghostblogger. He’s a tradesman, running his own business. Between driving from one end of the GTA to another to handle calls, he still has the day to day management of his business, never mind his family life and other ties to the community. Unlike those of us who work in front of a computer all day and can easily switch between one window and another, it’s not so easy for him to find the time to blog.
As well, he was not fully confident in his ability to write. He has a lot to say, and he certainly has wisdom and advice to impart. But a blank screen with a blinking cursor, he knows would be intimidating, never mind the concern that the words that end up on that screen may not read the same as what he actually means to say.
And so a ghostblogger was called in.
The way they work together is to connect on the phone and have a conversation, over the course of which, she draws out of him the details of what he wishes to say. She’ll then draft a post and send it to his marketing consultant and myself for comments and criticism, with a final draft being offered to the tradesman for approval.
I can’t speak for what the other two add in to the mix, but my own input is to try and steer away from any marketing language and to more freely shared knowledge. “Treat it as if you are at a dinner party“, is my standard response, “and someone has approached you and asked you about that problem. You don’t hand ‘em a brochure. What do you tell them?”
When I compare the conversations I’ve had face to face and over the phone with the emails and written missives I’ve had from the client, I can say that the ghostwritten blogs are much closer to his true voice than his writings are. My hat goes off to our ghostblogger for being able to capture his tone and words so well.
Is this the optimum scenario? No. Any impediment between your words and another’s mind is something to be avoided. But -and I may be reaching with this comparison- if the words come to you through the lips of a translator, and not the person themselves, does that lose authenticity? Our ghostblogger takes the client’s spoken words and translates a long rambling conversation into a concise and digestible written article. Optimum - no. But to be avoided completely?
I would be very interested in advice and opinions from the community. Should ghostblogging be classified side by side with flogs and astroturfing? If not, what are the steps one should take with a ghostwritten blog to still walk on the side of the angels? Should it be disclosed upfront that it’s ghostwritten? Written in an interview-like format?
No related posts
March 11th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Hi there, I think the issue has largely to do with transparency, authenticity and effectiveness. If it’s made clear that the blog is dictated by the owner of the business, but not necessarily “written” by them, I think that’s fine - the problem arises when the ghostblogger claims to be someone they’re not; this behaviour actually contravenes the Word of Mouth Marketing Association’s guidelines (”say who you are…”) and is, um, lying. Which is bad?
As far as authenticity goes - what if a client wanted to interact with the owner of the business on the blog? The blog he doesn’t write? Would they be able to, or would the ghostwriter be forced to play Cyrano De Bergerac, and reply in the owners “voice”? And how authentic would that be, what benefit would the client and/or business owner receive over simply picking up the phone?
Which leads us to effectiveness - if you’re using the blog as a method of essentially issuing press releases about the business, rather than actually opening up a dialogue with your marketplace - why are you doing that? Call it a website instead and use WordPress as free CMS - that’s far more accurate.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Hi Maggie,
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
In the case of my client, while we have used the blog to issue a news release, I’m of the view that a release should be saved for… well… something newsworthy.
What we’ve tried to do with the blog is to build a series of articles surrounding his trade. Do it yourself advice, opinions on when doing it oneself is a bad idea, and just some general musings of a seasonal sort.
We’ve left it up to the client to respond directly to comments. To date, a few words response or an invitation to call him direct has been enough. The dialogue does continue, but it goes offline.
This works in that he’s a tradesman working within a specific geographic area, but you’re quite right that it would likely fall flat for anyone trying to build a discussion on a wider scale.
I don’t know if I accept the label of liar for ‘ghostblogger’. Were the words simply pulled from the air and attributed to the client.. . well then sure. If the ghostblogger is passing their own opinions off as that of the clients… okay. But when the words are the product of a discussion and the client in the end signs off on it saying “yes - that’s how I feel about it”… I’m still left with the feeling that this is a fuzzy grey in between the black and the white.
March 12th, 2007 at 8:46 am
As the “ghostblogger” for this particular tradesman, I can add the comment that one of the main points he always makes is the value of hiring professionals to do the jobs they’re good at, instead of doing a shoddy job yourself. While this tradesman is an expert in his field, he’s not the best writer around, or he’d be doing that for a living. People would probably not enjoy reading his writings, just like people would not enjoy the results of work I did in his particular trade. Just because everybody learns to write in school, doesn’t mean that everybody’s writing is worthy of publication. A blog is public. There aren’t many people’s journals that I would want to read. This is, I think, the greatest danger of blogs: the celebration of mediocrity.
Our tradesman wants to see whether blogging will his raise his profile in his local area. He wants his profile to be as professional as he is, so he works with me. My challenge is to chat with him and try to capture his thoughts and phrases so that I can render his own voice but in an interesting condensed version that makes his points succinctly. This is much like writing magazine profiles. You have to have a great ear and memory, and present the best crafted miniature you can of the person, all the while remaining true to him. Since we’re writing about issues in his field, I couldn’t put words in his mouth if I wanted to. His expertise often leads to surprising comments.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
I suppose ghost writers have been around a long time. It’s only natural they would show up on the web? Nice post!
Ed
http://www.CarolinaEventPlanning.com