I'm glad you brought this to the public's attention. I struggled with the expectations of MPI for "fair and unbaised coverage" and therefore decided not to apply. I had friends that felt MPI was buying the media with this process.

What I do think is missing from the conversation is the FTC guidelines that bloggers should disclose relationships and endoresments. Each of these social media gurus should write a disclosure statement ion their WEC posts that they received discounted WEC registration in exchange for writing about the event. Then the true relationship is exposed for the reader to make their own opinions.

Excellent suggestion! I plan to bring this up with MPI HQ.  I feel I have been upfront about my status as a "guru" for MPI - but I agree a disclosure statement would be helpful to clear the air.  I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong impression, although I do plan to do my best to provide a fair and balanced report for all aspects of the congress that I participate in, that means both positive and negative feedback! 

I'd like to address your comments openly Jeff rather than replying privately since you mentioned that others shared your concerns about MPI "buying the media" with our program.

As a public relations professional and one of only two people managing this program I take those thoughts expressed and innuendos very seriously. Because when you say "MPI's motives" you're actually talking about mine. 

I have never bought nor bribed media, nor will I ever. I would never intentionally develop a program that had the potential to undermine the credibility of either the organization I support or the participants of the program.  We are not trying to "buy media" coverage of our event.

We are trying something new, to experiment, innovate and establish benchmarks at our events to prove the impact that social media has towards our communication goals.

Kristen Kouk and I developed this program as a first step towards validating the impact that key social media players have in driving coverage and conversation about live events.  By establishing this benchmark we will have future proof to treat legitimate social media bloggers and writers equally to the traditional press. But in business, if you don't have the case study or statistics to back up your claim, you don't have a strong position at the table.

As representatives of MPI we have been very clear about this program and that the participants have been received partially compensated registration to participate. I'd like to point out that traditional media have their event registration completely comped not only by our organization, but also by most other associations - surely you are not insinuating that their coverage of events is also "bought"?

I'm disheartened that if you were more interested in the program Jeff (even after I personally encouraged you to participate), that you did not reach out to express concerns about MPI's motives with this initiative. I must reiterate that we've been very open about the parameters of the program in the online application and promotion as well as with the traditional press outlets that have covered this program and continue to do so.

Only through open and honest dialogue do programs and practices within social media maintain their relevance, much less their authoritative position.  I would encourage any blogger in the WEC program to openly disclose their selection process if they feel it is necessary. I think Vanessa is an excellent example of someone very open about her process.  While she is an active volunteer leader in her local MPI chapter, she was also a vocal constructive critic of the MeetDifferent virtual experience and has never shied away from pointing out areas where MPI at large should improve. That is "fair and unbiased" coverage. Give credit where credit is due, and call us on the carpet when we deserve it.

If anyone ever has questions or concerns about MPI's tactics in social or traditional media, please address me at tdavis [at] mpiweb.org .

I want to thank Theresa for her comments regarding the process for the new initiatives being tested at this year's WEC.  I cannot speak for the other social media gurus, but my decision to apply was based on purely selfish motives and I did not feel "bought" in any way.  I have to believe that those who do actively engage in social media are probably the most unbiased of all attendees!  Social media outlets are not censored; its free-form conversation and an outlet for ANYONE to share their beliefs (as Mr. Hurt has done above).  MPI has in no way edited my content.  I applied for the social media guru team for the opportunity  to practice my craft and to provide unbiased content.  My "status" as a social media guru widens my audience so my comments, good and bad, will perhaps be received by many more people than if I was a lone contributor to the message boards.

I will gladly disclose the discounted registration; it was a welcome benefit as I do not belong to a corporation or association that is paying for my travel, accommodations and registration fees.  Without the slight discount offered by MPI, I probably would not have been able to attend and all my feedback about the congress, both good and bad, would have essentially been silenced.

I just want to follow up on my earlier comment, and agree with Leanne - you can't buy my love!  Of course we should be upfront about our status as a Guru for MPI - and I have made a point to do so through all my social media tools. I can only speak from my own personal experience, but MPI has been completely upfront throughout this entire process.  Believe me, I bug them with questions all the time. 

Theresa makes an excellent point about the traditional media's registration to this congress being comped in full...my own organization does the same thing for the media, and this doesn't mean that the spin will always be positive.  In addition, social media is all about being open and honest - if you are not honest, your followers will notice, your readers will stop reading, etc.  Social Media will call you out. 

I believe all the gurus will provide their own perspectives on the congress, while being fair and balanced.  Props to Theresa and Kristen for developing this pilot program.  I can only hope that we as gurus do the program justice, providing useful feedback to advance the program for next year!

Link Correction for "Being an MPI Social Media Guru Isn’t Without Its Challenges"

http://engage365.org/2010/07/being-an-mpi-social-media-guru-isn%E2%80%99t-without-its-challenges/

Theresa (& others) thanks for clarifying.

Theresa you know that I was one of your advocates when you introduced the social media guru program. I even shared it via my own social media networks with much fanfare. It wasn't until I received several private DMs from others calling my attention to the "fair & balanced" statement. that I backed away from it totally. If they had sent me a public tweet I would have no problem talking directly about them.

Thank you for explaining what you see if "fair and balanced." That makes it clear for me.

I think the larger discussion of free registration, discounted registration, etc. in return for writing, reporting, sharing, etc. is a healthy and needed discussion. Especially in light of the FTC Guidelines for bloggers, reporters, writers, media, endoresements,etc. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm

Hello all,

First, I would like to thank those that have written in response to this article, for being so candid.  It is only through healthy debate, aligned with known facts, laws, best practices, and experiences, that we can collaboratively improve the way we do things.

I applaud MPI for trying something new, as the social media guru program is a cool idea.  When I first read about it, I was very enthusiastic, and I still think it has great potential to it.  From some of the comments made in the article, it seems like many of the Gurus that were selected are, for the most part, enjoying their experience.

What bothers me, as Jeff indicated, is the statement that reporting must be fair and unbiased.  To me that smells like censorship.  Regardless of whether there was a registration incentive or not, you can not ask bloggers and social media users to be unbiased.  Opinion, in any form, is bias, as it is that individual's view of how the world works.  Opinion, when backed with factual information and helpful insight and experience, leads to change, and improvement.  That is a healthy thing.

So, my suggestion for future versions of this program, to MPI, or anyone else deciding to implement a program of this nature, is to appoint the people you trust, based upon their reputation and credibility, as writers, and then turn them loose to express themselves, without restriction.  If you selected them in the first place, you must have been impressed with their skillset as writers, as well as their knowledge and passion for this business. 

Regarding the registration incentive, I think that would be fine, as long as you do not place expectations out there regarding the content you are going to get from those selected in exchange for receiving the incentive.  With no restrictions regarding content, there is no conflict of interest, intended or not.

I personally don't believe there were any ill intentions, by MPI, with this situation.  Unfortunately, the way it was teed up, in promotion, led to some understandable controversy.  I think we all need to remember, myself included, that we are in uncharted territory, with social media.  So, there are going to be mistakes made along the way.  We just need to keep calling them out, and we will learn from those errors.

I applaud people like Jeff Hurt, Theresa and Vanessa, for being forthright with their opinions.  It is by being candid about issues, that we all learn from one another and become better business people.

I hope the Social Media Gurus will bring us terrific reporting and interesting insights of their MPI WEC experience for 2010.

By the way, I have to say Theresa, you are terrific.  I was so impressed with your responsiveness at the "meet different" event  in February.  I have no doubt you will be a fantastic addition to the team once again for WEC.

Thanks again, everyone, for the open dialogue on this subject.

Mike McCurry

This is a healthy conversation and I do agree that using the term "fair and unbiased" is a loaded term that can be interpreted negatively by journalists.  Before I started BizBash, I was the VP of Corporate Communications for the media companies" PRIMEDIA and Macmillan, Inc. I used to train our senior executives to let negative comments by "the media " just "go" without any sort of retribution or even a comment. They wanted to come out swinging not realizing that they were indeed the media.  

We owned over 300 media outlets and were still sensitive to negative comments. The first thing that would come out would be internal memos complaining about the media not being "fair". It is natural that people want to protect their brands and products but companies need to practice having thick skins.  

No matter how new the media, things  have not really changed except that for the fact that it is even harder than ever to control the media. Actually even the owners of the media can't control negative press by their own correspondents.

My advice is to always be "Open Source", even when it comes to opinions. New media is even more authentic in some ways and more opinionated an unprofessional in other ways. We have to live with it all. 

I really don't think that anyone in today's debate is/was in any way being more than innocent in the comments about control, at the same time people are taking their positions as journalists vs. company/organization advocate and are learning that even the little things and comments do count and can cause controversy on many levels.

The good news is that the constituency of the folks coving MPI care enough to even respond to the initiatives of the organization making it stronger with each evolution and learning moment.

David Adler

I think we may be confusing these "gurus" with journalists.  The "gurus" (really don't like that term) are people who enjoy social media and enjoy interacting with the event through social media to share their experience.  They are not journalists.  Expecting them to put themselves to the same standard of a journalist is a bit far fetched.  Unless they have had years of training in this field. 

I commend MPI for trying something new.  I don't see a problem with offering a discount as they are benefiting financially from this group...as in they are getting marketing services for free.  I also understand that FTC regulations do seem to demand full disclosure and it's just good business practice anyway. 

But most importantly please remember these folks are not journalists.  So let's not expect them to report the news without a hint of bias (even our journalists are getting bad at that).  Let's let them have a good time and share their experiences with others and see how it goes. 

Great post. Outside of "political" issues, I think the best thing you can do is to be visible to attendees and make them feel comfortable with approaching you and asking questions about how they can engage themselves.  It can be very intimidating for someone that doesn't understand social media to ask questions.

Teach others about being authentic and transparent and what it means for their online reputation. Look at yourself as a teacher and think about how you can help others communicate better.

<input /><!--Session data--><input />

Clearly, we're not in Kansas anymore. The issues raised here challenge our perception of traditional media, its roles and responsibilities, and our expectations of 'citizen-journalists' or whatever you want to call them. One thing is certain, the lines will continue to blur until a new world order takes over - but only for a little while. Social medeites (pronounced 'mee-dee-ites' - a word I just made up) can behave like traditional journalists. But I believe their true value lies in presenting a more personal (yes, subjective) experience to the audience. They're more conversation starters than lecturers (just the facts, Ma'am). And the conversations they start can be as powerful, if not more so, than the facts of a story. That's always been one of the biggest limitations of traditional media, as far as I was concerned. The facts are relatively straightforward. It's our interpretation that really matters. Social Medeites are interpreters. And in a world that's growing increasingly complex - a little interpretation goes a long way.