Jeff Jarvis has doubts about Blogversations that gets marketers to sponsor conversations that bloggers engage in on their blogs.

Blogversations, however, gets it backward. It wants marketers to actively tell a blogger what to discuss and then they will sponsor that discussion. Oh, I'm sure they'll say they won't tell the blogger what to say, only the topic. But in my judgment, this goes over the line: It calls into question the blogger's credibility (would she be talking about this if she weren't paid to talk about this?). And it is contrary to the essence and appeal of blogs: I talk about what I want to talk about. Love it or leave it, read it or not, sponsor it or not, that's what we bloggers do.

I must say I share the discomfort over the whole concept. Part of the inviduality of the blog is the blogger's mind that acts as a filter of the reality he encouters and writes about. The talk of markets being discussions and web being talking and ads not being evil, sounds good but it still does not make much sense.

David Weinberger would also like some clarification:

Unclear from the site: Is the fact that the bloggers are getting paid made apparent? And where do these "conversation" occur? Unfortunately, there's no obvious way to get more information about what Blogversations is proposing except by registering.

Indeed. Sounds too much like viral marketing to me, with the emphasis on viral.

Back to Big Blog Company