DeafRead and commercial sites
 | By Jared Evans Monday, June 9th, 2008 |
DeafRead highly values the true ethos of blogging- that is a blogger sharing independent thought, meaningful analysis and personal opinions without undue influence.
When a blogger is part of an organization backed by a for-profit corporation and both of them can stand to benefit financially from the blogging effort, there is an inherent conflict of interest. These bloggers can optionally receive other means of compensation. The integrity of the blog posts then is called into question. The blogger can run the risk of becoming a mouthpiece for the corporation.
DeafRead prefers to distance ourselves from these types of blogs. This is why we continue to allow personal blogs of CI bloggers who display the true ethos of blogging. Any blog that start to push for a product to the point of almost becoming commercialized will be revisited by the DeafRead team for a possible change in its subscription status.
For example, I work for Viable VRS. If I blog about Viable VRS and to be fair to others who read it, I will put in a disclosure that I am a Viable VRS employee because I stand to benefit financially. When DeafRead picks it up, editors will know that it should be moved to DeafRead Extra. If I kept quiet the fact that I work for Viable VRS and blog often about Viable VRS and later my relationship to Viable VRS is discovered by the editors- they have the right to remove me from DeafRead due to violation of the guideline about commercial sites.
If a blog rarely talks about affiliated products, the DeafRead team will likely let the blog exist on DeafRead. It’s only when it becomes commonplace on the blog, will we revisit the blog. We are not going to remove a blog at the first sight of an affiliated product.
These are guidelines to understand the ethos of blogging.
1) Posts about non-profit organizations are entirely OK
2) Posts about for-profit organizations are OK as long as:
- the blogger is not in any way affiliated with said organization and/or
- not paid by the said organization in any form (currencies, freebies, reimbursements etc)
3) Advertisements outside of the posts are allowed
We ask that bloggers who may occasionally post about a for-profit organization, including its services and products, to mark each post as such. They will be moved to DeafRead Extra. Blogs that post about the affiliated for-profit organization endlessly won’t be subscribed to.
I hope this vlog makes it clear the reason why we recently removed an aggressively marketing blog when its relationship to a corporation was discovered. As long as there is proper disclosure or the blogger stays true to the ethos of blogging, DeafRead will continue to list deaf-related posts of the blog.
Any decision to remove a blog from DeafRead is never made lightly. Only after doing our homework, we always reach this step as a last resort. When a blog has been removed for violating the commercial site item in the guidelines, readers should be assured that this has been done because the DeafRead team found compelling and convincing evidence that the blogger has an affiliation with the for-profit company. The blogger does not need to actually receive a paycheck directly from the company. The blogger(s) may benefit in other ways, such as receiving a free trip, receiving a discount on the company’s product/service, or obtaining a scholarship. We believe it is petty behavior to target a blog by disclosing evidence.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Deafread Staff,
I would understand your decision only if there was sufficient evidence to indicate that Rachel of Cochlear Implant Online was marketing one brand of cochlear implants over others.
There is a difference between advocating for a certain type of technology and marketing specific brands.
I spent some time looking for indications that Rachel had indicated a preference in regards to specific products, but could not find any. The only connections to Cochlear Americas was through her own admission that she received the Nucleus 22 and recently that she was a member of Cochlear Awareness Network, a volunteer support group for recipients of the Nucleus implant and Baha.
Certainly there was no “aggressive marketing” on behalf of CAN or Cochlear Americas anywhere in Rachel’s blogs. Therefore to insinuate that her website is a commercial website that markets products out of Cochlear Americas is inaccurate and falls within the definition of libel.
The reality of it is that more and more deaf children and adults are receiving the cochlear implant, so it makes sense to have an independent website that provides resources, information, and experiences for those with an interest in cochlear implants.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Thank for taking your time explaining about where you and your team stand in this issue. I know it is not easy explaining these guidelines.
I have a question, I recalled one of your old blog entry, at http://www.jaredlog.com/?p=704, I did remember that it got published on deafread. You stated that blogger should put in a disclosure that they are a employee, however at what level should it be clear to us? In your blog, it is only mentioned that “thrilled to be part of Viable Team”. It is somewhat vague in that area. I know that the blog site haven’t make more than one mention of the company, but still, it can cause some confusion at a later time.
Also, what if a company, like VRS or other deaf-friendly company have a press release announcement, can they be posted at deafread or what? Maybe your team can create a section of “offical press release” where all companies that provides service to deaf/hoh may publish their press releases.
Just thinking aloud.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I’m unable to watch your vlog. Could you please add youtube or quicktime?
Thank you,
Shelley
June 10th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
aaroncues: It was disclosed on CI Online that CAN members received training from Cochlear Americas as to what to say and what not to say – which is why a specific brand wasn’t named.
It was DeafRead team’s decision that the site crossed the threshold into a commercialized status with the many blog posts pushing for cochlear implants along with the site domain name and especially when her relationship to Cochlear Americas was discovered.
kewlguy: my vlog made it clear that I worked for Viable . It should have belonged in Extra since I am affiliated with Viable. This was a mistake on our part. I don’t endlessly blog about Viable VRS so this was overlooked. Press releases from other companies are ok on blogs not affiliated with the companies.
Sheptoma: it is in Quicktime format. Maybe you need to upgrade the Quicktime software on your computer to view it.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Jared,
CAN, as you admitted, is a non-profit organization. Please explain that.
Non-profit organizations can be sponsored by for-profit organizations. If you go to NAD’s website (NAD.org) you will see a gigantic list of sponsors who are for-profit (like ATT, Viable, HOVRS, etc). So, are you saying that members of NAD should be excluded from DeafRead?
CAN is non-profit. We all know that. Please clarify.
-Ben
June 11th, 2008 at 8:06 am
CAN and Cochlear Americas are joined at the hip. CAN exists solely for Cochlear Americas. Cochlear Americas has paid managers placed inside CAN and tells the members what they can say and do
NAD is an independent organization. While they can enter into temporary sponsorships with a few companies, these sponsors don’t tell NAD what they can do or say. in addition, NAD members don’t push the products of their sponsors.