The Ghost-Blogging Debate Ain’t Going Away, Folks

By Scott Hepburn | Comments (5) | Trackbacks (0)

Can we talk about transparency again?

I know all of us “veterans” of social media are sick of this discussion. Too bad. We make up less than 1% of the global population, and the other 99% still have questions about transparency, disclosure, authenticity and the rest. It’s our job to answer those questions.

And here’s the real bitch of it: They don’t even use those words. They say things like “Can you just write my blog for me?” Only those of us in the industry use such high-falutin’ terms.

So much for speaking the language of your customer, right?

The transparency debate seems to revolve around one question: Is it okay to blog/tweet on behalf of someone else?

Some say ghost-blogging is okay. Some say it’s not. Some are re-evaluating their positions. Even the tech community is split.

It’s time for a reality check: Ghost blogging will happen. Ghost tweeting will happen. We can’t stop it. Sheer economics tell us CEOs have better things to do than writing blogs, responding to comments and “building community.” It’s true at Fortune 500s, and probably more true at small businesses.

The Wizard of Oz Publicity _231Here’s another reality: Most consumers probably don’t care who writes the blog. To them, transparency isn’t about seeing the man behind the curtain. It’s about trusting the Wizard to take you back to Kansas like he promised.

Those of us in the ever-converging PR, marketing and social media fields can be purists if we’d like. We can draw our lines in the sand. And we can go broke in the process.

I’m not saying we should all start ghost-blogging and ghost-tweeting. We must continue to teach. We must look for creative solutions (Employee blogs instead of ghost-written CEO blogs?). We must continue to influence companies to be listeners and facilitators, not just talkers.

And we must be open-minded.

Companies not innately gifted with communications prowess will nonetheless want to use the tools of communication to their advantage. You’re either with ‘em or against ‘em. You’ll have more luck teaching them to use the tools responsibly if you’re with ‘em, trust me.

Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader.

Tags: , , ,
Topics: Social Media
  • Scott - this is a really important debate I think the one percent of us need to join and figure out...quickly. I have clients and prospects ask us ALL THE TIME if we'll just do this for them. We've always written feature articles and bylined columns for our clients. Heck, for some clients, we even write comments to blogs and articles and send to them to approve and post. Why is writing a blog any different?

    I do think you can outsource most of social media, including ghost-writing. Where I still have an issue is Twitter. I don't think someone can/should ghost-tweet for a CEO. If the CEO can't do it, set up a different account and let someone internally (or externally) build the community. But to have a Twitter account that is supposed to be a CEO and have someone tweeting for them, I think, is not transparent.

    That being said, not all businesses or CEOs need to use Twitter. It's just one tool among many that can be used to reach communication, HR, and customer service goals.
  • I couldn't agree more on the blogging vs. Twitter distinction, Gini. There's just something about Twitter (frequency? conversational tone? DMs?) that makes it seem less appropriate for ghosting.

    How do we resolve this dilemma then? Twitter is such a powerful tool for bloggers. Do we cave on the ghost-Tweeting line in the sand, or do we limit ourselves to ghost-blogging and pass up Twitter's usefulness?

    What's the line in the sand on forums, Facebook (and other social networks), and wikis? Does the line move depending on whether the personality is a celebrity? Do you have to be a pop star to be a celebrity? Can a CEO be a celebrity? Is it okay to ghost-Tweet Shaq, but wrong to ghost-Tweet Steve Jobs? Does a high profile mean you play by different rules than the rest of the world? What qualifies as high-profile?

    Tricky stuff.
  • I don't know if there's a definitive line for me on whether it's right or wrong. But I can say is that I host an important annual conference of new media travel writers and the organizing committee and I ruled out two big-name travel journalists as keynote speakers because they have ghost bloggers and ghost twitterers to speak for them online. We felt it was a major decision on their part to discount the power of their own voices that way, and knew they obviously didn't really "get" new media even though they each had a presence.
  • I really enjoyed this article. As I writer, I have never considered ghost blogging or tweeting as a job opportunity. While I don't really agree morally with this, I do, however think it is a good job opportunity for someone, like me, who is a writer and has had trouble finding work in that area. I understand that there is some soul selling in the transaction, tho.
  • As a writer, I would not give even a single thought to ghost blogging as a career option. But I am not against it. If someone hires a ghost blogger, I have no problems with that blog till quality is there. However, it is not very difficult to spot a ghost blogger. Most of posts on such blogs are not that good as far as i have seen!
blog comments powered by Disqus