Oracle AppsLab - Latest Comments in A Can of Worms

Re: A Can of Worms

Jake — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:31:42 -0000

Julien: Oracle is not covering any expenses, only giving bloggers a pass to the event. That said, we will see what happens after the event when bloggers post their thoughts.

Re: A Can of Worms

Julien Lamarche — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:32:55 -0000

The objection I think isn't so much if bloggers are being paid or not, its what happens if bloggers are critical of Oracle products. Does Oracle stop covering their expense?

Environmentalists have always accused large media companies to cater to the interest of car advertisers. As a volunteer in a political riding association in Canada, I found it suprising how the relationship between an association and small community newspapers also change if you buy ad space from them. It will be interesting to see how the dynamics of the relationship between Oracle and bloggers develop, especially given that blogs are a new form of media over newspapers.

Re: A Can of Worms

Peter K — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:40:51 -0000

The waived conference fees for invited bloggers is great and for those of us fortunate or unfortunate to be employed, our employers will and do pay for our T & L plus salaries to attend BUT that is for the sole purpose of learning not to blog about the event.

For those who are self-employed, the "training/learning" mindset has to kick in where if a vendor offers or waives their training fees, would you attend even if you have to pay for your own T & L? I would think that each will have to consider the merits (i.e. benefits vs costs) BUT if Oracle intent that you are invited as "PRESS" with the expectation that your sole intent was to blog about the event (i.e. not for you to learn), then that's a different story.

I am assuming here, but I think Oracle's intent was to invite the bloggers along to learn AND blog about the event (negative or positive). Obviously it looks like there are opportunities available to the bloggers that are not available to the general attendees so that is a plus.

Regardless, FULL DISCLOSURE is the only way to go when blogging about the event/sessions.

Re: A Can of Worms

Floyd — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:15:10 -0000

Jake, no worries about whether or not I was on the list...no big thing either way. My post was more intended to talk about the issue of comps for bloggers and to point out that a person's perspectives on this issue could be influenced by their individual situation.

And we will definitely meet up at OOW...I'm looking forward to it!

Re: A Can of Worms

Jake — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:58:52 -0000

Floyd: You were on the list, as were nearly all of the people who responded. I've been told by a few folks that registering as "Press" isn't working for them either. Hold tight, if you're waiting. I'm waiting to hear back from PR. I hope to meet you in person at OOW.

Re: A Can of Worms

Floyd — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:16:51 -0000

I can also shine some sunlight on one important fact regarding my own blog...nobody's paying me. I did not receive a blogger's invitation from Oracle this year, so my decision was an easy one.
More thoughts that came after hitting the "Post Comment" button the first time...

I'm actually in a very fortunate position regarding to this matter. My employer (the Jet Propulsion Lab) considers my attendance at OpenWorld to be an important part of my job, so they're paying all my associated costs for attending as well as my salary while I'm there. So, I'm fortunate in my ability to combine my blogging with "just doing my job."

My perspectives might be more in line with Vinnie's if I were faced with loss of income and out-of-pocket costs in order to attend OpenWorld.

If I allowed Oracle to cover any portion of my T&E or registration costs, I would feel obligated to disclose that fact to my readers. They could then form their own opinions as to whether I'd become the "King's man" by accepting the "King's shilling".

Re: A Can of Worms

Floyd — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:59:04 -0000

I'm not sure just where I come down in regards to the "blogger invitation" issue. However, the discussion has led me to significant consideration of blogging and ethics. I don't know how my consideration will play out in relation to my own blogging, but thanks to all this discussion's contributors for getting my mental gears turning on the subject. Good stuff!

Re: A Can of Worms

Paul — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:02:54 -0000

Hi Jake.

clearly if you want to keep the network execs sweet, you need a blog about "nothing"

Re: A Can of Worms

jnolan — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:20:45 -0000

Marius,
Thanks for your last comment, I apologize if my response to you was heated.

Re: A Can of Worms

Jake — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:40:51 -0000

Vinnie: I already conceded your point and changed the verbiage to your liking. I'm trying to get information about what the program entails.

I'm on an island here with no information, but I agree that access to executives could tip the balance for some of the invitees.

I will update when I hear anything.

Re: A Can of Worms

vinnie mirchandani — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:06:35 -0000

Jake, expenses are a red herring. 2K will not break me or you. It was your point about not paying it to keep us impartial that got me going. As I wrote last night given the lack of clarity around executive and customer access at OOW the 2K issue becomes larger - because it clouds the ROI I get from the conference. But it does not deserve all the ink it had gotten and I apologize for that.

Re: A Can of Worms

mkrigsman — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:31:27 -0000

Marius, Thanks for the clarification. Since the beginning of time, con artists have used any means at their disposal to swindle and manipulate others. Unfortunately, it sounds like you hang around with some pretty sleazy characters. I'm sure you totally distance yourself from those activities, so this is no comment about you.

By the way, you aren't a PMO guy at Oracle, are you?

Re: A Can of Worms

Marius — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:20:11 -0000

Michael K.,

sorry if my comments was misunderstood. My comments were not directed at Jeff. I was talking in general about so called marketing companies that take advantage of the Web 2.0 world. I have a friend that runs one of this companies. You basically hire his service to promote a product. He has a team in India that will start fake Blogs, create fake reviews, participate in forums adding marketing information about the product. He claims that this is how Enterprise should leverage Web 2.0 for marketing. He actually has a many success stories. I personally don't like this approach, but I can't ignore it.

Re: A Can of Worms

Jake — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:38:59 -0000

Pete: Sorry about the timing and that you won't be able to make it. This has been in the works for months, and I actually thought it was dead b/c I hadn't heard as recently as this time last week. As you can see from the exchanges, we're getting lots of ideas for next year.

Vinnie: Dude, I know you're not calling ignorance ingenious. I can't speak for Justin, but I really do not know details about analyst relations. If you want me to admit they are paid, then yes, I do know that.

There is no travel budget b/c the precedent was set by SAP, right, wrong, indifferent. How much more obvious does that need to be?

I agree you are independent and respect that about you. It shows through in your blog and through other's comments about you.

This point is also well taken. I myself am not sure what the program entails, but I assume the event access is full, meaning that the bloggers can mingle on the demo floors with customers, partners, employees, press, media, etc. and attend sessions, just like customers. I don't know about executive access, but I can ask.

So, it seems we have a long list for next, if PR extends the program. I hope they will.

Thanks for your thoughts and assistance in understanding the mindset of your fellow bloggers.

Re: A Can of Worms

vinnie mirchandani — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:26:45 -0000

Jake, it is ingeneous of you and Justin to keep saying "we don't know" what happens on the analyst side of the house. You pay over 7 figures a year to Gartner. Forrester etc and you have made a huge issue around a few K in travel for bloggers?

If you don't have a travel budget, that's fine, but putting it in an independence lens is why you have opened the can of worms

I know how independent I am - on my blog I am tough on Oracle, SAP, EDS, Accenture, ATT, Infosys, others. My firm helps CIOs negotiate with vendors. We have to be independent. My firm makes zero from vendor marketing budgets (whereas half or more of most analyst revenues come from that). The time we work with vendors as clients is when they are themselves buyers of technology.

My request for expenses had everything to do with ROI. As I blogged yesterday, I am not sure what executive or customer access I will get at OOW. For me to reschedule 3 days of client commitments (and lose fees for those days) and spend another 2K in travel in not good ROI. You could tip the balance by providing more clarity on the agenda and helping with travel expense.

And we can both disclose Oracle paid for travel. Can of worms closed and thrown in the garbage.

Re: A Can of Worms

Pete Finnigan — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 04:09:10 -0000

Hi Jake,

I also got an invite from Oracle to attend Open World as a blogger. Whilst i would love to come over to Open World as i have never been, my time that week is already sold to a client so in order to come i would need to have the income that would be lost repaid and also in reallity i could not let the client down anyway.

That is a specific issue for me, if Oracle had invited me further in advance I would have come over as that time would have been blocked out to open world and I simply would not have sold it to anyone else for consulting. Personally i would not mind funding the trip myself as its a great oppertunity to attend and as far as blogging is concerned i agree that each blogger needs to simply be up front and state that Oracle paid their pass in.

In terms of if Oracle really wanted a blogger to attend and they were busy then they probably would need to fund it and the blogger would need to be up front about it as it is in that case paid marketing.

just my two penneth.

cheers

Pete

Re: A Can of Worms

Jake — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 01:45:40 -0000

Puneet: I still have writer's block, notice the lack of substance, just rehashing Friday's post. You need to blog so I can cherry-pick your content.

Re: A Can of Worms

Puneet Thapliyal — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 01:14:16 -0000

Jake,

Wow. To think that just last week you were struggling with a writer's block:

http://oracleappslab.com/2007/10/12/does-web-20...

And now you are in the middle of this soup. Life is again interesting for you. Enjoy.

--
Puneet

Re: A Can of Worms

Jake — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:42:55 -0000

Wow.
Jeff: Spot on, I have a lot of respect for what you did at SAP, blogging against the current, starting the program, etc. I'm glad you're reading and hope you continue to do so.

Jackie: My intention was not to insult my readers. Enterprise software is a game of influence. Oracle is still finding its way (Michael Feldstein, a colleague has a great synopsis in Vinnie's post).

Peter K: Agreed, full disclosure allows people to make up their minds on credibility.

Michael/Eddie: Thanks for adding your two cents.

All: This is good to hear. I wish this discussion had happened in the Spring or Summer before it was too late to influence the program. As I said in Vinnie's post, this is our first date. So, there are bound to be awkward moments.

Re: A Can of Worms

eddieawad — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:20:21 -0000

My two cents contribution to this can of worms: If you are a professional or an "A-list" blogger and Oracle does not want to pay your T&E and you do not like that, then do not accept the invitation. Who's the loser here? you or Oracle? When fewer bloggers accept the "unpaid" invitation, maybe Oracle will change their policy next year. In the end, it all comes down to the credibility of the blogger. No one can beat opinions backed up with facts, whether paid or not.

Re: A Can of Worms

mkrigsman — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:11:49 -0000

Marius,

I am virtually never this rude (and I apologize in advance for being so), but implying that Jeff's situation was comparable to Walmart is simply garbage.

If you have comments, deal in reality and not in generalized speculations that cast doubt on honest people.

Next time you post, perhaps leave a little more information so we can take a look at YOU.

Michael Krigsman
http://blogs.zdnet.com/projectfailures

Re: A Can of Worms

Peter K — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:10:39 -0000

Jake,
Just to be clear on my stance. I don't care whether Oracle pays for the blogger to attend OOW (expenses, travel, conference fees) or not. I just think that everything should be above board. If said blogger is to blog about the event, there should be full disclosure and if said blogger were to ask for payment on top of that, that's is paid marketing and whatever is posted by the blogger should be considered "paid marketing".

I think it is great that Oracle is taking the first step to extend an invite to bloggers (qualified) to attend as part of the "Press" - free conference fees.

Re: A Can of Worms

Jackie Danicki — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:54:48 -0000

I think it's pretty insulting to readers to question whether or not they can decide on credibility for themselves. As Jeff says, being up-front is key. The industry is full of smart people - surely they can work out for themselves whether a person has been bought with a flight and hotel room.

I have some experience with this: I have a beauty blog (http://jackandhill.net) where my co-editor and I review products and salons. We are always very clear in disclosing when we have received a product or service as a freebie; it's up to our readers to decide if we're being honest or shady in our reviews. We don't hesitate to criticise freebies, though, and it's clear that we're swamped with stuff and are not whoring ourselves out for more of it. (One result of our credibility is that we've been cited by Allure, Women's Wear Daily, the New York Times, the Sunday Times Style Magazine, and many other publications for our no-holds-barred take and reliably blunt, entertaining posts.)

I can't help but think that some people are deliberately trying to make this issue look murkier than it actually is, or some people really do not respect the intellect and opinions of readers and influencers in this industry.

Re: A Can of Worms

jnolan — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:48:54 -0000

Jake,
I appreciate that you are in a spot between your own marketing organization and a group of vocal bloggers. I do want to make one clarification that is important here: at SAP I covered air fare and hotel accommodations.

I can't speak for Vinnie, but if he was asking for anything other than his travel expenses to be covered I would be surprised. At SAP we never paid anyone a fee over and above the expenses I highlighted above, an arrangement that has to my knowledge continued without modification after I left.

In fact, for the recent TechEd event that I attended, SAP paid for my air fare and my stay at the Mandalay Bay, but I paid for my in room wifi and taxi cabs.

The reason why I paid for blogger expenses is that these bloggers are not professional bloggers, other than Dennis by the mere fact that he is a journalist by profession. I just don't think it's fair to tell these bloggers to give up their day jobs for the time they were at my event, and by the way, pay your own expenses to boot. Dan Farber from Cnet paid his own expenses because they have a policy about this, but again, Dan is a journalist by profession.

The best disinfectant for any perceived bias is sunshine, which is why I never attempted to hide the fact that I was paying for their expenses. Would you agree to disclose what journalists Oracle covered any expenses for? How about every analyst who's services you subscribe to? Maybe put a disclaimer on every press release featuring a Gartner or AMR quote that Oracle is a client...

Marius, you are way off base in suggesting that I paid for bloggers the way that Walmart did. Before you make such a claim you had better be prepared to back it up with any blogger that will assert that in exchange for their travel expenses being covered that they agreed to promote anything about SAP. In fact I can point out more than a handful of posts generated by the bloggers at an SAP event that were critical of something the company was doing. Lastly, when don't put your full name and a link to your comment I think you are the one abusing the tools and talking out of your ass.

Re: A Can of Worms

Marius — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:38:19 -0000

I think Enterprise 2.0 will mean to some, ghost written blogs/reviews/wikis/forums/digg entries. I believe Walmart got in trouble for using paid bloggers.
My point is that most Web 2.0 tools are made to be abused as marketing tools. The trust your peer model, is ultimately not so trustworthy.