Reality Check | Ephraim Schwartz | InfoWorld | Can you trust vendor sponsored information? | March 30, 2007 11:13 AM

MORE ENTRIES

Can you trust vendor sponsored information?

March 30, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Can you trust vendor sponsored information?

Imagine if you read a feature story in the Sunday magazine edition of your favorite paper on, say nuclear power plants, and at the top it had the usual byline of your favorite reporter but at the bottom it said something like, "this article was sponsored by General Electric."

What would you think? Would you trust the information? You've known the publication for years and it has a reputation for integrity. Does that get thrown out the window along with the story?

This is the issue facing online readers today where sponsorship of content is a growing phenomenon.

I spoke with Bailey Sory, president and CEO of RealTime Publishers, a self-described Web 2.0 marketing and publishing firm that provides targeted IT communities, subscriber-based, with books, sent out chapter by chapter on a weekly basis, and daily blogs written by experts in their IT field.

For example, Dan Sullivan writes a blog called Messaging and Web Security which serves as an interactive platform where readers can seek out advice, add commentary, and communicate with technology professionals.

Sullivan, the resident editor, is an independent expert paid as a contract worker by Realtime, says Sory.

Here's the first line from Sullivan's bio: "Dan Sullivan is a systems architect with 20 years of IT experience that includes engagements in enterprise security, application design, and systems architecture." The rest of the bio is very impressive and he certainly appears qualified to speak to the subject of securtiy

Sory proudly claims that Realtime's content is "non-advertorial content, objective and the community members, about 200,000, access the information through permission-based marketing."

Permission-based marketing basically says you are willing to hand over contact information in exchange for getting something for free.

Sponsored content is an integral part of the Web. InfoWorld does it with Webcasts on IT subjects sponsored by major vendors. Everybody does it. The question is will the information be as impartial as content you read in print where there has been a centuries old tradition of separation of church and state, separation of advertising and editorial.

Journalism is one of the few professions where a person has the right, if not the obligation, to tell off the person who hired him if he thinks he has blurred the line between church and state.

Will that tradition carry over? I'm not sure. IT in some ways is a special case. Because the technology can be so complex, users of the technology are eager to learn and are willing to listen to anyone who has some expertise.

Since it is often the case that the vendor is the one who may have actually created or invented the technology, they are the one you may be most eager to hear from.

But at the same time, information can be subtly slanted toward one flavor of the technology over another.

And even if it is pure as the driven snow now, will it remain so five years from now as competition heats up? I can't say.

What do you think? Do you trust vendor sponsored information? Have you ever seen any sponsored content that you felt crossed the line?
I'd like to hear from you.

Posted by Ephraim Schwartz on March 30, 2007 11:13 AM

RATE THIS ARTICLE:

COMMENTS

As someone who writes about trust, I run across the issue of conflict of interest quite frequently. As a general rule, I find we as a society are too quick to criticize on the basis of possible conflicts. Think Sarbanes Oxley, for example--arguably an example of overkill, getting rid of conflicts of interest rather than focusing on selective prosecution.

But this is nonetheless a bit of a slippery slope. It's not so bad in IT--if I see an Oracle-sponsored piece, it does sort of scream Oracle at me. Microsoft? A bit less. But the stakes aren't all that high to me; I expect Coke to scream Coke, not Pepsi.

Your example of GE sponsoring a page that writes about nuclear safety is a much more telling one.

Now let's raise the ante. The real example to be concerned about parallels is the pharmaceutical industry. The list of disclosures at the end of scholarly articles has gotten absurd--everyone is sponsored by a pharmaceutical company which has a vested interest in the outcome of the study.

And do we think the studies are biased as a result? I do. And I'm hardly alone. For starters, read Marcia Angel's book.
Or, go look at the Kohl hearings from June of this year, at http://www.c-spanstore.org/shop/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=199455-1 and at http://www.aging.senate.gov/hearing_detail.cfm?id=277997&

Do we like drugs being developed when the research is sponsored by drug companies? It's got to give one pause.

I don't have the answers, but it's a non-trivial quesiton.

Posted by: Charles H. Green at July 6, 2007 08:08 AM

Technology White Papers

InfoWorld Technology Marketplace

» Technology White Papers Library

Technology White Papers by Topic

Technology White Papers E-mail Alert