Should Journalists Disclose Sponsored Trips to Events?

[Rob Williams]

As journalists, we are on occasion asked to attend various conferences and press events in order to learn a bit more about a product or series of products. Sometimes, we pay our own way, and other times we'll be "sponsored" by one or more companies, depending on the event. Up to this point, I haven't thought too much about it (even though we're effected), but I think it's time to change that.

​

You can read the rest of our post here.

 

[eunoia]

It's fairly well known that this is standard practice in many industries, not only computer hardware.

In a better world it would bear mention if a doctor recommending a drug mentioned the manufacturer paid for a couple's trip to the Bahamas for an "information session," or a movie reviewer mentioned he saw the movie at a press screening in Bora Bora.

I'm for disclosure, but I understand the pressures against it, including a sometimes unmerited negative impression of the sponsor.

 

[eunoia]

I'll ramble on some more, because this is an issue that's compelling to me, both inside the computer industry and across other fields.

There's the story of the movie reviewer who wrote to many negative reviews and was taken off the list for press junkets: loss of prestige, potentially loss of a job. Like in any industry, there's a lot of money at play and it's gotta be tough to balance journalistic integrity and "playing along" especially as one's reputation grows.

The first source of bias is innate: you wouldn't be reviewing something if it wasn't an area of passionate interest, so generally, reviewers are industry cheerleaders. That being said, I think if the reader is equally passionate, they will consult a wide variety of sources and keep a scorecard of who's producing useful balanced information and where.

The problem of course is the huge pressure to be unbalanced. Polemicists are often overly read, if not believed, but readership is a major metric. A manufacturer looking to buy an opinion will look to the ones that are the most widely disseminated. Sadly, more credible sources take a longer time to establish themselves and there's rarely a quick fortune to be made from doing the job the right way.

The good news is that time does heal some of this. There are some fairly well-known and well-read good sources out there, we all have our list of them. The best a reader can hope for is no premeditated inaccuracies and no glossing over glaring problems, and with the constant feedback via review comments and user reviews acting as a powerful bull$&*% detector, hopefully, the basic truth will always come out in the end.

Another favourite anecdote was told an ex-President on Letterman: When asked what he though of another ex-President being paid a million dollars to give a speech in Japan, he said, (paraphrasing, can't find exact quote) "It's not my place to comment on other ex-Presidents, but if somebody wants to give me a million dollars for a speech, I'm there!"

The best reviewers are the best diplomats and can get something across without even having to say it.

 

[madmat]

It's a double edged sword. On the one hand, if you disclose that your trip was sponsored you're being honest but on the other, if you disclose it and you're favorable about the results of the junket you can be thought to be favorable simply because you're indebted to the sponsor.

 

[Kougar]

Interesting video! Nice to see some frank, honest thoughts from a well-traveled PR representative on that question. Some good and valid points made.

I will say that this is another reason I like Ars Technica, they have a strict policy to not accept a dime for event costs. Granted they are a large site and have the means to do so, but still they have a longstanding policy to always pay their own way to events.

The first source of bias is innate: you wouldn't be reviewing something if it wasn't an area of passionate interest, so generally, reviewers are industry cheerleaders. That being said, I think if the reader is equally passionate, they will consult a wide variety of sources and keep a scorecard of who's producing useful balanced information and where.

The best reviewers are the best diplomats and can get something across without even having to say it.

There are some good and very true points made, here. Anyone reading reviews should read more than just one source and should look for trends or common points between them before basing their decision to purchase on them. Even with myself, I try my best to cover every angle of a product, but I do sometimes find out something new elsewhere or realize something about that same product elsewhere. For any site reviews can be damn good and comprehensive, but I'd never say a single review was perfect, including my own. There's always room for improvement.

 

[b1lk1]

I see no harm in an honest journalist disclosing this. In reality, if you ask me, it would cause said journalist to be even MORE objective with all stories/reviews with those companies so they would not be accidentally showing any sort of bias. Good honest guys would have no issue telling us.

Now if Intel is buying you a car, we may have problems......

 

[orthancstone]

Disclosure is always the best policy in my mind. Even better when you can do it humorously. To use another site as an example...

Example from Jalopnik's Ford Fiesta test drive/review

Full Disclosure: Ford flew a host of journalists to San Francisco and put them up in a nice hotel on the Embarcadero for the launch of the 2011 Fiesta. Since we live in the Bay Area, we simply drove downtown. We were offered a room anyway, which we accepted for the purposes of storing our gear and taking a late-afternoon nap. It was a nice room. It was a nice nap. And now we kind of want a Fiesta.

They do this with pretty much any event that involves someone transporting them and showing off a car. They usually do it in a funny way too. Best part is that all it cost them was one paragraph near the beginning of the article with the bonus side effect of possibly causing you to crack a smile.

Can't go wrong there IMO.

 

[Rob Williams]

The problem of course is the huge pressure to be unbalanced. Polemicists are often overly read, if not believed, but readership is a major metric. A manufacturer looking to buy an opinion will look to the ones that are the most widely disseminated. Sadly, more credible sources take a longer time to establish themselves and there's rarely a quick fortune to be made from doing the job the right way.

I agree with a lot of what you say. In this particular industry, I truly believe that "nice guys finish last". As I mentioned in the news post, despite NVIDIA's most recent GPU launch having obvious and sometimes harsh faults, some sites out there gave it awards. Not surprisingly, a couple of these sites had NVIDIA advertising. That's the sad truth. The even sadder truth is that honest sites have a VERY hard time proving the fact that they're honest.

Fortunately, we've never been bribed into giving a product a good review, but we <em>were</em> at one point asked if we'd ever consider being paid for reviews (with the stipulation that it doesn't matter our thoughts on it, as long as it's reviewed, so they said). We of course would never be paid for a review, and we hope that would be obvious.

It's a double edged sword. On the one hand, if you disclose that your trip was sponsored you're being honest but on the other, if you disclose it and you're favorable about the results of the junket you can be thought to be favorable simply because you're indebted to the sponsor.

You're right, it IS a double-edged sword. I've had some friends tell me the same thing, and most of them basically said it isn't worth the effort in disclosing it, given it will cause more harm than good. That in itself is a tough situation, because do you, or don't you want to be honest? Again, nice guys finish last. I hate that saying, but it proves true way too often.

I will say that this is another reason I like Ars Technica, they have a strict policy to not accept a dime for event costs. Granted they are a large site and have the means to do so, but still they have a longstanding policy to always pay their own way to events.

That's the major difference between sites like theirs and a site like ours. They have ad revenue coming out the rear-end... it's <em>nothing</em> for them to pay for trips all the time. For most other sites, going to a sponsored event is a real setback financially.

In reality, if you ask me, it would cause said journalist to be even MORE objective with all stories/reviews with those companies so they would not be accidentally showing any sort of bias. Good honest guys would have no issue telling us.

That's true, but what happens if the product actually happens to be REALLY good? That's the tough thing. Some people might think you're being too generous because you were sponsored. I've had this feeling a couple of times even when we <em>weren't</em> sponsored to the trip (like Computex two years ago, I couldn't get over all the great stuff ASUS had on display, haha).

They do this with pretty much any event that involves someone transporting them and showing off a car. They usually do it in a funny way too. Best part is that all it cost them was one paragraph near the beginning of the article with the bonus side effect of possibly causing you to crack a smile.

Haha, that disclosure was great!

 

[Senor]

Truth hurts. Sometimes it hurts the one who needs to hear it. Sometimes it hurts the one who speaks it. Sometimes, it hurts both. Lies haunt everyone forever.