![ScienceBlogs: Its Complicated
In July scienceblogs.com, a blogging platform which supports around 80 amateur scientific bloggers, caused international uproar when the multinational corporation Pepsi was granted permission to publish a blog called Food Frontiers on the site.
ScienceBlogs’ editor, Evan Lerner, welcomed the partnership with this statement…
The result of this partnership is that we are to hear from a wide range of experts on how Pepsi is developing products rooted in rigorous science-based nutrition standards, to offer consumers more wholesome and enjoyable foods and beverages.
The focus will be on innovations in science, nutrition and health policy and the transformations in Pepsi’s product portfolio, but we will also learn about some of the innovative ways the company is planning to reduce its use of energy, water and packaging.
The reaction to this was significant and immediate. There were blogger defections and extensive media coverage from the likes of Guardian, Newsweek and Daillykos.
This negative reaction was mirrored by the active community of readers…
Craig Holman wrote his comments below the Food frontiers welcoming statement above (now taken down but referenced here):
A corporate-sponsored blog has no place in ScienceBlogs.
It can’t be taken seriously and drags down the legitimate blogs by association.
If this blog is not closed prompty [sic], I hope the other blogs leave ScienceBlogs as quickly as possible.
Shame on you.
Shame on the ScienceBlogs management.
Within a day of the Food Frontiers blog appearing and before any meaningful content was posted ScienceBlogs removed the blog and replaced it with this statement:
We apologize for what some of you viewed as a violation of your immense trust in ScienceBlogs. Although we (and many of you) believe strongly in the need to engage industry in pursuit of science-driven social change, this was clearly not the right way.
How do we empower top scientists working in industry to lead science-minded positive change within their organizations? How can a large and diverse online community made up of scientists and the science-minded public help? How do companies who seek genuine dialogue with this community engage? We’ll open this challenge up to everyone on SB and beyond in the coming days so that we can all find the right solution.
So what happened?
What went wrong? Why was this move so controversial? And how should ScienceBlogs have handled this situation?
Tackling what went wrong
In a nutshell; Scienceblogs breached the implicit trust that was built within the site.
The implicit arrangement was that ScienceBlogs would manage the platform and publisise the site and allow bloggers to discuss scientific matters how they wanted, which meant (after initial vetting) the bloggers had full editorial control of their content.
The trade off is that ScienceBlogs could monetise the site by selling advertising space with bloggers receiving some of the proceeds.
That was the deal.
Put simply, Science Blogs provided the platform, the bloggers provided the material.
In giving access to Pepsi ScienceBlogs essentially moved the goalposts without any warning or notice to the lifeblood of the site.
This is why there was widespread condemnation of the Food Frontiers blog.
So how should ScienceBlogs have acted?
If there was a financial or strategic imperative to include companies such as Pepsi on the ScienceBlogs platform, then this argument should have been made first.
If the motivation of this move was made transparent to all of their bloggers and readers before talking to potential brands, then they would have been part of the process and a compromise could have probably been reached.
From this consultation a set of criteria or a list of potential partners could have been agreed upon
For example; some kind of profit-sharing if this was a move seen to profiteer from the contributions of the standard (non-affiliated) bloggers, or differentiation between standard content and the new “paid for” or “sponsored by” content, if there was concern that readers would not realize that the sponsored blogs were not authored by the same (non-affiliated) authors of standard content.
Most likely, a mixture of the two solutions would be required in order to reach a compromise. The fact is that ScienceBlogs’ success depends completely on the goodwill and trust of its bloggers, so reaching this agreement would be paramount.
Acting unilaterally like it did has not only damaged ScienceBlogs’ reputation in the community but also broken the implicit agreement of trust with its contributors immeasurably.
The knock-on effect of this is that this kind of negotiation in the future will be facing a much more cynical audience, if even possible at all.
Picture: Gapingvoid.com](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l926z8Eg2e1qbufdoo1_500.jpg)
ScienceBlogs: Its Complicated
In July scienceblogs.com, a blogging platform which supports around 80 amateur scientific bloggers, caused international uproar when the multinational corporation Pepsi was granted permission to publish a blog called Food Frontiers on the site.
ScienceBlogs’ editor, Evan Lerner, welcomed the partnership with this statement…
The result of this partnership is that we are to hear from a wide range of experts on how Pepsi is developing products rooted in rigorous science-based nutrition standards, to offer consumers more wholesome and enjoyable foods and beverages.
The focus will be on innovations in science, nutrition and health policy and the transformations in Pepsi’s product portfolio, but we will also learn about some of the innovative ways the company is planning to reduce its use of energy, water and packaging.
The reaction to this was significant and immediate. There were blogger defections and extensive media coverage from the likes of Guardian, Newsweek and Daillykos.
This negative reaction was mirrored by the active community of readers…
Craig Holman wrote his comments below the Food frontiers welcoming statement above (now taken down but referenced here):
A corporate-sponsored blog has no place in ScienceBlogs.
It can’t be taken seriously and drags down the legitimate blogs by association.
If this blog is not closed prompty [sic], I hope the other blogs leave ScienceBlogs as quickly as possible.
Shame on you.
Shame on the ScienceBlogs management.
Within a day of the Food Frontiers blog appearing and before any meaningful content was posted ScienceBlogs removed the blog and replaced it with this statement:
We apologize for what some of you viewed as a violation of your immense trust in ScienceBlogs. Although we (and many of you) believe strongly in the need to engage industry in pursuit of science-driven social change, this was clearly not the right way.
How do we empower top scientists working in industry to lead science-minded positive change within their organizations? How can a large and diverse online community made up of scientists and the science-minded public help? How do companies who seek genuine dialogue with this community engage? We’ll open this challenge up to everyone on SB and beyond in the coming days so that we can all find the right solution.
So what happened?
What went wrong? Why was this move so controversial? And how should ScienceBlogs have handled this situation?
Tackling what went wrong
In a nutshell; Scienceblogs breached the implicit trust that was built within the site.
The implicit arrangement was that ScienceBlogs would manage the platform and publisise the site and allow bloggers to discuss scientific matters how they wanted, which meant (after initial vetting) the bloggers had full editorial control of their content.
The trade off is that ScienceBlogs could monetise the site by selling advertising space with bloggers receiving some of the proceeds.
That was the deal.
Put simply, Science Blogs provided the platform, the bloggers provided the material.
In giving access to Pepsi ScienceBlogs essentially moved the goalposts without any warning or notice to the lifeblood of the site.
This is why there was widespread condemnation of the Food Frontiers blog.
So how should ScienceBlogs have acted?
If there was a financial or strategic imperative to include companies such as Pepsi on the ScienceBlogs platform, then this argument should have been made first.
If the motivation of this move was made transparent to all of their bloggers and readers before talking to potential brands, then they would have been part of the process and a compromise could have probably been reached.
From this consultation a set of criteria or a list of potential partners could have been agreed upon
For example; some kind of profit-sharing if this was a move seen to profiteer from the contributions of the standard (non-affiliated) bloggers, or differentiation between standard content and the new “paid for” or “sponsored by” content, if there was concern that readers would not realize that the sponsored blogs were not authored by the same (non-affiliated) authors of standard content.
Most likely, a mixture of the two solutions would be required in order to reach a compromise. The fact is that ScienceBlogs’ success depends completely on the goodwill and trust of its bloggers, so reaching this agreement would be paramount.
Acting unilaterally like it did has not only damaged ScienceBlogs’ reputation in the community but also broken the implicit agreement of trust with its contributors immeasurably.
The knock-on effect of this is that this kind of negotiation in the future will be facing a much more cynical audience, if even possible at all.
Picture: Gapingvoid.com
