Bzzzz: seeking advice
Creative Commons recently launched a relationship with BzzAgent. The blogs were not amused. See Corante, Corante_II , Corante III, Just a Gwai Lo. BzzAgents has now responded poorly, calling Corante "liars." As I'm partial to Corante, I'd be willing to ask CC to pull the relationship on the basis of that bad judgment alone. But I'd be really keen for some feedback.
Here are the facts to keep in mind:
(1) This "partnership" (like all our partnerships) is pro bono: CC doesn't get or give money in these commercial contexts.
(2) The aim of the partnership is to extend our work offline. The vast majority of BzzAgent action occurs offline.
Thanks for the help.
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (141)
My basic problems with this arrangement are:
1) BzzAgents do not have a good reputation amongst the people I have spoken to - which primarily means my friends and those on #joiito - and I fear that CC's reputation would be tarnished by association with a company whose methods many disapprove of.
2) BzzAgents encourage people to modify their normal social interactions in order to promote a company in return for rewards. To me, this seems like 'conversational spam' and as a tactic it could backfire. People who get spammed and find out about it might take against CC because of the tactics used to bring their attention to it.
3) Those BzzAgents who choose to promote CC are a self-selecting group, just like those individuals who have chosen to promote CC because they believe in it. This means that if CC's desire is to move beyond their existing user base, BzzAgents may not actually be able to fulfil this aim as their Agents may turn out to be in the same demographic group as existing supporters.
4) Dave Balter claims that 80% of their 'word of mouth' marketing happens offline, but it is not in the offline world that CC has strength - it is through adding a CC licence to your digitised works and making them available online that you add to the commons, and it is through online searches that people find CC-licenced works. If BzzAgents are promoting CC offline, are they capable of reaching the correct demographic to increase adoption of CC?
5) Regardless that CC is not paying BzzAgents actual money to promote CC, there is the risk that existing supporters may feel betrayed. Many people have worked hard to support CC through various methods, including buying CC merchandise, and to have CC then ask BzzAgents' Agents to promote CC explicitly for reward could be interpreted as a slap in the face. Is CC willing to risk alienating it's existing supporters in the hope of gaining some new ones?
6) One has to question the quality of the promotion that BzzAgents are going to be able to provide. If they are more used to promoting sausages or shoes, then they may not do justice to CC. Are they really going to be passionate about copyright reform?
I understand that CC wants to increase adoption, but I do not think that an alliance with BzzAgent is a good way forward. The alliance with Flickr, to pick an example, is far more constructive and far more likely to introduce new people to the concepts behind CC. What other online communities could benefit from CC? What moves are being made to promote CC amongst, say, the film making community?
I would rather see CC reach out to their existing supporters and to formulate schemes which help supporters to promote CC in an honest, transparent manner. Equally, I think CC needs to help journalists out more too, make it easier for them not only to pick up the basic concepts but also find angles which will be appealing to their readers (the MP3 thing is so overdone it's not interesting anymore).
I passionately believe in CC and copyright reform. That's why I took part in the Free Culture audiobook project, and wrote about it at such length. That's why I turn up to the London Copyfighter's Brunch as often as I can, and write about copyright and digital rights every chance I get. That's also why I question the wisdom of this agreement with BzzAgents.
I would love to be proven wrong on the points I have raised, but if I thought there was any hope of that, I wouldn't be as vociferous as I am.
Terrible idea to get in bed with these creeps. I have just read the articles you linked to and the response from this company. I think it negates the whole idea of 'the commons' to enlist propaganda creeps to play 'reality tv' with something that is much too good of an idea to be sullied this way. It feels like the same thing the government and companies do by creating 'news stories' for media outlets that are not mark as what they are.
I checked out the BzzAgent webpage as soon as it was announced on the CC blog. I stayed there for about 5 seconds. The whole things seems patronizing and exploitive.
This outfit has a creepy feel that was not present in the spread firefox campaign. The entire premise of the way this company does viral marketing, is that you lie to people. You come on like you're an average, disinterested person, but really you have an ulterior motive. Want to soil the image of CC? That's the way to do it. Their true colours have come out, with their reaction to a small level of criticism.
The other question is: Why does CC have to have a "relationship" with these people? The CC is a broad-based movement -- CC licences are everywhere now on the internet. If this company is so intent on helping CC, why do they have to have an official connection with the CC governing body? They should just do it on their own, as citizens movements have always done.
But then, this outfit doesn't really care about citizens movements. They're out to make a quick buck. They remind me of Microsoft offering crippled versions of windows to poor people in Brazil.
I believe this is obviously a serious PR problem, given BzzAgent's creepy image. However, beyond that, the issue is the way the use of this channel categorizes CC as a "cool product" more than as an legal and ideological instrument for reform and change. Many people all over the world have embraced CC because they firmly believe in the values the organization stands for, and have been inspired by the impressive work the organization has done so far.
The most important NGO use frequently marketing campaigns, of course, and maybe it's right to open the debate of wether CC should start using them to better promote its objectives in the offline world. But I don't think many supporters of CC would be comfortable with BzzAgent's strategies.
Please ask the CC to pull the relationship.
Offering incentives for social behavior destroys people's trust. It takes away from the honesty of social interaction. It's that simple.
The nature of Creative Commons isn't to run around and call Bloggers liars. Dave Balter and BzzAgents seems to think that's how the Creative Commons should be represented. Jumping in to bed with Dave tarnishes the CC. Dave and the BzzAgents know they need something to build their brand out of the "shill" company they're known as by most people.
A 12-week campaign involving 1,000 agents can cost $95,000, correct? Nice tax deduction for Dave and BzzAgents. It's not they're doing this for nothing. Perhaps Dave could tell us exactly how much he'll be writing off with this?
The BzzAgent reports indicate they interrupt conversations to talk about their shoes (http://www.bzzagent.com/pages/AgentsAtLarge.jsp) to earn points...."I kept finding myself in conversation after conversation about gun control, stem cell research, etc. I was trying to steer towards airport security so that I could talk about my shankless shoes, but that didn't happen. But the Presidential race did come up. Hey, I haven't had a chance to talk about the Presidential aspects of my shoes (which went with my suit - so I was loaded for bear)....So the soap box speaker (who was visually annoyed I took the floor from him) jumps in "speaking of airports . . . " but he was cut off from another gentleman (Edward) who was either tired of the soap box speaker or actually interested in my shoes."
Is this how we want Creative Commons to spread? It feels gross.
Dave Balter and BzzAgents also says this (http://www.corante.com/strange/archives/2005/04/30/oh_dear_creative_commons_shack_up_with_bzzagents.php#comments)..."And for those who call us liars, I'd suggest that if 1/2 the companies out there were as transparent as we are, you'd find much more devious behavior than honest communications".
I read that as, we're transparently lying. Dave Balter justifies unethical behaviour by saying others are more unethical.
If a marketing group wants to help the CC for offline efforts there are many things that can be done. Print, TV ads, event marketing, etc...But having BzzAgents earning points promoting the CC along with sausage, cream cheese and shoes led by a CEO who calls bloggers liars seems counter productive.
It's not a big deal, let's just decline and move on.
>there is the risk that existing supporters may feel betrayed.
heh. that's it, right? honestly, if you support something cause you "believe in it", why you complain about someone got paid to promote it further? is your righteous belief so strong that would be shattered when someone got reward for something you have done for nothing?
i know, the whole foss community is now feeling betrayed and angry cause CC hired a coder full time. we are such a fan girls.
besides, while it's certainly true for some "true believers" out there, just because its human nature (or fan nature?), i don't think it will be such serious threat to CC. loyal fans are always leaving, for numerous reasons, like the team moved stadium, the band switched label, or, most likely, just because their fav thing got more popular.
btw, i saw many true believers of CC done a total publicity failure.(those ppl who push their inaccurate, often ridiculous interpretation of CC, in inappropriate circumstances). i doubt anyone can do any worse, paid or not, even in your world, where everyone must lie when then got paid.
My friend JB has a pretty coherent comment here. I'd sincerely recommend reading it; it's better than anything I would have said on the subject. (Bottom line: recommends against, on the grounds that introducing 'mercenaries', even if unpaid, distorts the feeling of the movement.)
The tactics of BzzAgent are as unseemly to me as those of the Bush administration paying journalists for favorable coverage and planting a "shill" in the White House press corps.
I concur with those who've already given the "thumbs down" to the CC-BzzNet relationship.
I agree that getting Out the Bzz™ is a an "Uncommonly Creative"™ best-of-breed interactive re-purposing of the under-utilized mindshare of next-generation Change Agents.
My only complaint is that other out of the loop synergistic paradigm shifting methodologies are not being embraced by Creative Commons.
Creative Commons offers eleven different licenses with egg-head names like "Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike (by-nc-sa)" and "CC-GNU LGPL".
BORING!!! Who even knows what it means, and only fat nerds with glasses talk that way. Let's give Creative Commons a rad new look with rad new license names, and synergistically open up new marketing avenues for selected companies will maximizing Creative Commons's revenue potential
I suggest the following changes to License names:
Don't think of it as "selling out", think of it as selling in!
I don't hate BzzAgent, and I can sympathize with businesses who take this approach; at least businesses that have not developed their own following of evangelists, of geniuine buzz.
But their work in this case isn't really pro bono. It requires a payment in credibility, a transfer from the reputation of those of us who already promote CC. Our reputations and abilities to advocate for CC are put in jeopardy when people know about BzzAgent's campaign, while BzzAgent gains from its association with CC. This has the potential to do some real damage to the future wide acceptance of CC, and should be nipped quickly in the bud.
I use CREATIVE COMMINS™ everday to fight teh Man! And so do all the other kewl kidz!
We're a-blogin' and a-ajoggin' and a-bumpin' and a-groovin'to new ideas on copyright -- because copy-"right" can be copy-"wrong"
My BzzKit™ on Creative Commins&trade is a little eggy-heady if you're scannin' on my freq, my freaks, and you ain't gonna read all that small-print no more'en I, so I'll boil down what's in there for all you hep catz. Basically, you see somethin' you be wantin', you can just take it off the web or e-Donkey or BearShare, and if your put "copyrite © 2005 Creative Commins" on it, you can use it for free with no hassles from . Yeah, it's that easy-peasy, Weezy! Just slap on the C-C, and it's yours to do as you please-please. Yeah, it's all kool in skool if U ain't no fool!
So that's my Buzzzzz, cuzz -- slap on Creative Commins™ and you avoid the fuzz!
eWord up! Back at-cha! Now git down and tell your friends, and come back 2-morrow at this same Bat-time to this same Bat-channel kidz for more of the Bzz you luvzzz. We'll be talkin' ans squakin' 'bout how all the coolest dudes and dudettes drink Pepsi Blue™ when purchasing their Genuine GM Parts™!
other vaguely amusing point in suw's comment.
4) "they do offline, but CC is online thing" one.
um. have you ever talked about anything ONline, in your offline social life? you passionately spread CC online, but you do talk about it offline too, right?
>but it is not in the offline world that CC has strength
this might be exactly why they(CC) want to do something offline. i wonder what you mean by your online/offline divide. maybe im just not familiar with "online" people, apparently never affected by anything offline. are they AIs or something?
why offline activity cannot affect online world? or, maybe that Bzz-something actually said "we do offline. i mean, completely offline! we never waste our time to talk to anyone who blog or produce anything can be digitized!. yes, our offline tactic never ever reach anywhere online and we are proud of it!" .
that might be a problem, i guess.
Drama! Drama! Drama!
Good grief. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Get the word out about Creative Commons and call it a day, already. I might be taking an 'ends justifies the means' approach but good grief... I'd rather see them pimping CC than coffee makers or shoes. Sheesh.
FoolishPeople will no longer be using a Creative Commons liscence. This is mainly due to the fact that they are happy to market product in a manner that destroy's individualism and encourages the creation of Hive Mind sensibilites.
Secondly the firm which Creative Commons is happy to be associated with enjoys calling Bloggers liars.
Friends of Larry and Creative Commons –
Please know that we really, truly want to help the CC cause. I wanted to take a moment to clarify our view and make sure everyone understands what a BzzAgent program really involves. If it still “creeps” you out or – more importantly – isn’t going to help Creative Commons, then we’re more than happy to pull the plug.
The Creative Commons BzzCampaign is part of our GoodBzz effort, where we offer our services free to non-profits and good causes. We’ve performed campaigns for the March of Dimes and the National Outdoor Leadership school (NOLS). Both companies will attest to how much the campaign helped their specific efforts and how positive the perception and outcomes were. We will begin working on some global health issues this fall.
Let me be clear that BzzAgent is absolutely against any type of shill marketing. We started this business because we are opposed to companies that hire actors to pretend they’re people they’re not. We are opposed to organizations that seed chat rooms, blogs and forums and pay consumers to claim opinions they do not have.
BzzAgents are not provided any cash for their services, and they are not obligated to do anything in our system. They join in order to get more involved and communicate with brands they love. BzzAgents may earn points for reporting their communications with others to us – both positive and negative interactions are acceptable to us. Those points can be accumulated and redeemed for brand association (or non-profit donation) rewards. I want to be clear here that people aren’t rewarded for their activities. They’re rewarded for providing us information that is immensely valuable for the brand/organization. They’re rewarded to letting us know how they communicate so that we can thank them (when’s the last time Apple called you to thank you for telling everyone about the ipod?) and continue to help them become more effective communicators.
We have a Code of Ethics that each BzzAgent is asked to stand by. The first Code is for a BzzAgent is to “Be Open” about the fact that they’re a BzzAgent. So long as the opinion they’re sharing is honest, then how they formed it shouldn’t matter. Imagine you go to the supermarket. There’s some cheese – let’s say it’s Gouda - out for you try. You try it. When you return home, you tell your spouse or roommates about the cheese. You say that you tried it at the supermarket in a sampling program, and that they’re offering 15% off or a free box of crackers to buy. The person you’re talking to likely won’t care that the supermarket offered you the free sample, or that there is a discount. He or she will care about your opinion. That’s what we want to harness.
In the case of the Creative Commons campaign, we’re offering the campaign to individuals in our system who might be interested in helping the cause. They aren’t forced to communicate with anyone, but we help them become conscious of how to share their honest opinion more effectively. I recognize that while there are many in the blogosphere and online who understand what Creative Commons does, there are many, many people out there who don’t. Ask 10 random people tomorrow about Creative Commons. I’m guessing at least 5 of them don’t know what it is.
The Word-of-Mouth that YOU – the current CC community - contributes is invaluable, but for CC to really make it into the mainstream, it needs to be accelerated and augmented. It’s going to need help accessing communities that wouldn’t otherwise consider the copyright issue. It’s going to need to get into everyday homes and to the uneducated. To the educated who aren’t reading blogs everyday. To those not online. To those online who just happen to communicate in different places than we all do.
At BzzAgent, we’re very aware that our model has many kinks and concepts to work out. We look at our system everyday and try to figure out how to maintain an honest approach. As a marketer, I’m angry at the fact that I’ve learned to filter out 95% of the 3,000 ads I see each day. I’ve learned to not believe what I see on tv or in print. I’ve been trained to wonder about product placement and celebrity endorsement at every turn. We wonder if there’s a world where marketers can utilize honest opinions instead of tag lines. It’s a big change, and one that may have its pitfalls, but you can’t blame us for trying.
It would be a shame and really unfortunate to not accept our help for Creative Commons. We are believers, just like you, and happen to have a system that can really make a difference.
Dave Balter
Founder, President
BzzAgent
I am leaning towards recommending that CC drop Bzzagent, but I am witholding my final judgement until I've researched the issue a bit more.
I think that it's important to note that there is a difference between a full-time employee and a part-time contributor. Can we afford to pay everyone who's submitted bug reports to Mozilla? Can we pay everyone who writes a plugin? That's different from the need to hire full-time coders, which nobody is upset about. It's easier to justify full-time employees in a non-profit than paying for what would normally be volunteer work: "If you want to get paid, you can dedicate your entire life to this organization as well."
Lots of non-profits have paid and volunteer employees simultaneously, but they don't do micropayments to everyone who acts as their street team: in fact, usually the cash flow goes the other way. Those who are peripherally involved usually contribute money instead of time. If I can't get a job at the EFF, I will become a member and send in my donation, and then proudly wear my t-shirt. If I have to be paid to wear a t-shirt, if there aren't enough unpaid volunteers getting our message into the streets, that's a problem. The solution is not to pay people to wear t-shirts to artificially inflate our ranks, but to find out why people don't care enough, why we need to hire people to be our street team. Doesn't CC want to become a membership-based organization like the EFF?
The situation is complicated because BzzAgent is doing this pro bono. If CC had hired BzzAgent, I would not hesitate to ask CC to give that money to a genuine grassroots organization like FreeCulture.org instead. However, recommending that CC drop BzzAgent is recommending that CC refuse a gift, which seems impolite. You need to have a good reason to refuse a gift.
Of course, on the other hand you could see it as CC lending its reputation to BzzAgent in return for the "Bzz", which is a trade, a business deal, given that BzzAgent relies on reputation to spread its products. If it's not clear that CC wants to share its reputation with BzzAgent, that is a problem.
I'll come back with my final decision later, but right now I'm not feeling too good about the deal with BzzAgent.
"As a marketer, I’m angry at the fact that I’ve learned to filter out 95% of the 3,000 ads I see each day. " - Dave Balter
As a consumer, I'm proud of the fact that I've learned to filter out 95% of the 3,000 ads I see each day. And ... I hope I am astute enough to discover when a BzzAgent "shill" is "shilling" me.
I agree! Better that they Get Out the Buzz™ about Creative Commons™, the best way to share your imagination, than the Senseo Single-Serve Coffee Machine™, which makes the smoothest most aromatic coffee I've ever had, and in the convenience of my own home, or Journeys Shoes™, which caress my feet with attitude I can wear, at home, to the beach, or anywhere.
Yeah, that was a great bit of self-promo, Dave, but when do we get clarification of your claim that Suw Charman "misstates nearly a dozen facts" in her first post about the partnership? Either you can back that up or you can't. If you can't, you owe her an apology for writing such obvious self-serving bullshit.
Dave: "Accelerated and augmented"... by shills? If you aren't encouraging shills, what value does your system actually add? If your members are already supporters of the products they are pimping, is BzzAgent not charging its clients for normal human interaction?
Oh yes, we've learnt not to believe what we see on tv or in print... now we learn not to trust people we know, because they could be getting rewards for what they mention in conversation. It truly is a brave new world.
I really thought the Creative Commons would be smarter than this.
As I recall, there was quite a controversy at the birth of "public relations" in before WWII when people would be paid to send letters to the editors, seemingly from themselves. I understand this practice is now widely discreditted and avoided in the legitimate PR trade.
It seems these folks are doing the same sort of thing.
I would pull away from them.
-brewster
Just a quick comment, since Nelson and Suw and so many others have said great things.
The agreement with Bzz would be good because it encourages people to evangelize (*correctly*) Creative Commons.
The problem is, Bzz looks like it's paying CC evangelizers who are insincere, and rewarding them with unrelated stuff.
Compare this against the SpreadFirefox campaign. That one feels "Not Evil" because it's (1) not linked to an existing marketing company, and (2) the stuff Firefox spreaders get is Firefox-branded.
Bzz looks too impersonal. Creative Commons and the Free Culture movement is about bottom-up participatory culture. People would feel comfortable with a "home-grown" community-built marketing organization.
So, I'm slightly against Bzz. I know what I'd prefer: an "in-house" SpreadCC organization.
(P.S. Even if BzzAgent is charging its clients for "normal human interaction," it's their business to make money, not to give their clients something new.)
-- Asheesh.
Hey, guys, 1998 called. They want their business plan back.
Creative Commons is supposed to be open, transparent and honest. BzzAgent isn't.
End the relationship.
The Creative Commons BzzCampaign is part of our GoodBzz effort, where we offer our services free to non-profits and good causes. We’ve performed campaigns for the March of Dimes and the National Outdoor Leadership school (NOLS). Both companies will attest to how much the campaign helped their specific efforts and how positive the perception and outcomes were. We will begin working on some global health issues this fall.
It seems to me that this is the crux of Bzz's motivation. They have an abysmal reputation online and are simply trying to turn that tide. In addition, they hope to later pitch clients by saying exactly the above about CC (a group with an, up until now, unsullied reputation online). Though it's not surprising that Dave is playing the altruistic card, I, for one, don't buy it for a second.
In addition, I would love to know how Bzz finds out which of its clients its agents is "already a fan" of. I assume their client list is available somewhere and that the agents who want to earn more credit/rewards simply argue in favor of those products/services. I have to assume this because the other way around (getting Agents to submit a list, blind, of products they want to pimp, and then matching those up against existing clients) is in no way feasible.
So, I'm asking: Dave, how do you determine if agents were truly fans of the products prior to your taking them on as clients? If you don't verify it then I cry bollocks to your claim that they only pimp things they like. Just like anyone on commission (and face, these people are on commission), they're going to sell as much as they can of everything they can.
It would seem logical that an Agent's decision on what to pimp isn't based on what they like but what they think they can easily work into conversation. That, my friend, is the definition of a shill.
http://www.bzzagent.com/pages/CodeOfConduct.jsp
I think Suw's first comment is excellent. The BzzAgent model really bothers me. Just look a the homepage - the lady is talking about New Balance shoes and Nike products. That makes me sick! Almost as sick as when I fell for a recent banner ad that showed a "stolen" Audi car. It turned out to be a viral marketing campaign, and I was duped - a mad at myself as the the character in Joyce's Araby.
BzzAgent says that the CC movement need to be "accelerated and augmented," and that may be true, but at the same time, isn't that why we cringe when we see blatant product placement in movies and TV shows? True, most of those products don't NEED the acceleration like CC could use, but is the CC movement going to die without artificial injection? I am seeing more and more buzz about CC online and offline than ever before. The natural method may take a little longer, but it is much more pure and doesn't reek of artifice. I have a Copyright Commies pin by William Spears - it's on my bookbag in lawschool - I've had so many people ask me about it. There's your offline buzz. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I teach technology training sessions at the school - I have been doing a successful RSS presentation, and I include an OPML file with SharpReader - it has subscriptions to blogs and legal resources that praise the CC movement. All of my handouts have a CC logo and license. People ask about it. Again - I'm confident that other people do the same thing across the country.
How much more will getting fake watercooler talk really help the movement. Smart consumers will read either a lack of knowledge or insincerity immediately, and that will turn them off. People who are PASSIONATE about CC should be the ones spreading the gospel, and not someone who chose it for points. It just introduces a virus - a virus of bias - and I'm afraid that, to intelligent people, it will be obvious (contrived speaking points) and quite a turnoff. It's the reason I don't watch the OC ("I A9.com'd him") and why I won't buy an Audi. And if I'm simplifying or mixing viral marketing with the Bzz business model, I'm not the only one - the average Joe you're trying to reach with the CC message will not see the difference either.
Don't tarnish the buzz that, I promise, is ALREADY buzzing with the CC movement.
Kevin
I second Todd Morman's motion, and I add to that the question: what about calling us liars?
Word of mouth (as far as I can manage to remember from college) is about trust; and calling the community a "bunch of liars" is not a good way to build that trust. Regardless of wether you were just overcome with emotion or not.
You see Dave buddy, its like this. Our individual blogs are our emotional vents; we are very much entitled to throw out our expletives to the world there because it is our own personal media. But there is a critical difference between our blogs and our personal diaries (and to yelling in our own room or in the middle of a forest for that matter): our blogs are also public space (unless of course if it resides in Livejournal or other similar blog hosts which allow blogs to be shared 'with our friends only').
I can only imagine what you must be feeling, Dave, to have your baby dissed and bitchslapped by a bunch of strangers, and often without much forethought nor an honest attempt to be fair, but that's what happens on the 'Net (and why many would go to say that discussions at SlashDot are of such low quality). If you haven't noticed we people living in here digital sea have a bad habit of shooting from the hip. But just the fact that some can be so uncivilised does not give you the right to be uncivilised yourself.
So...
IMHO your response here is a good step forward, and I honestly hope that you continue in that direction. Your offering to help CC honestly is a good thing. I certainly don't "blame you for trying" (and I love your idea of turning the marketing communications industry on its head by relying on honesty as opposed to plain persuation), but you've got to realise (and I'm sure that you've realised) that BzzAgent-the-Brand has been having a PR problem itself. Perhaps it could be said that its a rub-off of the marketing-communications and advertising industry's reputation in general but it is real nonetheless.
I personally am not ready to pass judgement on wether your marketing communications strategies are ethical or not (since I've only gotten wind of this via RSS from about an hour ago), but I stand by my communications professors' axiom that word-of-mouth is spontaneous and honest. Or it doesn't happen.
Last thought - Forgot to add this - maybe this should be a call to arms from Larry - Why not have the people that already support CC go out and spread the word? Are we forgetting the power of the Web and the community? Why not have Worldwide Creative Commons day where college students plaster campuses with posters, professors make it a point to discuss publishing papers under CC, musicians hand out pamphlets to their friends, and everyone something in the offline world to spread the news? Put PDF templates on the CC site for bumper stickers or something. Don't buy/rent/lease the grassroots when you already have it for free. You have the Commoners Club - put us to work.
(and, how much cash would it take to buy cc.org!? I sure wish we had it instead of...)
Using BzzAgent could actually be a bullet to the head for CC.
Check out this link.
A "BzzAgent" submitted two book reviews on books he'd received from BzzAgent to the Concord Monitor. The newspaper was taken in, and by printing the reivews, broke its own ethical guidelines (i.e. by not indentifying paid advertisements as such).
If any "BzzAgent" did something like that to talk up CC, we would kiss years of organizing goodbye. CC's good reputation would be burnt up in a moment.
For a movement where ethics and the law are in the forefront, using representatives with a dubious grasp of both (i.e. the BzzAgents) is just not a smart thing to do.
The issue is not BzzAgent. The issue is behaving in an ethical and honorable way.
From the Google cache of "BzzAgent Boot Camp: 4 of 12" which is titled A BzzReport from the Castrol SYNTEC BzzCampaign"
And this differs from astroturfing in what way?
Wikipedia: Astroturfing
I'm a bzzagent.
I'm not involved in the CC campaign, although I don't need to be. I've been talking up the benefits of CC for months. The people I've been talking to have been corporate communicators, graphic designers, copy writers and other assorted folks on the commercial end of art. I've yet to encounter a single one who was familiar with the creative commons before I began talking to them.
I think BzzAgent's big mistake from day one has been to offer reward points for buzzing. Not that the rewards are anything spectacular. There isn't anyone driving away in a new car or flying off to Tahiti from their bzzing. At best you're getting a memo pad, a t-shirt or a book. But regardless of what the reward is, the resulting image is that you're a paid shill, or that your comments are compromised.
From what I've personally seen and experienced with BzzAgent - they are trying to maintain as transparent and honest a business as possible. Most of the ethical lapses are on an individual level amongst the BzzAgents themselves, and the main organization seems quick to react and affect change when change is needed. The one item I've Bzz'd to date was a book. I wasn't overly keen on the book's format and that was what I talked about when Bzz'ing it. The response from BzzAgent was "thanks for Bzzing, even if you didn't love it. We do want all Bzz to be honest, so thanks!". Maybe some people faked loving the book in order to get a free fridge magnet, but I doubt it.
While there is likely to be some over-reaction in certain blog circles to an association with BzzAgent - I think the benefit of it is percisely that it will reach the people, as one previous commenter stated, who normally have conversations about sausages and shoes. These BzzAgents are going to be passing the word on to the teacher who lives down the street, to the small garage band their kid's a member of, the co-worker who's a hobbyist photographer, the lady selling watercolours at the crafts fair. The people who do watch shows like the OC and buy Audis and wear clothes from the GAP and buy the ipod because everyone else does. These are the people that the BzzAgents can reach, and reach quickly.
Nietzsche wrote, "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." The rest is implicit (either way).
There's a certain irony in the "Bzz" that this controversy has created. I'm picturing Creative Commoners flocking to the BzzAgent website, the blogosphere "Bzz"-ing about, and cynically wondering if all of this was an anticipated benefit of this "pro bono" promotion. I wonder how many Creative Commoners are thinking to themselves, 'hmm.. good idea..'.
TragicLad writes: "While there is likely to be some over-reaction in certain blog circles to an association with BzzAgent - I think the benefit of it is percisely [sic] that it will reach the people, as one previous commenter stated, who normally have conversations about sausages and shoes."
WTF! I can't tell you how many people I know who are so stoked about discussing Kayem's Al Fresco sausages and Johnston & Murphy's shoes! [sarcasm]...[I can't help but think that some BzzAgents are wet with the idea that I've just identified two of their clients in this post]. The "bzz" is "bzzing."
It is because of such deceit that I will be sure to never purchase either companies' products, knowing that they've stooped to such an ethical low of "shilling."
TragicLad has just pointed out the solution! All BzzAgent needs to do is stop giving people points, and they'll lose the reputation of producing paid shills! Once all the BzzAgents work for free, nobody can complain :-) It would save them money anyway....
Just curious, but if BzzAgent were to not provide 'reward points' for anyone buzzing about Creative Commons and if they were to request all BzzAgents to state 'I learned about this through BzzAgent', would that remove most objections to the association?
Actually, I have a serious suggestion for fixing BzzAgent's problem, which I believe TragicLad was getting at... why not rather than giving people general points, instead pay them with the products that they promote? For instance, if you promote weiners, then you get paid in weiners or weiner discounts, which means that you must actually like the weiners otherwise you wouldn't want to get paid with them. Similarly, if you promote Creative Commons, you only get paid in CC memorabilia (which is close to how the volunteer street team gets paid anyway).
I think that would fix most of the motivation issues, although I'm not sure if it would fix the openess/obviousness problem.
I don't think that BzzAgents is a bad thing intrinsically... I just don't think that CC needs to be, or would benefit from being, associated with it.
It's just that CC already has a dedicated and, dare I say, rabid base of folks who talk about, and up, the merits of CC. There is no need for a third party to start trying to get uninformed (or, probably more accurately -- less informed) folks talking up something they don't fully understand.
CC is something that can, assuredly, use all the support it can get... but it's best served by folks that have a passion for the subject, not random folks who get a welcome pack for saying they'll talk about it. ... ... ... on the other hand, I have signed up to be a BzzAgent... and rest assured that I will be a CC BzzAgent if I get the chance. ... ... I just don't think that this is an avenue that is necessary... because, to be honest, I've been talking CC up for a long, long while now...
-Jon
Lawrence,
You say that BzzAgents are "working" for CC "ProBono" --
The question is, what are they getting for this work? I think the obvious answer here is: Association with the excellent reputation of CC.
Before I had any idea who they were, I saw that they were working for CC and thought they must be ok.
You see, they're vampires trying to suck up your good reputation, by association.
I don't have strong feelings about BzzAgent. I doubt the relationship would be as damaging as others have said here, but I also doubt it would be the most effective way to get the word out. Instead, consider setting up your own viral marketing campaign, taking the lead from SpreadFirefox. Interested people can contribute ideas, start or help with projects, create materials (eg. posters, presentations) that can assist with getting the word out in the offline world.
This may be better than relying on BzzAgents, as you'd be starting with a group of people that is already interested in seeing Creative Commons grow. BzzAgent is about offline marketing, but its agents are still Internet connected. The difference is that they are specifically prompted to market offline. So, say to the existing CC crowd "hey, blogs are great, but we really need your help to get this out to everyone".
I'd like to offer a slightly different opinion about the whole thing. Yeah, they are a bit of a sleazy company, but compared to you're average PR firm that has no transparency, and get's articles listed in supposedly repuatable news sources, they're not that bad. That being said, CC already has an amazingly powerful word of mouth campaign behind it.
CC not exactly a product, but it still has a potential audience that hs not been reached. Keep in mind that just because it has only been applied to digital media is no reason it couldn't be applied to other kinds of patents. These patents could potentially be produced by people who are not internet savvy, who do not travel in circles where CC is common knowledge. For CC to fulfill it's full potential it needs to move off of the internet. In this way Bzzzagents could be very useful to CC. However as a number of people has pointed out, why work with a company that might tarnish your repuatation.
What I propose is that you work with BzzAgent as special client. Most importantly this would entail not giving points to bzzagents who work with you. Instead you could send interested agents a CD with photos, music, and text distributed under the CC license. You could include some opensource music mixing software, gimp for editing the photos. You could include information about CC, those neat flash videos about the white stripes for example. You could encourage bzzagents to burn copies of the cd for there friends, in this way your not promoting a cool new product, even the average joe will be able to see the value of what your offering. You can ask him to give a copy to musician friends so that they can mix music, graphic artists will be excited about the images and video, writers might be interested in using some of the written work published under CC. I think this has the potential to get information that you need to a demographic that doesn't have it. What do people think about this idea? I think we need to find a more constructive solution than just telling bzzagent to screw off. Take what you can, and do it in such a way as to maintain your image.
-Matthew Broudy
I had never heard of BzzAgents before the concern about a CC relationship hit the blogosphere. I looked at the primary debate and how it played out, and I read Dave's open letter here and on the BzzAgents site.
There's something that trips me up every time I read about this, and I think it is right here:
When is the last time you needed support in sharing your honest opinion more effectively? Why would someone be concerned about that? I don't think this is Toastmasters, you know? In the only cases I can think where finding the courage to be authentic mattered (asking for a date, proposing to my wife in a public place, giving calm voice to being ill-served in some situation), I can't see getting green stamps as having any relevance.
I've been in training and development programs where people do take on being able to share something they find valuable, but there are no toasters, only the satisfaction of making a difference in someone's life and being able to do that anywhere that empowering others matters. That's the closest I can come to someone wanting support in being themselves and sharing something important. But it was the thing itself and no reward in the background that brought people to want that and to take on developing themselves as leaders in their own lives.
Now, having pontificated about all of that, my question is what is an appropriate action? What's the way to determine how this can be effective and not end up with a big ewwwww-reaction?
Maybe there's a bigger question. I'm always looking for the bigger question. Of what benefit is general popular buzz to Creative Commons? What does engaging popular culture provide? What action do you hope to inspire? In short, why is it felt that any marketing campaign is needed, silent or otherwise?
Personally, I like TragicLad's suggestions in his most recent comment and, yes, think they would appease the concerns about potential ethical breaches (such as Simon Pole linked to -- thank Simon!).
In the same spirit of looking for creative solutions, I'd like to add my two cents:
Along with the mandatory disclosure of BzzAgent association and removal of any "payment" system for agents (in CC's case, at minimum), I sugest that all parties here would be well served if BzzAgent were to, furthermore, release all of the "talking points" that it distributes to its agents under a Creative Commons license.
That way:
In other words, CC's association with BzzAgent could be the start of a "Spread Firefox-like" campaign.
(And if "reputation by association" is a concern, simply be clear that you're accepting a conditional relationship, and make those conditions public and explicit. Dave Balter has already stated that their "[business] model has many kinks and concepts to work out"; why not just be similarly up-front, rather than throwing out the pro bono baby with the bathwater?)
Official sanction of a relationship with BzzAgent is a gift from the CC community to a questionable marketing company that has nothing unique to give. If they sincerely believe in changing copyright, they can go right ahead and put up CC licenses and links wherever they choose. But I see no reason to officially reward them with our collective reputations.
Personally, I prefer not to be associated with them -- they seem to be sniffing for charity geek chic -- and I don't want my involvement in CC projects to be tangled with their issues.
Dump Bzzt. Start a real community-based "get CC" effort.
I think the cognative dissonance that's at play here is that the Creative Commons is about freeing ideas and culture from its current corporate and legal stranglehold. What BzzAgent's approach does is monitize personal everyday interactions -- regardless of the genuine enthusiasm and honesty of a particular agent. In monitizing these interactions, we are being pulled that much further into this corporate paradigm that movements like the Creative Commons are a direct backlash against. I suspect that the foul taste this leaves in people's mouths is the fact that people are being prompted to act and report to a higher power, instead of just acting of their own volition. Doesn't the image of someone receiving a Creative Commons buzzKit and logging every interaction regarding the CC Movement seem a bit -- forced? artificial?
On a more superficial note, BzzAgent's branding might be a part of the problem too. Sematically: Bees -- Hive -- Drone -- Consumer -- Product. I'm sick of being labeled as Joe Consumer. And I certainly think it'd be a shame if people started thinking of the Creative Commons as simply a product.
We want community. We want grassroots. We want things to change. This is a step that's diametrically opposed these goals. What this gives us is manufactured community and prompted grassroots interaction by a financially motivated third party. It doesn't matter if an agent really believes in it or not; in the end, BzzAgent told you to do it.
Please reconsider this relationship. Follow Firefox's example. They're on to something.
I recommend dropping BzzAgent. It seems to me that CC has an excellent reputation, and there is far to much risk in having that reputation adversely affected bt BzzAgent's business model.
If someone is engaging me in discussion about CC it's presumably because they think I'm better off by adopting CC licenses for my work. If I was to find out that person had an ulterior motive (ie. shilling for BzzAgent) then I would suspect everything they had said to me about CC (even if everything they said was legit).
It reminds me of a recent debacle in New Zealand, where someone thought it was a good idea to use postal employees to gather data on the homes they delivered to: http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_national_story_skin/473029%3fformat=html
The CC brand seems strong to me; don't mess with it...