There’s a lot of hype around business blogging and at times I think people tend to forget that it is not without its downfalls.
A couple of days ago Alan, who is a designer, posted a site review on his design blog. This isn’t the first time that Alan has posted site reviews and it probably won’t be the last time either.
So why do I even mention this?
Well, the blog entry in question was far from favourable of the site and company in question. It wasn’t biased however.
I probably wouldn’t have noticed that particular entry were it not for the level of attention it attracted in various circles. It seems that the site’s owners supposedly threatened Alan with legal action as a result of the blog entry. Whether they had just cause or not maybe debatable, but it did lead to some interesting discussion. The Creative Ireland forum has an interesting debate about the merits of the review and whether it was good business practice to cast a negative light on a competitor’s work.
One of the points that was raised by a number of the contributors was the connection between the blog and Alan’s business. The two being very closely linked as they not only reside on the same domain, but also share a similar page design.
It’s a very interesting point and one that I am all too aware of subconsciously, but had never really thought about.
Most people who read this blog know exactly who I am. I don’t hide it. However this is my personal space. It is not the official company blog and it never will be. My opinions are my own and always will be.
If this blog “lived” on a Blacknight domain I would not be able to express my opinion in the same manner.
We have toyed with the idea of setting up an “official” Blacknight blog, but I can see as many downsides to that as I can advantages.
If you are going to setup a business blog and link it directly to your company then you should be aware of the perception.
And you thought the internet was all about freedom of expression, didn’t you?
Originate probably don’t really have any grounds for complaint, except POSSIBLY the screenshot (if they could demonstrate that it was eligible for copyright, they could possibly claim violation, as we sadly lack a clear free use clause). All that is being expressed in the review is a subjective opinion.
That said, possibly not the best of ideas for a professional web designer to post such a thing, though such a good designer can probably do more or less what he pleases…
A while back I complained that a prominent Irish ecommerce website didn’t have a secure server. Months later I received a threatening email saying it was untrue.
They *did* have a secure server, but if you visited the site without the “www.” prefix and ordered something it didn’t transfer you to the secure server. Unfortunately for them, all their marketing mentions the URL without “www.”..
Now? They sort of have it fixed, but I modified my post and removed any mention of them because of the threats.
I love these legal happy companys, half the time they couldnt afford to bring you to court.
Its the perception that has shown itself to be the main issue for me.
The perceived bias and conflict of interest of a blog, on a subsection of a design companies site, doing a critique of a piece of work from a competitor.
Its a very good point and one I had not really thought about fully (just put it to the back of my mind). I just thought it was cheap hosting 🙂
I do believe that all design should be up for critique and discussion in a fair and open manner. However that perceived bias could in fact devalue anything posted on spoilt negating all efforts. So the best option I believe is to move the blog to its own domain and remove links to Spoiltchild.
>far from favourable of the site and company in question.
That is really quite funny about the e-commerce site. Under what BASIS did they ask you to take it down? As long as you amended it to report on the ‘www.’ but you’d simply be reporting fact…
Actually, i made no comment on the company itself in the review. I kept it purly on the individual piece of design.
I love these legal happy companys, half the time they couldnt afford to bring you to court.
Rob – A screen shot would probably be considered fair use under copyright law. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to waste the amount of money involved to find out unless it was a much more serious breach.
Donncha – I commented on the same incident around the time that Kae mentioned it. I’d have found that incident quite amusing if they’d contacted me
Alan – we’ve still got those blogging packages 🙂
Am I the only person that views this blog as a corporate blog for Blacknight?
Actually no, I do too 🙂
(Hence my daily read ) ;P
Piaras / Steve – Fair enough. I would, however, see it as being quite different in nature than a blog that hangs off a company’s main site.
Is it really tho? Do any of us think Bob Parsons blog at http://www.bobparsons.com is anything other than godaddy propaganda?
At the end of the day, Alan -is- Spoilt, Michele -is- Blacknight, another domain doesnt hide or change that I think.
Hence the dangers of blogging 🙂
Steve
While I can see your point I wouldn’t like to think of this blog as being purely Blacknight propaganda. A lot of the stuff I write about reflects my personal interests. Granted there is a lot of overlap, but I still feel that it is separated from the company to some degree. Of course anyone who reads this blog knows who I am and I would also be aware that anything I say could be seen as a reflection on the company. Having said that, I would have to disagree with you on the domain issue. If I were to move this blog onto the blacknight.ie domain, for example, I would have to remove a large part of the archives 🙂