• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
Danny Brown

Danny Brown

podcaster - author - creator

  • About
  • Podcasts
  • Journal

sponsored content

Influence Marketing Vendors Are Letting Influencers and Clients Down

Danny Brown blog

Back in 2009, social media was just starting to become popular for marketers and brands to work with social media power users to promote their services and products.

Companies like IZEA saw an opportunity to attract people with large social followings or blog subscribers, and offer them money or free products for access to their audience.

Suddenly, Twitter was awash with tweets that were essentially ads, and blogs were rife with content that had been paid for. The problem was, no-one knew this because there was no legal requirement for that sponsored relationship to be disclosed. Instead, it was up to the blogger or “social influencer” to decide whether to disclose or not.

Due to the duplicitous nature of this lack of disclosure – essentially, it’s false advertising and gives brands an unfair advantage over competitors – regulatory bodies stepped in.

In the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published regulations stipulating paid or sponsored content had to be disclosed. Failure to do so would result in fines for brands in the region of $100,000 and up. Bloggers would be safe from this kind of fine (for now, at least).

In the U.K., the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) is less forgiving, and sees bloggers equally as responsible as the brands they’re working for. If a blogger is found to have promoted sponsored content without disclosure, there are various sanctions they may face.

While I agree that bloggers who deliberately skirt the rules should be punished, I can’t help but feel the vendors they’re working with are letting them down. Case in point – Triberr.

Home of (Grey Area) Influence

Triberr started out as an automated content curation platform, where bloggers could join “Tribes” and share each other’s posts, the idea being to gain more traffic from the extra army of bloggers and their audience you’ve created a Tribe with.

Recently, though, Triberr pivoted and became the self-proclaimed “Home of Influencers”.

Influencer Marketing Campaigns - Triberr

To their credit, they had an interesting approach – brands would create self-served campaigns (where they themselves created the timelines, offers, compensation, etc.) and then open it up to the relevant Triberr members.

Triberr wouldn’t charge for this service. Instead, they’d take a percentage of the final payout the influencers received. Compared to the costs involved with a Klout Perks campaign, this is a far more attractive proposition for both brand and blogger. The brand doesn’t have to pay exorbitant fees, and the blogger makes a decent income.

The problem is, Triberr doesn’t seem to be doing too great a job at educating on disclosure, as per the FTC, ASA and similar governing bodies in Canada, Australia and elsewhere. In fact, disclosure seems to be a bit of a grey area.

When the Blogger Doesn’t Know About Disclosure

I recently read a blog post by a blogger I’ve been reading for a while, about a brand offering a pretty cool publishing service for new media. As I read the post, it became pretty clear (to me) that it was sponsored content.

Things like contextual keyword linking (where a certain phrase is used as a hyperlink versus the brand name itself), the way the post flowed compared to this blogger’s other posts, and the fact it simply read like a non-connected promotion. To confirm my guess, I checked the link for the contextual keyword (mobile ready) and, sure enough, the URL was clearly a campaign link.

Triberr campaign link

This would have been fine – had there been any disclosure to alert readers this wasn’t a normal post, but a sponsored one where a brand had paid the blogger to promote them. Unfortunately, there was zero disclosure anywhere.

I noticed that the blogger had more than one post about this brand, so I checked that one too. The same: contextual keyword with a Triberr campaign link, and no disclosure.

I decided to first hop on over to Triberr and see what they say about disclosure, but it’s pretty difficult to find anything if you’re not logged into their system.

I did find a blog post by Triberr co-founder Dino Dogan, that shares this advice about disclosure:

Disclosure is a hugely important part of brand ambassadorship.?They don?t have to be generic and boring. You don?t have to be ashamed of being affiliated with a company. In fact, if you are ashamed, you have a choice. You can go and represent a different company.

While Dino mentions the importance of disclosure, there aren?t any guidelines in the post on how disclosure should be approached. Indeed, when referring to a sponsored post Dino uses as a great example of a campaign post, he states:

Somewhere in the middle of the article I disclose how the post came about.

This is a red flag. As per the FTC mandate, disclosures should be highly visible:

  • Prominence: Disclosures must be prominent, viewable on any device, and not buried within a web page (in the March 2013 update, the FTC stated disclosure must be at the start and end of each post). Fine print may not cut it, and prominence is even required on a mobile web page. (Source: Social Media Explorer)

The key phrases that stand out here are “disclosures must be prominent” and “not buried within a web page”. The post Dino referenced had the disclosure “somewhere in the middle of the article”.

That raises the question, if the vendor isn’t “doing it right”, how are the bloggers being educated on the role of disclosure for a Triberr campaign? Judging by their latest campaign fine print, they’re not.

Triberr campaign blogger

As highlighted by the red box at the bottom of the campaign, it shares milestones and content expectations – but nothing about disclosure. I reached out to Triberr on Twitter a couple of days ago to ask about their disclosure policy:

How is @Triberr ensuring all sponsored posts disclosed? Just saw two campaign links, not disclosed, on PR blogger's posts.

— Danny Brown (@DannyBrown) December 10, 2013

With no response, I then contacted a blogger I knew to be working with Triberr to ask about their understanding of disclosure from Triberr, and this was the response:

Should bloggers know to do this? For sure! However, there’s an intense likelihood a writer has never been hired. Ignorance is naivet? in this regard. Companies using Triberr to reach influencers need to assume bloggers are unfamiliar with legal rulings. ?Triberr needs to write influencer guidelines for sponsored campaigns (their current “rules” are sketchy). Companies need to add their influencer guidelines to the mix. Bloggers need to both read and adhere to a disclaimer with approved language and positioning in each published piece.?No one wants to grapple with the law or be fined due to a simple inclusion of a disclaimer. Each of us needs to do a better job of protecting the other — bloggers, influencer networks (like Triberr) and those hiring and executing campaigns.

So, bloggers seem to be in the dark around what should and shouldn’t be posted. Perhaps this isn’t surprising – there really is no easily found disclosure area for bloggers to reference. The closest I found was from this FAQ sub-post (click to expand):

Triberr declaration post

While it mentions a Declaration Post sets off a relationship with transparency, any visitors to the blog that are only reading the sponsored post and are unaware of the Declaration Post will still be unaware of the content being sponsored, thus leaving the FTC guidelines unaddressed.

But bloggers aren’t the target (at least not for the FTC – the ASA would beg to differ). Instead, the FTC is more concerned about brands – so how does Triberr educate its brand partners?

The Non-Existent (Public) Disclosure Education for Brands

To find out, I created a dummy campaign on Triberr using the self-serve campaign creator. I simply entered some “Test” copy for each of the campaign areas, and clicked through each next step until I got to the point where I could review my campaign before setting it live.

At no point did I receive any advice about making sure I was aware of disclosure rules and guidelines. Nor was there any copy provided by Triberr that I could use for my Fine Print area (where Disclosure would be a prime candidate for inclusion).

Instead, I simply had the opportunity to insert my own fine print, and then set the campaign live.

Triberr for brands

Because this is a self-serving campaign, the brand (me) would be putting themselves in jeopardy by not stating upfront that partner bloggers need to disclose in any content they share (and not just blog posts – social updates, too, if they link directly to the brand).

With fines of up to six figures, this is an expensive oversight on the part of Triberr. There needs to be clear and upfront education, advice, copy, etc., that pinpoints the requirement of disclosure and how to make sure your blog partners are aware of their responsibilities in this area. If that is currently there, it’s very difficult to find (I couldn’t, after an hour of going through various links).

ftc disclosure   Search Results   Triberr Knowledge Base   Help Center

Without this, Triberr’s bloggers are short-changing their readers through no fault of their own. Worse, the clients using Triberr’s influence marketing service are essentially breaking the law, and if a fine isn’t bad enough, the hit to their reputation could be.

I’ve reached out to Dino Dogan for the Triberr take on disclosure and how they’re educating and enforcing (if at all). I’ll update the post accordingly if I hear back.

Why Google is Missing the Point on Sponsored Content

Over at the InNetwork blog this week, I wrote about why influencers deserve to be paid. It essentially looked at why brands should be treating influencers more professionally, and respecting them as a key partner in any marketing mix.

In the comment section after the post, Kari Rippetoe, Content Marketing Manager at Search Mojo, left an interesting statement:

Interesting post – you pulled me in with that title, because I wasn’t quite sure I agreed. I totally get where you’re coming from regarding the time an influencer not only spends in writing a post, but also in cultivating and managing their influence and community. But, from an SEO standpoint (and I work for a search marketing firm, so we’re very sensitive to this), paid posts (if you’re indeed compensating the influencer with money) can be detrimental to SEO. Google doesn’t like paid links, and while its algorithm can’t necessarily detect all paid links, I’m not sure if it’s worth the risk. That’s why we don’t pursue requests from bloggers to write posts for payment – because that’s a risk we can’t take on behalf of our SEO clients.

Kari’s point about paid links, and Google’s view on them, is a pertinent one, since – while there are other search engines around – Google is the search algorithm that most people take notice of and adhere to, rightly or wrongly.

The thing is, for me, Google’s wrong regarding their stance on sponsored content.

Sponsored Content – The Google Take

To get a better idea of what Google’s take is, here’s what’s being said around the web with regards what Google does and doesn’t “allow” when it comes to sponsored [paid] content:

Google made it clear that they do not want sponsored content indexed in Google News, and sites that mix in promotional articles with their regular news content could be excluded from Google News entirely.

To clarify, the second warning refers to advertorials or articles created entirely by or for a sponsor, along the lines of what?BuzzFeed does… Adam Sherk.

So, essentially, Google is trying to avoid clearly advertorial content that offers nothing but promoting a brand’s message or paid media. Fair enough – there’s enough crap online that’s been paid for and bypasses the good content, which gets lost in amongst the paid stuff.

Where it gets a but muddied, though, is in what Google deems acceptable, as highlighted by the opening sentence in the paragraph that follows Adam’s quote above:

It does not apply to instances in which regular editorial content is given a sponsor treatment.

So, for example, a blogger could write a piece about hair gel and have Garnier Fructus sponsor the post. This means the blogger writes and Garnier might offer free samples. The blogger’s words, the brand’s product.

See a flaw there? Yep, it can still be viewed as paid content by the blogger’s readers. Why would Garnier sponsor without something being in it for them? Did the blogger remain unbiased, or were they tempted by bigger partnerships if they slipped in a couple of favourable mentions of Garnier throughout the post?

While there may not have been physical dollars exchanged, the question is still there – “can this opinion be trusted?”

Once that happens, it counters the very reason Google wants to clamp down on sponsored content: false advertising, inferior products, etc., and how they’re displacing quality-led, honest content.

Sponsored Content – The Irony Factor

Which brings us to the point that Kari made in her comment over at the InNetwork post, about Google not liking paid links and how that can impact a brand that uses this marketing method.

As I mentioned earlier, I can understand why Google wants to keep their results quality-driven. It helps the consumer, who uses Google more, who can charge more for ads, and… oh, right. Ads. Otherwise known as paid content.

Look at the image below, based around a search for “best SEO companies”.

best seo companies Google Search

There are 11 results visible in the screen shot – essentially, above the fold results (or what people see without needing to scroll down on their screens).

Of these 11 results, only three are organic, and clearly show a solid understanding of SEO by the company involved, which holds the #1 and #2 spot, with #3 being a YouTube video.

Every other result is an ad. Or, for want of a better description, Google accepting paid content to promote a business over another one. Sound familiar?

So it would appear that sponsored/paid content is fine if it’s ads with Google but not if it’s ads appearing within?Google.

This is kind of messed up. Especially since, as I talked about in the post over at InNetwork, trust is the ultimate currency of a blogger, and isn’t something that can be bought at any price.

Sponsored Content – The Trust Factor

Are there bloggers that don’t give a crap and will write any old thing for a brand in exchange for regular sponsored content campaigns? Unfortunately, yes, and these are the ones that Google should quite rightly hammer.

But I’ve tended to find that they’re mostly in the minority.

Instead, what you have are bloggers looking to make a living doing the thing they love – sharing content, making recommendations, helping their community find a solution to help with a certain need.

That love, and that desire to help, allows the blogger to build a loyal and trusted audience – one that they would never deceive or whose trust they’d break, for the sake of a positive review when in fact a product or service was crap.

On the flip side, good brands know that the best way to meet customer needs is to listen to them. Because of the inherent mistrust of brands by consumers, often the only way this listening can happen is by sponsoring a post, allowing a blogger to write about you, offer some trial product, and then monitor the feedback over the coming weeks.

This understanding on both sides sees the blogger write an unbiased view, with the brand allowing that to happen in order to truly understand their target customer’s mindset.

As you can see, it’s a win-win for all involved. Except it’s not – because Google doesn’t really want this type of exchange to happen.

Instead of getting honest and quality content throughout their engine, Google would rather allow other types of paid content – ads – that have no indication of the quality of the company behind them.

At best, this seems a completely flawed approach. At worst, it could ironically enhance the current issue.?After all, if solid content via honest sponsorship and disclosure is being punished and grouped in with the crappy stuff, why even bother…

Thoughts?

© 2026 Danny Brown - Made with ♥ on Genesis