1. Color me envious.
2. Their motivation is pretty transparent. They're buying advertising. And while they're not requiring you to blog, I'll bet they're counting on that you will. I mean, who wouldn't.
3. Did I mention the envy?

www.nerdseyeview.com

Is it transparency, unconscionable, or the changing of the guard?

This junket is both fascinating and a bit horrifying to me because it is forcing me to debate with myself the very core of my blogging ethics.

I think it is absolutely brilliant on the part of the tourism bureau of Holland and their marketing strategists. Money well spent.
Even before people are leaving there is attention on the program...holland is getting exactly what it wants...media time. Bravo to them. From a marketing perspective , it is fabulous.

On a personal level I would love for someone to invite me to an all expense-paid vacation to Holland. My ego would love it that someone thought my blog was adworthy enough to be included. I would love just going and being on a junket and hanging out with a bunch of bloggers who may or may not be blogging in the spirit of "transparency' about the junket. In many ways, I would finally feel like I was getting paid for my work.

On first read,my inclination was to think I would have to decline the offer. This in no way an indictment against the bloggers invited and who accepted the junket.

It just highlights the spectrum of personal ethics and backgrounds that bloggers have.

For many the "transparency" of the entire vacation provides the ethical window to go, imbibe and take in the sites. Maybe you'll blog and maybe you won't. Actually you already have. And that is making some marketing person very happy. They probably have promised that the entire program would deliver X amount of coverage and this post is helping them achieve that goal.

Then there are they recovering journalists like myself --the ones who went to journalism school in an era where we were taught that it was "unethical" to accept anything in exchange for coverage. The goal was to try to be as objective as possible and the ethics said, when you are given a gift you are more likely to write favorable stuff.

But here's where my struggle erupts. Am I so steeped in old-fashioned values that I am not being realistic of the new business model?

Is accepting this junket really so different than a newspaper,TV or radio station that accepts advertising? As bloggers we are both the reporter and the advertising department-- that is if we are trying to make a living at blogging.

Traditional media outlets all exist thanks to advertisers(or grants from foundations which in my mind is advertising)so what's the problem in accepting advertising. A girl has to live and take a vacation once in awhile.

The old mantra was "don't mix advertising and 'the news'." Advertisers supposedly couldn't pressure the newsroom and say cover this story( that of course is debateable)

If, as a blogger, I wouled accept advertisers to my blog ( and they are very welcome) then what is my ethical problem with the junket?

If I will accept compensation via advertising, isn't the junket just another form of compensation- a lovely one at that.

The journalist blogger in me is fascinated by this story just as i am fascinated by product placement advertising in movies and television, and advertisers trying to figure out how to out TiVo, TiVo.

So while I did not get a dance card on this one, I hope to 'cover' this story on several levels. I want to understand the ethics of it. I want to understand the personal censorship of it ( If you have a horrible hotel room, will you blog about that and face the possibility that when Saint Bart's offers a junket you may be excluded for bad blogging)and I want to understand if transparency is the new ethical standard will truth or truthiness prevail?

elana
Blogher Contributing Editor,Business&Careers

Lucky you! I read on Dooce that she was going. (She lives right by me in Salt Lake, although I doubt she knows that I am alive.) From what you report, I don't think this is a compromise of ethics. If the company providing the trip was requiring bloggers to cover it (with pressure for a certain point of view) then I would feel differently.

As for me, I'd probably go anywhere and talk about my blog if someone else was paying for it!

Kalyn Denny
Kalyn's Kitchen

I think the Dutch tourism board are very smart.
People who have been given the offer are those who have obviously agreed to accept advertising, previously, through blogads, so it is not as if advertising per se is an issue for them at this stage.
It is an issue for me, personally, but it would be intersting to test my morals against such a juggernaut of an interesting offer.
sam
Becks & Posh

A free trip to Amsterdam? AMSTER-EFFING-DAM?

:))

I think I know what I would do. But then I don't do advertising at my blog, so this is all theoretical for me. ;)

Wave to Vincent van Gogh for me, will you, Liza?

Melinda

Elana, I get your points, and if I wasn't so predisposed to support all things Danish for political purposes, I'd look at this offer through a different lens. From a marketing perspective, is a good move by the Danish.

However, I think that blogs aren't the first or last battlegrounds for editorial independence or cheap advertising. When technology magazines launched years ago, some were notable in their favoritism toward reviewing the products of advertisers and favorably so. Some would ignore competing and superior products, so that advertiser's products performed better in comparisons and reviews than they should have. It didn't take long for subscribers to figure out what was happening, and to vote with their feet. The market was the driving force for correction with tech mags. That bloggers find themselves faced with these same questions isn't surprising.

I hope all the bloggers who travel to Amsterdam have wonderful experiences, images, videos and audio tours to share as result from their junket. I hope all that are invited go. At this moment in time, the more incidents of solidarity and connectedness that the US has with Denmark the happier I am.

Bloggers must decided as independent publishers what their policies shall be on questions of journalistic integrity, personal political positions and transparency with respect to advertisers. Then their readers will decide if those policies fit into their choice for social media, content participation or blog consumption.

Support Denmark! ;-)

I have no issue whatsoever with the trip to Amsterdam. Who wouldn't want to have a free trip, stay in a 5 star hotel, eat fabulous Indonesian food, shop in the coolest stores, and visit some of europes best museums all in exchange for a bit of advertising on their blog. I'm guessing the naysayers are jealous. I know I am.

BTW, Trent at Pink is the New Blog is so NOT a woman. You might want to correct that. He's a riot, but he's still male.

So what's yer take on the whole "Ad-Free Blog" thing as the inverse situation?

www.nerdseyeview.com

But perhaps it's not quite the same as conventional media. Why? Because mainstream media is largely opaque, and "transparency" is seen as a way to fix the problems with mainstream media. "If only people knew..." mutter the insiders about common big media practices. The public never even gets to ask the question, "Gee, is Joe Reporter filing this puff piece on Company X because he got that big fat speaking fee at the industry conference last month?"

In our Cluetrain-driven insurgent sub-economy we find ourselves here -- a sub-economy I believe will end up transforming our entire media marketplace -- the ethics of transparency are a given. The big media companies don't have it, and so transparency is seen by many as the #1 ethical fix. (I'm not totally convinced. The big media companies can still push their fare, as they always have, and transparency would not change much. For example, we already know that NBC is owned by a major defense contractor, and yet NBC is treated as an objective news source, without question. I'm not saying NBC is biased, just that transparency means little to passive news consumers.)

I think there is a difference with blogging, because "transparency" is not enough.

In a blog post the other day on how "blogs" (i.e., blogs and whatever blogs will become) will take over our media culture and marketplace (no hubris here!), I wrote:

[W]hat we're seeing is a cultural and economic transition from the hit-driven, passively experienced information and entertainment marketplace to the long-tail-driven, actively engaged information and entertainment marketplace.

In other words, blog consumers actively choose to seek out the blogs they read. One big result of this is that bloggers depend more on relationships, on trust, on credibility. In fact, that is what this BlogHer site is about -- trusted relationships, building lateral networks, and so on. Transparency isn't a cure, because it's just a minimum requirement to build that credibility, and transparency doesn't make things right, only known by more people.

So while transparency can be seen as something of a constructive step in the big media, I don't see it as a panacea in blogging for potential ethics questions.

I am not saying that accepting the Holland.com deal is ethical or not ethical. Personally, I would love an expenses-paid (working) vacation in Europe, and I'm glad such an ethical dilemma hasn't been plopped into my lap. (Oh, the benefits of obscurity!) Rather: While not disclosing such an arrangement would strike most of us as being unethical, I don't see the ethical question to be about transparency at all -- except that transparent discussions like this can only help sort it out. Also, since we're in the long tail here, my own feeling is that there isn't one broad-brush answer.

Laura
website admin

This is something I am going to be coming back, this "transparency" meme. On the one hand, I think it is the right idea but it can also be a red herring.

I mean, not to insult people but a lot of the bloggers I know are white upper middle class people making real great money off their hard work. I work hard and at the moment do not make much money; but I am bootstrapping my blogging because this is what I want to do for a living. Period.

I have had people tell me that having ads on my site is selling-out. WTF! Fundraisers are great and all but they work for people who have over 100k hits a week. For smaller blogs like mine (on the 15-20k), it just does not pan out. And fundraisers are charity. Charity is not sustainable. That's why when I heard Bono's read card giving only 1% back to the African countries in the program I rolled my eyes. 1%? That's not enough, it's not sustainable and my blog, why does Fendi need 99% of the royalties on a pair of glasses? Seriously.

I feel that it's people in an economically privileged position that can scream and cajole at people like me because they truly believe charity is the noble way. Well, it's not. Teach a woman to fish, that's all I'm saying.

At this point, I think I am one of the few women in the political blogosphere actively trying to figure out how to fish because nobody else has done so before me in this medium. And no, The Huffington Post, does not count as a model. That's not a blog, that's just a syndication extension of Knight-Ridder.

So while I figure this out by trial and error, I'm a gonna get my ass on a KLM flight and enjoy some clogging in Amsterdam. And maybe some Rembrandt and hashish along the way. Maybe. Just don't tell anybody I inhaled.

liza sabater
Culture + Politics + Technology
www.culturekitchen.com

New York grassroots news and activism
www.dailygotham.com

Personal Blog
www.lizasabater.com

Feminist Bloggers Network
www.blogsheroes.com

AIM - cultkitdiva
SKYPE - lizasabater