Hmm. There seems to be full disclosure about where the computers are coming from (excepting, according to one of the people receiving the computer, the joint venture with AMD, which is a minor point, IMO). Once that is out in the open, readers are forewarned to take whatever follows with a grain of salt.

When we complained about Wal-marting Across America, our major gripe was that there was no disclosure about the source of funding. Here there is disclosure. So on that principle, we cannot object and remain consistent.

Where I think Microsoft would run into ethical concerns is if they started using the positive reviews they receive because of these gifts as part of its marketing materials. Disclosure there (which would be in the legal copy, if at all), would not be sufficient. If it's about community as Microsoft says, then reviews so obtained have to live where they were written.

I can't object in principle to Microsoft and/or AMD giving away free computers in hopes that prolific bloggers will write about them, as long as the disclosure is there. That knife cuts both ways. My work pays me for what I do, too, yet I still strive to perform it with integrity.

If the bloggers who were granted these computers are popular, as is stated, then I also presume they didn't get that way without demonstrating the integrity necessary to attract and retain readers. If they feel they can remain objective in spite of the gift they put their own reputations on the line by writing about it, which is as it should be.

Here's a question, though. Would you object to the ethics of Microsoft, AMD, or the bloggers if they accepted the "no-strings" gift and didn't blog about it at all?

Many good points in your comment Cam. I think the problem lies with Edelman not thinking through the implications of this campaign.

Microsoft makes software. It would be completely reasonable to ask a group of bloggers to test the software.

But giving them a $2200 computer with VISTA installed as the OS reads like a bribe.

And what about the tax implications of these gifts? Did them come with W-9 forms or 1099s?

And the other issue is that the bloggers didn't start disclosing their gifts until Long Zheng outed them, noting that he didn't know if anyone else had received one.

How come? What about transparency?

They wanted to generate word of mouth about VISTA. They got slashdotted - the headline there called it a bribe. http://slashdot.org/articles/06/12/27/1423234.shtml More than 200 commenters agreed. Not the kind of WOM any company would really want.

I switched to Mac a month ago. One of the main reasons - besides the lemon Dell for which I have gotten a refund -- was the constant forced patched from Microsoft. I am sooo glad I don't have to deal with another Microsoft forced upgrade.

My machine of choice is a Mac also, but I'm forced to use a PC for work. It's a decent machine as far as PCs go, but it's frightfully slow compared to the G5 dual-processor I use at home.

I can't speak for how others review the endeavor. Slashdot called it a "bribe," but I have to disagree. As I said, bloggers put their own reputations on the line by 1) Accepting the computer, 2) Posting about the computer, and 3) Disclosing (or not disclosing) the source.

Microsoft took its own risk when it sent them out, perhaps not realizing how the blogging community they hoped to influence would receive it, so maybe that is Edelman's fault, as you say, for not thinking through the implications.

I, personally, have no MORAL qualms with the action that led to this, but perhaps there is something to be said for the business wisdom of it all.

I can't say I think any less of Microsoft or AMD for it. But then, as I said, I AM a Mac guy. :)

The problem is that Microsoft, Edelman et al didn't think it through. There would have been no problem if the initial email made it clear that any blogger receiving a laptop had to disclose that fact.

And, until Long Zheng posted about his "gift" and wondered if he was the only blogger who got one, not one of the other recipients had written a word. In my book, that's an ethical breach on several fronts.

Yes, Microsoft took a risk. But since they don't sell computers, they'd have been a lot better off if they'd offered the software free to any blogger who wanted to review it - as long as they disclosed that they didn't pay for it.

Microsoft could have set up parameters - you have to use it for X weeks or months, you have to have a computer with X power, etc. Then, there would have been a fair test and no ethical breach.

A $2200 laptop was a bit over the top.

Think about it. Why didn't Microsoft/Edelman send the Vista loaded notebooks to the traditional media for review; e.g. CNET, PC World, BusinessWeek, et al.? Really . . . think hard about it.

B.L.,

This one gets the juices flowing...I'm torn between the need for overt transparency and the ability of a company regardless of size to be able to generate word of mouth through its influencers.

I agree with some of the posts here...from where I sit, this is not a Wal-mart. Disclosure I think was in place and there was no incentive for a blogger to post positive, negative or any press.

B.L., if I'm wrong on this point, then let the guns blast.

The tax implications are more an accounting and legal matter and since I hail from Canada, I'm perfectly not qualified to say whether "how" this campign was conducted fiscally is an issue.

However, at the heart of your post, even with a $2,200 computer, I would not take this a bribe. A few reasons:
1) there appears to be no "you do this or I'll..." carrot or stick attached
2) although it appears like a large amount, the benefit from good advocacy from an influential blogger is large as well..this appears to be a quid pro quo exchange
3) as you've mentioned, providing a new computer likely provides the best brand experience for the product - the alternative of hosting a special event and paying for flights, hotel and mentored experience is significantly larger (and we know these junkets happen in the non-blog world all the time)
4) to be as versed and experienced as Edelman is in approaching bloggers (including bad experiences recently), I can't believe they are trying to duplicate failure here

The only two issues here from where I sit:

1) It's Microsoft, so a lot of people have their meathooks out and want to believe this is wrong...word of mouth advocacy has a clear bias for the underdog -- I wonder if this would be getting as much negative press or echo chamber bandwagon if this was a hungry startup (see Stormhoek wines as a positive entrepreneurial example of a similar approach)

2) to involve the influential blogosphere in the 9th inning as it appears as happened here, produces a "I want to buy your love " optics - wouldn't it have been better to have these influencers collaborating as beta testers and advisors all along the way? Perhaps not possible, but most solid relationships never evolve from one-night stands which appears to have been the Edelman approach here.

Since I don't see the ethical breach, I'd hate to see a new approach by Microsoft at grassroots marketing, even potentially flawed, would be thrown back at them so we end up seeing more wasteful mass ads and hyped up launch parties for Windows '09.

One Canuck's opinion...have a great holiday,

Sean

Hugh McLeod has an interesting take on it over at GapingVoid. He asks what I think is an important question.

Namely, "Which blogger(s) specifically do you trust LESS as a result of their receiving a new laptop?"

I completely agree that comparing Stormhoek's blogger campaign and the Edelman/Microsoft campaign is a good way to look at this situation. I left a comment on Hugh's blog that will be published shortly.

Stormhoek makes wine and offers a free bottle to any legitimate blogger who wants to try it.

Is completely transparent from day one. Hugh says he hopes bloggers will like it and write about it, but understands that some might not like it.

Hugh tracks the campaign on his blog, as does Stormhoek on theirs.

Edelman/Microsoft: Microsoft sends loaded computers to selected bloggers. No announcement is made by Muicrosoft, or most of the bloggers who got them.

Sending the computers loaded does not duplicate the experience of someone who buys and installs Vista (see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=problems+upgrading+to+VISTA&btnG=Search for some of the difficulties people are reporting)

Edelman has mounted a very traditional marketing campaign in a new medium. What was/is missing is transparency.It's the way they did it that doesn't sit right.

And just because this is what's always been done doesn't mean that it's what always should be done.

I think Hugh's explanation that, in terms of giving the entire laptop instead of just the software, this is an example of Microsoft putting their best foot forward is a fair one.

People generally have problems installing any new OS (even Macs, although less so in many cases) -- so much so that they often believe THEY are the problem instead of the software. That doesn't make it right; we're just conditioned that way.

On the other hand, I do see your point about Microsoft's failure to establish a sufficient explanation beforehand. But since these are experienced bloggers we're talking about -- not novices -- if one of those bloggers who received a free system fails to disclose it during a review of the system, does that make it Microsoft's fault, Edelman's, or the blogger's?

Also, have you lost trust in any blogger as a result of this event?

As I've said, I disagree that sending a $2300 "gift" computer is "putting their best foot forward."

It's Edelman and Microsoft for not thinking this through. And the fact that Microsoft backtracked and asked for their computers back shows they had second thoughts too.

The bloggers were put in a compromised situation as a result. I don't think all of them handled it well, but I bet they'll think about ethics going forward.

Thank you for the vigorous debate on this topic. I suspect we'll have many others to examine in the future!

I don't think this issue is one of ethics or disclosure at all. The whole IT industry is awash with freebies, from pens to computers. We're only sensitised to the Microsoft/Edelman issue because of the value of the item.

The key issue is, has the influence of the bloggers been compromised by their acceptance of the item (irrespective of disclosure)?

At best we'll read their reviews VERY carefully. At worst we'll discount them altogether. Installing Vista will be the biggest challenge for most of us mortals. Reviews that omit installation are of low value to most consumers.

Hugh asks, "Which blogger do you trust LESS?" My answer is, "Them all when they review Vista."

Messing about with influencers is risky work, and both Microsoft and Edelman should have known better.

I have just purchased a laptop with Vista installed as everything else is now "obsolete". I have had it for a week and am ready to toss it into the ocean , because the software installed has been nothing but trouble. Norton being the main problem as at present the screen is again frozen with its bullshit search module, which I did not click on. It has been back to the store once already. How many times do I have to put up with this shit? All I want is to have a computor that works. Microsoft and many of the programs they endorse just don't work, they are shit but we are stuck with them because they have us by the balls. Somebody should tell Mr Bill Gates that his software is SHIT and people all over the world sick of it.

Bill Gates is Jerking money out of people in more ways than one. I have a new laptop with Vista on it and I am taking it back to the store again (only had it a week) because it has frozen up again and is stuck on that Norton shit that Microsoft endorses. Xp was fine so why mess with it? Microsoft have us all by the balls and there are people screaming all over the world for a system that works the first time you turn it on. Should it really take more than that?