rare pattern thoughts in a blog

It's time for me to put my foot down. There's been a lot of griping about the BlogHer Conference, and griping about the griping. Within this metadiscussion, there's been much ado about BlogHer and its sponsors. First of all, I agree with the sentiment that BlogHer cannot be everything for everybody. However, there's been some very good criticism, and unlike some, I don't find fault with finding fault. As I am the president of a featured sponsor of BlogHer, though, maybe my opinion on all this is categorically deemed suspect by some. I'll just say what I have to say and let you be the judge.

How the sponsors handled their opportunities was really up to them, and when they blew it, well, that's on them, too, and is not the BlogHer organizers' fault.

At the top of the list of eye rollers was Microsoft, whose "Be a Jane" push struck me as a kind of Stepford Bloggers appeal. Suebob at Red Stapler puts it well:

Sometimes I am amazed at the stupidity I will sit through. The Evil Empire (the world's largest maker of software) put on a short presentation on the second morning of BlogHer that went down like the Titanic, and just about as quickly.

I have read bits about it all over the internet - that it was the marketing loser move the year, pretty much. I agree.

Of the other sponsors, GM might have been the big winner by simply offering up enticing opportunities to test drive their new cars. They were unobtrusive, never got in your face, even if you walked right by their reps, but they and their cars were there if you were interested (and looking at the BlogHer photos, many women were very much interested). GM got a lot of 'net publicity, and they didn't have to be obnoxious to do it.

The area that brings the most discomfort for me is where sponsors are panelists and keynote speakers. Here I have some disclosures to make: I was a panelist at the conference.

I now understand that all panelists and speakers were given travel stipends to appear (which I believe is a fabulous practice for what is still very much a start-up conference). I did not seek and was not offered any sort of stipend or reimbursement for my travel to BlogHer. That raises in my own mind the question of whether I was included on that panel simply because I was a sponsor. I don't believe that's the case, but if it is, then I should not have been there, because I feel that's totally inappropriate. (The same goes for my Contributing Editor status on the BlogHer site.)

In my own defense (to anticipate any criticism), I did not approach my participation on that panel wearing a sponsor hat, and I did not use that session as an opportunity to promote our business or huck our wares -- which is more than can be said for other sponsors who were official BlogHer speakers. Still, there is some fuzzy gray area of possible perceptions here, and I'm not comfortable finding myself in it.

But let's look at the bigger picture here. Did having strong sponsor presences constitute a sell-out? As Lisa and Elisa have said, the sponsorships made it possible for the conference to be affordable, with free food and drink and set in a pleasant venue (much friendlier than, say, the Las Vegas Convention Center, where the mother of all conferences, NAB, takes place).

I would add that if we or someone else had not stepped forward to design and develop the BlogHer community website, it probably would not exist either. We were delighted to have the opportunity to support what we consider a great cause, and despite our absence from the press hoopla, we've benefitted greatly from our association with BlogHer (not to mention the banner ad that has lived for six months on the site). We have no regrets.

I don't know if our involvement with BlogHer in aggregate constitutes crossing the line, but I'm glad we were able to help make the line possible.

[image: "Ping Vision Sandals", posted by cambodia4kidsorg]

About the author

Laura Scott is a web designer and developer.