Mary Hodder is right about advisory boards
Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006
at 10:24 AM (permalink)
Mary Hodder's post on the FON advisory board correctly points out the problems with compensating advisors with stock. I don't know what the perfect solution is, but she does point towards it:
"I'd love to have their stock turn into something in a few years, a token for all their time and supportive help. A small gift for their enormous contributions at some critical moments. And that time doesn't including blogging. I don't need them to blog about Dabble and if it's going to cause problems for them, I'd rather they didn't. It's just unnecessary. But I do need their advice. And by calling them advisors, they get some stock. But it's token, a pittance, a gesture that doesn't begin to cover the help they are giving me."
If the stock isnt worth the bother and implied conflicts, shouldn't bloggers adopt a code that says "I can blog or be financially compensated, but not both"? If companies really want advice more than PR, and I believe Mary when she says this, then they won't mind losing the benefits of that blogger's influence if they have to pay them for their time. If bloggers don't care about the money, and I believe the FON advisory board when they say this, then they won't mind swearing off any future financial gain. The only thing I object to is trying to have it both ways. This most clearly shows up when the word "yet" creeps into the disclosure. When a blogger says "I haven't been promised anything yet", or even worse "I haven't been paid anything yet," so it can't possibly influence me, he implies that either he is stupid or thinks we are. A better solution would be for bloggers to tell companies at the start, "I won't ever take any money from you, so I will be able to blog about this", or "I need to be paid for my time, so I won't ever be able to blog about this."
