Richard Stacy @ Stacy Consulting

An interesting experimebnt by P&G. But ulitmately this is not the way to 'do' content in social media. P&G are doing this because it looks cost effective since they are paying only for production not distribution. However, it is still a 'one-to-many' piece of mass communication – a sponsored message, rather than content that is genuinely relevant to the brand. Pampas has no right to talk to parents about the whole of parenting, because the only bit of parenting that is relevant to Pampas is the bit dealing with the messy stuff that comes out of babies and toddlers. Unnapealing as this may seem to P&G, any content they produce should focus on this and their product – all the rest is just sponsored blah blah.

The bloggers unmasked controversy continues. The law has a big problem here. In the old world the simple act of publication had a sitgnificance and status. It certainly had a legal status. But this staus was based on the Gutenberg definition of publication – i.e. information designed for mass circulation and issued from an institutional source. This definition no longer applies now that publication is available to all. Publication is now the same as conversation – and reaching for the legal recourse that was designed for traditional publication when addressing on-line individuals is likely to prove about as effective as catching water with a sieve.