From Wikipedia-Astroturfing is a word in English describing formal political, advertising, or public relations campaigns seeking to create the impression of being spontaneous “grassroots” behavior, hence the reference to the artificial grass, AstroTurf.

And flogging is a new word that is basically fake blogging.

Astro-turfing and flogging are mirages with fake authors, intended to mislead, and written to create a false impression of popularity.

I had a long conversation with new media lawyer Andrea Anderson of Holland & Hart recently about flogging and astroturfing. She made an excellent point. If a company hires floggers or astroturfers to seed the blogosphere with false impressions of popularity, and if one of those authors states a fact that is false, then the company sponsoring the campaign is liable for false advertising.

Companies should drop the use of these people, authentically engage in the online conversation, and attract solid influencers who have real followers for a reason. They are good. They know their facts. And they provide great information.

Astroturfing and flogging should disappear. But alas…as long as there are bad marketers we will have to live with bad marketing.

Let’s start from the beginning. In 2007-2008 when the BPA problem started to become clear, Sigg made water bottles that, apparently, had no BPA in them. Their bottles did not leach BPA into the water. The consumers believed that and they also believed there was no BPA period in a Sigg water bottle. Consumers bought Sigg and Sigg made millions. This went on for a year and a half.

Now, in August Sigg CEO, Steve Wasik, writes a letter explaining that the original liners did have BPA in them but, again, they did not leach into the water. Here’s that part of the letter.

Prior to its transition, SIGG utilized a water-based epoxy liner which contained a trace amount of BPA. The bottles were thoroughly and regularly tested in both the USA and Switzerland and all tests revealed absolutely no migration or leaching of BPA or any other substance from the protective inner liner.

Why did he do this?

The primary reason that I am writing this letter today is because I believe that the BPA conversation has changed dramatically in the last 12 months. Last year, the primary concern was that of BPA leaching from bottles. Since that time the dialogue has evolved such that now some people are concerned about the mere presence of BPA and some states are considering legislation.

So, two weeks later comes the next letter from Wasik.

After reading and responding to hundreds of emails and viewing nearly as many blog & Twitter posts, I realize that my first letter may have missed the mark. What I should have said simply and loudly to all of our loyal SIGG fans is: I am sorry that we did not make our communications on the original SIGG liner more clear from the very beginning.

In new media, consumers keep asking the same question…over and over again. “Why did Sigg wait, for two years, to tell us BPA was in the liners? Why didn”t you tell us right away? We feel lied to.”  Of course, many believe that Sigg was selling millions of dollars worth of bottles and was taking advantage of the general impression that Siggs had no BPA in the liners.

And that is what consumers keep banging the drum about. How can we trust you again? You lied to us once. You’ll probably do it again.

Here’s where I take issue with these angry consumers. Okay, the company kept quiet while selling safe water bottles. The debate about BPA changed from leaching being the problem to the presence of BPA becoming an issue.  It probably bothered the CEO, and he told the truth.

Yeah, he was late. But come on, give the guy a break. He came clean. There was never any BPA in the water. Never. And Sigg seems to be able to back that up with science.

And oh, you the consumer have never been misled? How about the banking mess where bankers lied to consumers telling them they could qualify for a 500k home? And consumers who accepted the loans knowing full well they couldn’t afford them?  How about the derivative scandal on Wall Street where securities firms bundled mortgages and sold them as securities? And we bought that snake oil. It became so confused that nobody, and I mean nobody, could find the value in them.

And how about the Securities and Exchange Commission, who was the watchdog for Wall Street? It looked the other way while billions of dollars were being mismanaged.

And we, the American consumer have had to bail these fine American institutions out to the tune of a trillion dollars. And to this day, those same managers are making a lot more money than any of us.

And now almost ten percent of Americans are out of work. All of this deserves consumer anger.

So, now,  I argue for perspective. Sigg caused no real health problem. It did apologize. Yes, I realize it could have been handled better. But, have you ever made a mistake? What did you do about it?

That’s right. You apologized, learned the lesson and moved on. It’s time for the consumers to move on about Sigg and cut the company a little slack. Believe me, the CEO and the entire company have learned a lesson.

You taught Sigg, and every other company that was watching, to get all of the truth out early.

Good for you. Now, let’s all move on.

We have bigger issues to solve.

Art Smith at Ogden Newspapers

Recently I have been involved in some great email exchanges with writers that I admire. Two of them are Michael Hodgson and Kris Versteegen. Well, the point was made that traditional media was not dying, just morphing to new platforms.

Let’s take a look at the facts. Nielsen reported this the first of the year.

Nielsen Online, a service of The Nielsen Company, today reported a 16 per cent year-on-year increase in unique visitors to the top 10 newspaper Web sites, growing from 34.6 million unique visitors in December 2007 to 40.1 million in December 2008.

Here’s the Nielsen list for August:

NYTimes.com — 14,277,000 — (-27%)

washingtonpost.com — 11,565,000 — 29%

USATODAY.com — 9,761,000 — (-6%)

Daily News Online Edition — 9,131,000 — 112%
LA Times — 8,938,000 — 2%

Wall Street Journal Online — 8,341,000 — (-4%)
New York Post — 6,535,000 — 32%
Boston.com — 5,274,000 — 8%
SFGate.com/San Francisco Chronicle — 5,092,000 — 13%
Chicago Tribune — 4,442,000 — 14%

Politico — 3,401,000 — 47%
NJ.com — 2,926,000 — 41%
Atlanta Journal-Constitution — 2,747,000 — (-31%)
The Houston Chronicle — 2,569,000 — (-3%)
Philly.com — 2,500,000 — 47%

Chicago Sun-Times — 2,480,000 — (-6%)
Newsday — 2,428,000 — (-28%)
The Sacramento Bee — 2,426,000 — 84%
Orlando Sentinel — 2,089,000 — 49%
The Seattle Times — 2,040,000 — 55%

Azcentral.com — 1,999,000 — 41%
MercuryNews.com — 1,871,000 — 16%
DallasNews.com – The Dallas Morning News — 1,832,000 — (-12%)
MiamiHerald.com — 1,829,000 — 36%
The Washington Times — 1,803,000 — 56%

tampabay.com — 1,758,000 — 24%
KansasCity.com — 1,708,000 — 59%
Baltimore Sun — 1,697,000 — 7%
Star Tribune — 1,662,000 — 8%
Detroit Free Press — 1,648,000 — 9%

Look at those numbers. And the numbers are also big when it comes to good magazines, and vertical publications that offer content online.

Why? Because most people want their news and serious information delivered by reputable brands. They know that journalists who work for those brands dig for the story, present both sides, and can back up what they write with facts. Editors make sure of that.

We see this on Channel Signal all the time. We have a Channel called Online Traditional Media, and the traffic is almost always much larger then any blog. Online Traditional Media is not dead. If anything it is growing. And as it morps it will get healthier as it develops a new system of payment.

I believe that people do want the facts, especially when first trying to understand an issue.

So, media employing professional journalists (to escape titles for a moment) will find a way to make money. Consumers understand the value and will pay for the privilege of solid information.

And we need debate and dialogue that is filtered with facts and reason. Spewing just isn’t working for me anymore.