<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Blogging, Freebie Policy, and the New York Times</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.beautyandfashiontech.com/2008/02/blogging-freebie-policy-and-the-new-york-times.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.beautyandfashiontech.com/2008/02/blogging-freebie-policy-and-the-new-york-times.html</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:38:30 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: My Inner French Girl</title>
		<link>http://www.beautyandfashiontech.com/2008/02/blogging-freebie-policy-and-the-new-york-times.html#comment-28889</link>
		<dc:creator>My Inner French Girl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:01:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beautyandfashiontech.com/2008/02/blogging-freebie-policy-and-the-new-york-times.html#comment-28889</guid>
		<description>Bonjour, and thanks for the mention!

My policy is to mention that I received a product directly from the company or its publicist. However, I will say that I don't really care one way or another if a site host gets her products comped. Quite frankly, I think it's insulting to hold beauty bloggers to a different (dare I say higher?) standard than, say, book reviewers, film reviewers, theater critics, and sports writers, all of whom receive free passes and/or merchandise. 

I've mentioned it in another site, but I suspect that one thing at play here is the perception of beauty bloggers as being dim-witted airheads who are in it for the free swag, as implied in the article. As you mentioned, they've no idea how much work it is to maintain a full site, almost as if it's a part-time job. And the article made it worse by referring to it as a "hobby."

What about all those other bloggers -- invariably mostly male -- who take their blogging seriously and consider it a serious business venture? Why single out beauty bloggers as fun little side gigs rather than a serious attempt to provide an alternative -- and free! -- source of honest reviews, one that's not tainted by the intimate relationship between beauty mag glossies and advertisers? Is there some misogyny at play here, by any chance, or is it just me? The beauty business is just that -- a business -- and yet some sectors still consider it a frivolous distraction, despite its multi-billion-dollar capitalization. Is it because women make up the vast majority of its customer base that we can't seem to take it seriously? 

Anyway, that's just my two cents. I think the article underestimated the intelligence and discernment of women. I think we do a pretty good job of singling out those sites who do nothing more than copy-and-paste the company's press releases. The article wasn't just insulting to bloggers but to their readers as well. 

And yes, I'm like you. I never contacted the beauty companies; rather, they always contact me. I would have no problem if a blogger chose to contact them, however. It's a business, and that's the only way you can afford to maintain quality content, is if you had the products to review. As someone wrote elsewhere, no amount of free lipstick tubes is going to pay my rent.

Having said that, I admire your amazing site. I love that you  have the advertising because you can make some income from your site but it doesn't detract from the focus of it: your content. I'm trying to figure out how to move into that myself, so I'll be using yours as a template.

Merci!

Salut,
Marjorie</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bonjour, and thanks for the mention!</p>
<p>My policy is to mention that I received a product directly from the company or its publicist. However, I will say that I don&#8217;t really care one way or another if a site host gets her products comped. Quite frankly, I think it&#8217;s insulting to hold beauty bloggers to a different (dare I say higher?) standard than, say, book reviewers, film reviewers, theater critics, and sports writers, all of whom receive free passes and/or merchandise. </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve mentioned it in another site, but I suspect that one thing at play here is the perception of beauty bloggers as being dim-witted airheads who are in it for the free swag, as implied in the article. As you mentioned, they&#8217;ve no idea how much work it is to maintain a full site, almost as if it&#8217;s a part-time job. And the article made it worse by referring to it as a &#8220;hobby.&#8221;</p>
<p>What about all those other bloggers &#8212; invariably mostly male &#8212; who take their blogging seriously and consider it a serious business venture? Why single out beauty bloggers as fun little side gigs rather than a serious attempt to provide an alternative &#8212; and free! &#8212; source of honest reviews, one that&#8217;s not tainted by the intimate relationship between beauty mag glossies and advertisers? Is there some misogyny at play here, by any chance, or is it just me? The beauty business is just that &#8212; a business &#8212; and yet some sectors still consider it a frivolous distraction, despite its multi-billion-dollar capitalization. Is it because women make up the vast majority of its customer base that we can&#8217;t seem to take it seriously? </p>
<p>Anyway, that&#8217;s just my two cents. I think the article underestimated the intelligence and discernment of women. I think we do a pretty good job of singling out those sites who do nothing more than copy-and-paste the company&#8217;s press releases. The article wasn&#8217;t just insulting to bloggers but to their readers as well. </p>
<p>And yes, I&#8217;m like you. I never contacted the beauty companies; rather, they always contact me. I would have no problem if a blogger chose to contact them, however. It&#8217;s a business, and that&#8217;s the only way you can afford to maintain quality content, is if you had the products to review. As someone wrote elsewhere, no amount of free lipstick tubes is going to pay my rent.</p>
<p>Having said that, I admire your amazing site. I love that you  have the advertising because you can make some income from your site but it doesn&#8217;t detract from the focus of it: your content. I&#8217;m trying to figure out how to move into that myself, so I&#8217;ll be using yours as a template.</p>
<p>Merci!</p>
<p>Salut,<br />
Marjorie</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
