Disclosure

11 April 2006

I’m sure you all read my post yesterday on Be Your Own Pet, and how great they are.

In the interests of full disclosure, I feel I must point out that I work for there record label. Which puts me at a tricky little conundrum. I was a big Be Your Own Pet fan before I started working for there label, and even if I wasn’t working there I would still have bought the album, still gone to the gig on Saturday and still recommended the album.

Which is why I didn’t put a disclaimer on the last post.

But the thing is, I know that the sales of the album have been slightly lacklustre, and I really want people to hear the album – so hence no disclaimer, as obviously it takes the shine off any recommendation.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who goes through small moral dilemmas like this when posting on their blog, and I’m really not sure the best course of action.

For you, the reader, I’m sure the choice is easy – the truth, please; disclaimer and all. We want to make our minds up on our own, aided by all the facts, if that’s not too much trouble.

Twist it around, though, and look at it from my view (and the view of anybody else writing about something they love from a biased viewpoint); I love Be Your Own Pet, as a fan, and want them to do as well as possible, and hence I’m going to write about them on my blog. Do I voluntarily devalue my opinion? Do I trust my readers to be able to understand when I’m influenced by my employer and when I’m not? I’d like to think that I’m not ever a company mouth piece, but whether I can adequately convey that In my writing is a whole other question.

Of course, in the modern online world you don’t need to just listen to me and take my word for it. We’ve got places like Technorati and MetaCritic that let you figure out if people agree with me.

Does that help with the full disclosure issue? Maybe. At least you know if I’m really lying.

– - –

I’m going to be away for the next week or so; posting is liable to be at the best sporadic, and at the worst non-existant.

From: Articles

11 April 2006