I hate censorship. We live in an age where we don’t need to be part of an elite to have a voice. Dino Dogan is right when he says the age of social media superstars is over.
A recent discussion started about a session title name change at BlogWorld New York. The whole discussion erupted on Spinsucks.com.
Curating vs. censoring
The organizers of the conference simply decided they didn’t like the title and asked for it to be changed. It is their right, they organize this conference and they control what content is offered to attendees.
There is a thin line between curating and censoring.
When we want bland content, we choose content which is safe by boring bloggers, we curate.
When we invite social media voices like Danny Brown and Gini Dietrich and then ask them to change their words, we censor.
When we silence
I worked most of my professional life in countries where freedom of speech was not written in the constitution, actually quite the opposite. As a journalist I had state security knocking on my door to seize interview tapes, but I knew I was breaking that countries’ law by reporting on human rights abuse.
Later as an employee of a PR firm I had to find metaphors for products which were legal but frowned upon in a Muslim country. Champagne became bubbly beverage and grape based drink substituted for wine. I never minded it because the rules were clear, everyone knew free speech wasn’t allowed.
Something scary develops though.
When we silence others we create a culture of self-censorship.
Writers start to cut down on their ideas, they start to play safe to make sure they don’t upset anyone. Censorship is devious because when done repeatedly fear sets in.
After a while there is no need to censor anymore because everyone is too afraid to get censored or excluded, so they tone down their ideas to avoid criticism.
Censorship biggest weapon is fear, not the delete button.
Who are you silencing?
As employees we often silence ourselves. After a while some of us stay in the job we hate, or get smart and develop an entrepreneur-career mentality like JK Allen.
Others decide they have enough of silencing their inner voice and start their own side-hustle. This doesn’t mean you leave your 9-5 but you listen to your unique voice to create meaning in your life.
Finally some of us still feel they need to listen to that voice which tells them to move on.
It’s so much more comfortable sometimes to quiet ourselves, but think of what happens when you don’t?
The saddest thing is when we become our own censor.
I want to know what have you been silencing in your life? At work?
Hi I'm a coach who believes life is an adventure, and entrepreneurs need to cultivate an adventure mindset to succeed.
{ 95 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi John,
This is an interesting example of cencorship that I didn’t know about. Living in Norway, it’s not often that I experience censorship other than from what I read about or watch stories about on TV. But working at a University, I understand what it can be like. We all have different views on what a story should be like, and some people don’t want anything but positive stories to appear. They want to shut up all negative voices, no matter who they are or what they are saying.
One interesting thing about censorship is that it takes a lot of different forms. In Norway it’s not like we are shutting people up, and it’s not a fear of anything really. But I would guess that changing titles and adjusting the content are probably happening here as well, but we just don’t get the information until it’s “too late”.
I don’t think I have ever experienced any form of censorhip myself.
By the way, where did you work as a journalist?
Based in Cairo, Egypt but covered countries from Libya to Iraq, so a busy and tough neighborhood
Wow, that’s amazing. I didn’t know this about you.
Thanks a lot for sharing this. Sounds like a very interesting job. But I’m too afraid to even think about what it was like
Lots of boring days, sitting in an office waiting for someone to do something, somewhere. Then a few days of intense work
John,
Thanks for having me on your show today. First off let me start by saying I love the Expat coach. How do you manage to come up with such good content continually?
I have been silenced so many times in my life by employers, management and peers. I put things into terms that hide my passion behind what I truly feel in fear of it being misinterperted and I end up looking for a new job. It is just a matter of having an opinion that doesn’t go along with the status quo that makes censorship so lethal. Censorship literally has the power to kill dreams, visions and ideas. If we are told what we can’t say eventually we subconsciously we stop thinking it. I have been silent for too long. I need to let my voice be heard.
(Now if I get fired can you help me find a job?) lol! This was a very eye opening post and don’t worry I got enough sense not to do something stupid. Thanks
Frank
Always a pleasure to see you here- if you get fired, yes I can help you find what you are good at and enjoy doing. But please don’t get fired
This thread put me back several months ago when the NYX allowed that restaurateur to call all of us in PR crazy among other things. You remember, John, as you stopped in at my house. There were several attempts some of us made to get equal footing from NYX, yet we failed.
This brings to mind the word “dictator,” which is more akin to what’s happening in my Dad’s homeland, Iran, and other regions of the Near East. Those who have a voice for human rights or those activists who push the edge are often battling a dictatorship or regime where people are not in control (as per your image above).
Blogworld is run by a committee trying to keep the peace without creativity; a restaurateur is trying to build traffic and so is a newspaper at the expense of others; voices are suffocated because of politics.
It boils down to one thing — control. Who owns it/who has it?
Hi Jayme, yes I remember did the NYT ever pick up on your letter to have Gini write a refute?
Nope. I wasn’t the only one trying (even pitched with a phone call). Others at PRSA tried, too.
I know, I guess the journalist enjoyed this little rant against the ‘evil PR empire’.
Speaking of censorship, so much for fair and balance coverage of an issue
I did this for years at a non profit I worked for in NYC. 13 years of self censorship because we had to toe the line. They didn’t understand that they had hired some of us to fulfill very specific roles and that by putting a muzzle on us, they were actually harming the “brand” rather than protecting it. If you don’t want my opinion and input, presented in the way I present them, then don’t hire me!
Very well said Ken, ‘if you don’t want my opinion, don’t hire me’
You summed it up very well. I don’t understand what you mean by ‘harming’ the brand in your comment?
This organization had a very “walk softly” approach that led to having everything we said being vetted before we said it. As a result, fewer reporters came to us for our opinions and input, so we got a lot less press than we could have. Also, we got the reputation of never really having anything to say, mostly because the “official” voice of our organization didn’t know what he was talking about and…well…usually had nothing to say!
Ken, this sounds like 90% of the big firms I know out there. I have worked on both sides of the fence, (journalism and PR) and the process of back and forth approval by agencies/client drove me crazy in both roles.
Would you say the responsibility of the firm having nothing to say was because of this specific person being bland or because the process was mind numbing?
a combination of the above, but mostly because he was the President of an organization which focused on a few particular subjects, and he knew very little about them. It was a Museum. I was one of the curators. There were three of us, and we were hired as “experts” in our particular fields, and yet when the press wanted our input on something, it all went thru the President as the spokesman. And so a) he knew nothing and couldn’t BS worth crap, and b) we had to often prepare talking points for him, which he usually veered from. If a reporter asked an in depth question, he was out of his element.
John, I apologise for the late reply. The downside of working on a number of posts and projects is that I miss out on the greatest treasures: conversation and community.
As for what I can gather from what’s happened, I’m slightly surprised, but at the same time, I’m not. Of course, nobody ‘wants’ censorship. We bloggers don’t want censorship because it limits what we can say. The censors themselves don’t want censorship, rather, they’re afraid that if they don’t censor, bad things could happen.
And there lies the greatest and most destructive weapon in all the history of mankind: FEAR. Fear has started wars, destroyed civilisations, and erased generations of history off the face of this Earth. So it’s not surprising that it also influences decisions on what to include at a blogging expo.
My guess is that the organisers heard what was coming from Gini and Danny, and something clicked in the back of their mind. They got suspicious, and that was all the impetus FEAR needed to influence their decisions, with words like these:
“If you let these guys host their session, you’ll lose audience numbers! You’ll lose money! You’ll lose credibility! You’ll never be big and achieve your dreams again!”
I’m going to be honest John and say that if I was an organiser and heard these words in my head, I’d take steps to remove any potential threat. Of course, the organisers don’t know Gini and Danny as well as we do, and if these two amigos came up to me with an idea that might offend, I’d still put them out there. Because I know them.
I guess what I’m saying is that the organisers at BlogWorld have a whole blogging community to represent. They have to keep it clean and well-respected in order to hold onto their sponsors, or whatever. So I can understand their decision to ‘censor’ Gini and Danny.
Now, let’s get back to blogging again
I understand it also, this doesn’t make it right
Sure they have a bunch of ticket holders to think of, but as I said in my answer to Davina, there are 7 other sessions going on at the same time as Danny and Gini’s. Surely if someone doesn’t like it, they can go and check out the others.
Of course John, I trust people (especially bloggers) will be able to go around the sessions and choose which one appeals to them the most.
I guess they’re following the ‘basket of fruit’ effect; if they perceive one apple to be bad, then they won’t include it in the basket for risk of infecting the other apples. Though we may not think it’s ‘right’, even they may not think it’s ‘right’. Instead, they have a quota to go by, and if something doesn’t pass the test, it doesn’t get in.
Gini and Danny won’t be affected by this, they’ll continue to shine. Maybe BlogWorld 2012? I’m sure they’ll bounce back.
P.S. I believe we have had our first official disagreement now
There’s wine in France? The Italians have not told me anything about this….
Hey John,
Great post Mate. The line that really hits it with me is
“Writers start to cut down on their ideas, they start to play safe to make sure they don’t upset anyone. Censorship is devious because when done repeatedly fear sets in.”
It’s so true, yet we let it be. I truly believe when we do this we prevent ourselves from experiencing true excellence. I see this whole BlogWorld issue as punishment for being honest.
Danny and Gini could have easily chose a flake title and went in and surprised everyone with crazy content, but instead, they were honest and said “hey, this is who we are, what we’re going to talk about and this is what you’ll get out of it” and because of that honesty, it gets pulled.
Call me an ass if you want, but I’m calling Shenanigans and B.S on this one.
Thats my rant lol.
Cheers,
Troy
Thanks Troy! You are right, honesty is being punished by marketing amateurs who think they know the audience better than Gini and Danny.
It’s lame. I don’t see that show going on for a long time, you can’t build a successful business by telling people what to say and write. Heck, even let’s take a look around the world to see what is happening to movements or regimes which censor? Umm, the future doesn’t look too bright.
At the rate they are going, they just making our job a lot easier to setup ours.
Man, what an awesome post and discussion you’ve got going here, sir.
Thanks for your support, especially coming with the background you have mate. The decision still irks me; I get it, but it doesn’t mean I have to like it.
And I thought we were here to educate about the blogging world and its nuances…
No you are here to get hit by a nerf bat.
Thanks for your kinds words Danny, they mean a lot.
I guess in the end, the lesson is that we don’t always control our platform but we always choose the message we deliver.
I look forward to it.
This is such an important, and ongoing, conversation. It even goes into what we discussed yesterday around executives being fearful of using the web because they think they’ll lose control of the message. In that instance, they’re trying to censor what customers say about them online and off. It doesn’t work.
As for the title change, it’s pretty frustrating, but I get where they’re coming from. We thought the title would, at the very least, make people curious enough to cram the room full. But now it’s totally reliant on the two of us (and our communities) to spread the word…if only to heckle us or see me hit Danny with a Nerf bat.
I’m coming for the heckling brigade and see Danny get hit with a Nerf bat.
The session titles are quite lame, now that they have sanitized all of them. I’m not sure who they are trying to appeal to?
I’m bringing a Quad Nerf Megabat. So there.
Hi John, I think one of the most insidious types of censorship is also the type we impose on ourselves, where we are scared to speak our whole heart or mind for fear of how it may be perceived.
I can’t even imagine what it would be like to live/work in a country where what you verbalise can be the difference between life and death, and you can literally just disappear for saying the wrong thing. As for blog world asking its speakers to alter their content, to fit their agenda. I think it does a disservice to all the paying people who come to hear diverse, challenging and honest opinions about things.
I think in countries where it’s dangerous to speak out, everyone knows it and you take your chances.
But you make a point, the worst kind of censorship is the insidious type we impose on ourselves.
As for BWorld, I just learned that the word Doucheblog is actually just as bad as the F-bomb in blogging circles. Which puts things in perspective but I absolutely agree with you, don’t insult your paying audience intelligence by choosing what they can or can’t take, we aren’t kids.
So much is happening in the world I think the authorities are just trying to keep up.
Companies are just starting to learn that it is good to let people talk about them and that it is a valuable feedback mechanism and a way for them to show goodwill.
I think governments will follow, but in the mean time we will have to live with some censorship.
What is great though is that on our own space we can say pretty much all we want and no one will censor us. Our own blog is a place where we can discuss our thoughts and ideas with likeminded people.
Hi Daniel,
Yes exactly, everyone in authority is trying to keep up with the tsunami of voices they are now faced with.
Censoring is futile, it never works. If anything it radicalizes people and pushes them to take even stronger stances.
How do you keep your blog free of self-censorship?
First of all it is open for comments. The only thing I “censor” is spam.
If someone disagrees with me it is welcomed and discussed. It is in the comments that we all can learn.
I will never delete a comment because it disagrees with my point.
That sounds like a great comment policy, of course removing the ‘awaiting moderation’ also creates a more lively comment environment.
I was wondering if there are topics that you would like to write about but think, no, this is too much?
Good question and you are right I do censor two specific subjects: Politics (since it has nothing to do with what I speak about on my blog) and Religion because I believe the principals of success are the same for any person, whatever religion.
With that said I plan on reading all the major religions texts so that I can learn more about them, then I might start referencing some of them on my blog.
Hi Danny,
Thanks for the link, the ‘filter bubble’ is the danger isn’t?
It’s bad for us and also for marketing I think.
As a marketing pro, I would be interested to know what you think?
Isn’t the whole point to be different rather than producing bland, uniform stuff?
Well, it’s a tricky balance. A client of mine referenced Seth Godin’s book “Purple Cow” the other day, and asked if he was “remarkable”, and how he could be come more “remarkable”.
I told him that it isn’t just a matter of being remarkable, but that you’ve also got to be remarkable in the right way; despite the catchiness of Godin’s title, everyone would stop to *look* at a purple cow, but most people wouldn’t *buy* one.
So yes, you want to be different, but you want to do it in a way that adds value. And yes, one of the best ways to be different in a way that adds value to one audience is to angle yourself so that you aren’t serving other markets (in other words, you might turn off people who are outside of your market – that’s fine).
But it comes down to how far you want to narrow it, and who you’re comfortable pissing off. I personally think that people should be a little thicker skinned, and either way both Danny Brown and Gini Deitrich are talented marketers who know what they’re doing in targeting an audience.
That being said, I can understand why the conference organizers – whose audience may overlap with that of the presenters, without being the same – would have concerns about catering to their whole audience.
I don’t think it’s the same as a totalitarian government controlling freedom of expression (Danny Brown and Gini Dietrich both have access to pretty large microphones, after all). I also think there is a risk in drawing that parallel; I can easily argue (I think) that there is a difference between the UAE government and the conference organizers, and that might imply that there isn’t really an issue that needs to be addressed – but that doesn’t follow, now does it?
This is one of those subjects that doesn’t have an easy right answer, which is why it is so important for an engaged community to debate and explore it, and reach a more nuanced view of the issue.
Yes who wants a purple cow?
A very important point that Seth doesn’t talk about and should.
Regarding censorship, its the same and it doesn’t matter if you are the government, a conference organizer, a firm, the idea behind it is that you assume your clients/audience/citizens are incapable of accepting certain informations and your role is to ‘protect’ them from such horrible things.
I believe most people who go to BW are adults and have a brain, thus they should be able to choose whether they want to come or not to the Gini/Danny show. You just can’t please everyone all the time. Or should we aim for that?
No, no, we shouldn’t aim to please everyone. First of all, it’s impossible, and second of all, you aren’t likely to please anyone by trying. Most likely you end up very “middle of the road” and generic, not offending anyone, or impressing anyone, or leaving much of an impression at all.
I think there’s a distinction between censorship, which doesn’t allow people to speak AT ALL, and setting limits when you’re lending someone else YOUR microphone. Isn’t that fair?
I mean, just as an example, you work hard to build your blog and reputation. Can anyone come and post whatever they want on it? No, because it’s YOUR blog. But they’re free to do whatever they want on their own blog.
Well censorship doesn’t mean you don’t allow people to speak AT ALL, it means you set limits on free speech. So for example if you are a resident in some countries in the Middle East you can’t write articles about wine but you can about grape based beverages, you can’t say certain words because it might ‘offend’ the people.
If for example I invite Julien Smith to guest post on my blog and I ask him to not write a single F-bomb, what am I doing? Censoring , because I know that is the way he writes. Just like when you have the Beep on tv when someone says something that goes against the CBC rules. Same goes with Blogworld, if they invite Danny (and they did invite him he didn’t pitch) then they have to accept his style, tone and content. Otherwise go invite someone who speaks the way you think your audience wants.
When you force people to say and write things, that doesn’t reflect their ideas or style, that’s censorship. You are denying them their right to have their unique voice.
Hi John,
I’ve spent my entire career in corporate marketing communications, and I can confirm that this kind of censorship happens every single day. And, it doesn’t matter if the company is big or small–fear knows no bounds.
Here’s how it starts: Marketing revs up its creative juices and produces “steal-the-show” content. Then it goes up the chain for approval and the idea is quashed. Marketing tries again with something a little less edgy, but the watered-down idea won’t fly either. Finally, Marketing gives in and provides the boring headline everyone expects.
First, someone else censors your ideas. Then, like Pavlov’s dog, you finally learn that it’s just not worth it to be “too creative,” so you censor yourself. The cycle is driven by fear. The censor is afraid of getting a single negative reaction, and the self-censor is afraid of becoming known as someone who won’t adhere to company rules.
I’ve written many “approaching-the-edge” headlines, and even conference session titles. Most of them never saw the light of day. But now that I have a blog, I have complete creative freedom there.
-Marianne
“Now I have a blog, I have complete freedom there”
That’s what it boils down to, Marianne, to have our own voice we must control the platform. Choose someone else’s platform and we must follow their rules.
So you never self-censor yourself on your own blog?
I try not to censor myself, but I’m sure I have toned things down a few times. I like to express my thoughts and opinions clearly, without watering them down with words like “might,” or “could,” or “possible.” I’m not worried that someone might disagree–I think a lively debate is fun.
That’s the point isn’t it?
Lively debate, as long as it’s respectful and there are no personal attacks is really where we learn the most.
Why do we want a bunch of people saying yes, yes, yes to everything? I would have though a blogging, or writers, conference should be mostly about debate and exchanging ideas.
Not trying to get others to conform to what we think they should be saying.
Hey John, I think if you and Dino started your own conference, it would solve the problem… Now that show would rock n’ roll!
Sponsored by DimePR in Costa Rica, next year.
This is happening
Yahoo – I’m in!
Speaking to Tim later on to get it started
I’d buy a ticket right this minute!!
They aren’t on sale yet
John,
I’m going to hit this from a couple different angles.
I will leave out the government angle – which I’m most passionate about because I DON’T TRUST THEM AND KNOW THAT THE SYSTEM IS TOTALLY CORRUPT. They don’t censor to administer – THEY CENSOR TO CONTROL.
Let’s say I’m throwing an event…in that event I’m going to make sure that what represents my brand is upheld. let’s say that “good-taste” was a quality of my brand. So, what I’m going to do is make sure that every person who speaks at my event keeps their message tasteful….they can be open and free – but with an element of taste. If I should notice a title that I feel would offend due to a possible lack of taste (from my point of view) – then I’m going to speak up and say something about it.
Another…
Let’s say hired a rap group to perform at a Retirement Home. Would it be wrong for me to ask them to watch their language? If they want the job – I say no. Of course they can opt out if they feel like I’m censoring them, but hey – it’s part of the package.
I gave those two examples, both probably bad examples – but still, examples that I see not so much as censorship but quality control. There’s a time and place for everything.
Now for Danny and Gini – I think they picked that particular title for a certain impact. Would it offend me – I’ve been called every racial slure in the book – SO NO WAY, it wouldn’t offend me…. not one bit. But I’m sure it would offend some…but everything offends some, right?
One thing I have to say is this – seems like our blog world is thriving on being edgy, and creative…and I see that title fitting right into the mix. I wouldn’t use it personally – but I don’t judge people for being themselves. I want people to be themselves – because I’m surely going to be me.
So, that’s my take. Summary: I don’t trust the government and hate their form of censorship. I think censorship at a private level is acceptable – as long as it’s for managing quality. And, it wouldn’t be a good idea to hire NWA (rap group) to perform at a Retirement Home..just saying!
Thanks for the mention John – always, always appreciated.
PEACE
Hi Jk
As usual you same some excellent points here. I think we assume a lot when we choose what retirees would enjoy or not and that is the biggest issue. Governments do the same they assume we are not ‘ready’ to understand certain information. Just like when we assume retired folks would never take to NWA.
My question is, why not?
Why not offer it to them, instead of making the judgement call for them?
If they balk and say no, then pull it out. But let’s not patronize our audience, retired folks, whoever else it is by saying ‘you guys are too old/young/white/black/educated/corporate to enjoy this’
In Gini and Danny’s case nobody except one guy on Facebook complained about the title. Thats one man out of thousands of attendees. If we believe in democracy (and I do) the majority didn’t mind the title.
As you say, someone is always offended. Now I’m the one who is offended by their new and boring title.
So what do we do?
Excellent point John! Why not offer them NWA!
I say bring it up in presentation. Speak on what the title was, and why it was changed. They can’t censor that!
Now I’m thinking we should get NWA worked into the session somehow, Jk!
You would go down in history for that Danny…and redefine edgy! Cheers!
John,
This reminds me of something i read about the Smithsonian censoring under the guise of “crowdsourcing” as a means of curating.
The Smithsonian doesn’t want to risk offending groups with certain exhibitions so they gather groups to preview shows (exhibits) and “suggest” changes. And have removed certain pieces if these groups think they will offend too many people.
Governments are also relying on crowd-sourcing to identify dissenters. Pepple are encouraged to submit a link that they think is offensive to certain ideas and/or monarchs.
An example is in thailand.. They have established an internet security centre to co-ordinate the blocking of websites deemed offensive to the monarchy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7871748.stm
Very interesting article..
Annie,
You are my favorite Thai-Quebecoise!
Interesting I didn’t know museums did this. Well art will always shock someone, until you find the bland and boring stuff which won’t shock but also wont’ create any emotion in anyone. Sad.
Didn’t know about Thailand, the photo I used is taken from the proxy which filters all internet coming into Dubai, it automatically blocks site which have certain words which are deemed offensive (pornography. gambling and politics). So as you can imagine MDs have a hard time accessing medical sites, and journalists can’t access many political blogs.
Yes censorship has an ugly face. Thanks for stopping by (again)
Hi John,
I agree with you and was really surprised to read Gini’s post yesterday. Of all places where I would think creativity and ‘edginess’ (not) would be supported, it would be at Blog World, right? I have never been to one, so I’m only guessing there. I also agree with what JackB said and that has to do with the soft economy and leaning more towards the conservative. However, innovation should trump conservative now more than ever. If ever the time to sell the ‘suits’ on social media, blogging, and new approaches to marketing, it is now! Push them a bit, make us uncomfortable, make us curious. Don’t make us ignore you, forget you, or not even see you.
To answer your question…you did have one about when we have silenced ourselves, right? I censor myself when I know the person just won’t hear me or isn’t ready to hear me. I wait and I try to deliver the message when the timing is right. At times, I feel like I’m silencing a part of myself that really wants to go big guns at my career, but I don’t because the family isn’t ready yet. But, in doing that, you bring up a good point, you start to play it safe and your create a culture of self-censorship. I’m sure you’ll ask me, if it’s the family that’s not ready, or is it me?
Another discussion, another time…
Hi Erica,
Actually I didn’t think the words Doucheblog and Spindoctor were that edgy. This is coming from an old school guy who doesn’t swear online, I really didn’t see those words as being really offensive.
You make a great point, make the suits curious. Yes curiosity, this is why I initially joined the craziness going on at SpinSucks, the name. Same thing with Danny Brown he posted something about how bloggers were irresponsible.
I think there is a difference between censoring ourselves and just speaking at the wrong time. We are not children, we understand we have to speak a certain way to some people in order for us to be understood and respected.
But then as you point out, where do you draw the line. We defeat ourselves a bit more everyday, we find excuses, not the right time, not the right person, not the right place, there is always one.
Sometimes we just say it and hey! nobody even looks twice at it.
That’s the worse thing about censorship, we take the decision out of the other person’s hand and assume they are not smart/open-minded/conservative/liberal enough to understand. Of course we use judgement but in this specific case I just think that you don’t invite two very outspoken bloggers and them tune them down. This is like having a race car and using it to do school runs.
Thanks for stopping by Erica
Man this post has got me going John. I had no idea the peeps at blog world had called you out. Stinking ridiculous. But the idea that two famous ‘bloggers’, who are the essence of communication, were censored….in NYC of all places, is the biggest head slapper in the history of the earth.
Like you John, I don’t cuss online. Heck, I don’t cuss offline. But the title was funny and catchy to me. I’d like to know what they would have done if Gary V was the one giving the class? Heck, the guy speaks at these shows all the time without any verbal filter but it’s cool because it’s ‘Gary V’. I don’t get it, at all.
Marcus
I don’t think the title was that edgy, and I’m a pretty old school guy. The original title is hardly stuff that makes it into a rap song lyric.
Yes exactly, what are they going to do with Gary V? He drops F bombs non stop. But as you said it’s ‘cool’ because its Gary V.
Exactly, Marcus. Gary V and Chris Brogan are keynoting; they’;; have “safe” titles; so what happens when they both start cussing the room up, as they normally do?
Isn’t that more misleading than a title that does exactly what it says on the tin?
EXACTLY! It’s misleading, if I want to bring my young daughter to listen to Gary V because he talks about the Thank you Economy, I’m thinking there is nothing offensive there and then wow!
Great point mate.
Hey there Erica,
EXACTLY!! You want your business to understand bloggers? Then understand them completely, warts and all, because it’s their language and their community that’s going to be selling your product for you.
Thanks, miss!
John, There’s some great conversation over at Gini’s and here.
I really like Jack and Robert’s points, Diana’s comment about her differences were ‘tolerated’. As I just posted at Gini’s I wonder about context, was there more than just the title? We who know Gini and Danny, we ‘get it’ and maybe presume that others will take the time to read up on them and get a sense of their styles, so as to not take offense by their title. That said there are always business goals and interests to represent; it’s why Gini will probably opt for a suit over jeans. Some may not care if we offend in jeans, others just feel we are making our ‘best’ impressions. Not sure if that’s censorship, but then… I’ve read about towns banning baggy pants. Now I think they look ridiculous, but the law and waste creating the law bugs me more. JMHO.
I censor myself on topics, just won’t debate certain issues. I also know when it’s better to be silent, that speaking out or up will do more harm then good. So that’s censorship but we can’t always say everything we think or feel, I mean hopefully, that’s why there’s some sort of brain-mouth (or keyboard) filter.. to keep us from making fools and douchebags of ourselves.
IDK. I’ve picked a few salty graphics for posts, but do second guess and limit how much profanity I let fly, how far I push the ‘edge.’ Some will always see anything like that as unprofessional; fine and I’m fine not working with someone who doesn’t like that I curse or how I dress. Same time.. I DO think about it before I hit publish, and often clean things up. I certainly censor myself in someone else’s house so I don’t go stinking up their blog w/ my comments. Interesting discussion for sure, FWIW.
Davina, you are right as Jack mentioned there are business goals. But then perhaps invite less ‘outspoken’ bloggers, the ones who are quieter and don’t rock the boat?
I think we all censor ourselves, some issues I simply won’t debate here. Mostly because it simply wouldn’t bring anything, just a lot of arguments.
In the end, unless we are politicians, we can’t please everyone. Someone will always find offense. But in this case I just think that it really sucks when you invite bloggers and then change the name of their sessions to make it more in line with what you feel is perceived as acceptable. At this rate, we would still all be living in caves and running around with animal skins, why challenge the status quo?
Thanks John! I forgot that and on my comment over at Spin Sucks. Did the hosts just draw popular names from a hat or have they actually read some of what Gini and Danny write (not to mention the comments)? These two are not only known for being outspoken, they are recognized and successful because of that. They have edgier blogs and styles that are uniquely them. To me that is part of their USP and why they were invited to speak in first place.
IDK.. I just wonder about the speaker agreement, the process, etc. In principle I agree with you but I also get they have a blog/biz/event to run .. and market. FWIW.
Davina, that is the bottom line, the agreement b/w the speaker and the organizer. Since we are not privy to this, we can’t really understand why it happened that way or not.
In any case I believe it should have been ‘handled’ differently by the organizers, or is any press good PR?
John,
My initial reaction to this post reminded of an old quote that I like:
“Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome.” Samuel Johnson
I could go on for hours about the validity and importance of that one but I’ll save that for a different time.
Instead I would throw out the challenge of dealing with perception. If I walked into your office covered in tattoos and body piercings would you think of me as the CEO of a Fortune 500 company or someone who works at a record store?
It is subjective and the response is going to vary from person to person. I am not a fan of censorship and my blog reflects that.
However I can understand from a business perspective why some people might be concerned about edgier titles. There might be fear that people will perceive those to be things that diminish the value of the conference.
It is not right nor fair but sometimes that is all we have.
Jack, thanks for your thoughts on this. I absolutely understand where the organizers are coming from, they have a fear that some people will not perceive the title well. But really when we let fear make decisions for us, where does that leave us?
Now regarding the edginess, Doucheblog and Spindoctor are hardly edgy. The are a great headline but edgy? Again as you said it’s perception, so by taking all the titles of the speakers and running them through the soft, bland, and boring filter, you get the schedule they have come up with.
In one word uninspiring, full of marketing code words which we have seen a million times all over the net.
From a business perspective bland and boring isn’t a great option either. Nobody buys bland and boring anymore.
The value of the conference comes from the value of the people who come to speak. Perhaps they should bring bland and boring speakers and see how that works.
Nobody buys bland and boring anymore.
When I sold ad space I used to encounter the challenge of trying to overcome bland and boring on a daily basis. We would say that no one bought it, but no one got fired for buying ads in the NYT and Wall Street Journal.
I really don’t disagree with you here. I just think that during a very soft economy people are more conservative than usual.
Jack, absolutely, people will buy safe in traditional media. Especially with NYT and WST, these are established outlets.
But when it comes to blogging and social media, I think that blandness can kill, it’s a tough market out there in new media.
You make a good point about soft economy and being conservative.
Just chiming in — I am so enjoying this point-counterpoint. At time it’s the brand, different companies can push more depending on their place in the market. An edgy startup may get away with something that an old-hat brand running ads in USA Today can’t. WOOT has some hilarious copy for its products but you won’t see others take those risks. FIWW.
But what is the BlogWorld brand?
Can you define it, because I can’t.
Maybe I can’t define their brand but I can count. Fewer ‘offended’ guests to them means more attendees which adds up to a better payday. If they are going after anyone who blogs or is somehow related to blogging, then maybe a homogenized presentation title is part of their brand message? IDK.. just guessing.
Still would love to know WHO are these ‘offended’ ticket holders? Last time I check, I paid the same price for my ticket whether I got listen to Danny/Gini or not. There are other talks happening simultaneously so if I am so disturbed by theirs I can go and listen to the 7 other sessions going on at the same time. Again, it’s impossible to catch every single session, yet we pay the same price so not sure how one ‘edgy’ sessions is making them loose money.
The blog world’s skinniest reply
ITA.. From what I’ve read at Danny and Gini’s someone did say something somewhere, which started this. I just think the org thinks it may offend and/or they might lose money? Still don’t know.. it’s done, is what it is.
YES!!!! YOU ARE SOOO RIIGHT!!!!
We are so many times our very own worst censor.
Blogwordl’s organizers are spineless of course. I dont think its censorship or curating. They just plain dont have any balls. They are capitulating to some imagined expectation. What would be the worst thing that happened if they allowed @ginidietrich and @dannybrown to call it what they wanted?
Its ridiculous. Didnt history teach us anything? Didint they try to censor what the Doors said in their national TV appearance? Who did history look favorably upon in that scenario?
Silly example, I know. But the parallels are direct and clear.
We need to start out own conference. We’ll call it Got Balls?
Dino well whatever you want to call it the result is they are telling bloggers how to write and this in my book is censorship.
Capitulating to some imagined expectation- Love this, especially the word imagined, they have no study, no data, no research, about what people expect but they still feel they KNOW. Scary.
WE NEED TO START OUR OWN, Absolutely. This one stinks to high heavens, I read all the titles of the presentations and seriously, did you ?
Get Balls Or Stay Home Expo.
LOVE IT!!! Lets start working on this like now.
John,
I saw Gini’s post and I had been sort of paying attention to the discussion about the title of their talk being changed. Like you said the conference organizers are the ones who ultimately have to decide what the title will be, but fortunately they can’t censor the content too much. IN the earliest days of blogging we tend to censor ourselves quite a bit because we’re so concerned with the approval of other people. Hell, we do it in the real world too. We’re afraid of how people will judge us. Ironically people tend to like us most when we don’t censor because that’s when we’re the most real and most authentic., When we stop censoring ourselves in life and work, things tend to get much better even if they rock the boat.
That’s so true Srini, we censor a lot when we start off and try to find our bearings and get accepted. Then the self-censorship wears off. I don’t think we completly stop self censoring, but perhaps we are more open with our ideas.
Looking forward to hear you speak at BWENY, days away, how is the presentation going?
I have a job where I am being silenced right now. I questioned why a client would say they are “too busy” to use social media when the company’s penny stock is not even worth a penny.
So now I am a “staff writer” I have the distinct feeling that if I were male, I would be praised for raising these questions. Because I am female, and aggressive, I need to be silenced. Oh well.
My blog gives voice to those who otherwise may not have a voice at all. I will not stop talking about abuse being intolerable. blogworld cannot censor me!
Censorship just shows that there is fear of shaking things up. God forbid we upset the status quo.
The only time I am silent is when I am sleeping!
Thanks for the great post John.
Hi Nancy,
Whatever the reason (gender, race, age, background,etc..) silencing someone else is wrong.
I think many times in social media we hear the same voices echo all over the place. One just has to look at Twitter and realize how people brainlessly RT an A-list blogger, well just because he’s an A-list blogger.
Your goal to give a voice to whose who are never heard is what blogging should be all about.
Yes you say it all when you point at fear for the cause of censorship. Let’s not say anything and pretend it doesn’t happen, it never existed.
What do you think your boss is so afraid of to censor you?
What are my bosses afraid of? That I could be right. They want their “boys club” to remain intact, and if the girl with no college education manages to poke holes in their brilliant plans – well, they can’t have that.
So. I sit and write, and begin to plan. I may be down, but I am not out.
The thing that drives me crazy is that this trait in men is welcomed, in women it is (mostly) silenced.
People RT top “rock star” bloggers because most people are sheep and need to be told what to think and who to respect. That same thinking is rampant in my company. “Toe the line and don’t make waves”
Why would I not question someone who tells me they are too busy to be involved in social media? They are a publicly held company whose penny stock is not even worth a penny! Did I miss something here?
If I ever stop questioning things that make no sense, check my pulse. I may be dead
I think the old boys club is something we all fight against (men and women). I had to fight it in my previous business.
Do you think a young man in your shoes would be welcomed making these remarks?
Now if they are just plain chauvinist, I agree there are quite a few out there.
I don’t think your company is the only one out there which uses this mentality “toe the line and don’t make waves’, it’s sadly very prevalent.
Don’t ever stop questioning Nancy, you are spot on with this, it’s the pulse of life.
Now I almost feel story for these poor boys, they don’t know who they have against them
Hi John great post. I found it interesting that the Blog World explanation for the change of title was, “The reason I asked you guys to change the title is that people who don’t know you could (and in several cases did) get the wrong impression. Not that you are uncouth crazy bloggers, but that you think you are cool kids with all the answers and anyone who doesn’t do it your way is a suit, not hip, doing it wrong, blah blah blah.” Now with that said…
I have run conferences before and have never asked anyone to change the title of their talk. Frankly if someone wants to get offended I probably don’t want them at the conference anyhow – they can stay home and be miserable. Having said that though it is up to the conference organizers to do what they feel is necessary to get butts in seats and not piss of the people that foot most of the bill for the conference – the sponsors (attendee ticket sales barely cover food costs most times.). Having said that…
I know know why you got upset at the title change John – your history in countries where censorship is the name of a very serious game. While I could see that a title change equals censorship of a certain level, I think the reason for it is, well, not so strong. I can see how the organizers wouldn’t want people to get the wrong impression of bloggers, but aren’t Gini and Danny business owners first? And furthermore, if they thought the title of the presentation would hurt them professionally I imagine that they would have named it something else.
That’s the thing with censorship you are assuming the other person is an infant and can’t think for himself or herself.
So you change the words, remove content, do what is necessary to make the content ‘acceptable’ or in this case free of misunderstanding from the audience.
It’s patronizing to the audience.
Robert,
You make an excellent point about responsibility, mate. Gini and I would never title something just for dramatic effect; we felt the title suited both our blogging style and our everyday language. As I mentioned in my post about it, perhaps future direction may be just to invite bloggers or speakers that really fit the mould, as opposed to trying to make them fit…
When we silence others we create a culture of self-censorship.
Yeah.
When I read this, I thought of the many thousands of words I wrote as a marketing director in my previous life and how they all said nothing. I specifically wanted the words to be Teflon enough for people to hire us but not to be able to say, “Hey, wait, I thought you said….” I have since become allergic to men in dark hard shoes with bad haircuts and to other people deciding what I find palatable and not palatable.
I would go to the doucheblog seminar in a heartbeat. The other title, not so much. It just goes to show how little they know about bloggers.
Back to the text I quoted. When I lived in Hamburg, Germany, I was appalled how pervasive self censorship is in Northern German culture. Even putting out different colored pansies as the neighbors in spring could lead to long, ridiculous discussion. So people don’t do it. This leads to 1. a very orderly society and 2. boredom and a tendency towards the average and unexceptional. AND a lack of respect for individualism and too high a value placed upon uniformity. I had to fight there, every day, to be me. People accepted me as “an exception”, meaning, they made a category for me that they could live with. It was soul killing.
So I rail against this kind of stupid-ass censorship that brings nothing and just makes everything seem white bread. Blogging is so not like that which is why I blog.
Buona giornata, John.
Diana, I initially booked myself to Blogworld because of this session. The other How to make money online fast sessions don’t interest me, they use what you very rightly call the Teflon language of marketing.
Yes self censorship leads towards the average, the unexceptional, the uniform, or what I call death.
“Blogging is not like that, this is why I blog” thanks for this, this is also why I blog. If I wanted someone to tell me what to write I would go back to advertising in a dictatorship.
We should have Blog World 2012 in Acqua Termi?
As long as you promise not to change the speaker’s words
Diana, I did not know you knew JF! Sweet! My fav lady expat with my fav dude expat, very nice!
Just had to say that and also that I loved what you stated above Diana, incredibly true and powerful are your words here.
Cheers,
Marcus
Diana is almost a neighbor here, just across the Alps. Another great person I met at The Sales Lion house
I am loving this group of people and the interesting conversations, Marcus. I owe it all to you!
John, I’ll send a smoke signal when the salami is cured….ya’ll can come on over.
I’ll bring the wine
{ 5 trackbacks }