Over the last week or so ghost blogging has been a big issue – a quick look at Dell’s B2B Social Media Huddle Twitter stream (#DellB2B) will show you a range of opinions.

As many have pointed out including Wolfstar’s Stuart Bruce there is some confusion over the difference between a fake blog (astroturfing) and a ghost blog – which is essentially writing a post on someone’s behalf or in conjunction with them. The analogy of a scriptwriter has been used to support the ghost blog argument.

There are clearly two schools of thought when it comes to ghost blogs: the purists who find this practice unacceptable and the pragmatists who realise that for a variety of reasons including time, writing ability and consistency that corporate blogs may need assistance and be ghosted by PR people. Agencies write press releases, publications, website copy, newsletters for clients etc – so why not corporate blogs?

Whilst, I sympathise with the pragmatist view – I think from the outset agencies need to explain that blogging is a discipline that involves time, not only that, it offers a different line from the corporate schpeel we are accustomed to. Essentially, blogs are an opportunity to demonstrate a more human side to an organisation. Also, what would happen if a member of the public quizzed a CEO about a ghost blog post? Would they be able to respond?

Although, agencies are well placed to ghost blog, I feel organisations will portray a more authentic side if corporate blogs are written by someone who works at the company, someone at the coal face – otherwise it is just a PR person’s take on the organisation.

For some more background you can read two good posts on this topic by Laurence Borel who spoke out after being offered £70 in exchange for some kind words in her blog, whilst Matt Churchill offers some in-depth analysis on the ethical and sustainability issues surrounding this practice.

Whilst, I too  had a recent approach from a SEO agency that put its motivation more crudely, a lot more crudely, it read ‘the reason that these blog postings are valuable is that, when they are linked to websites, those websites will achieve higher rankings in the search engines. Then those websites will sell more of their service or product. Those websites are willing to pay for your assistance’.

To me this is a black hat, underhand tactic if ever I saw one. Not only is it unethical, but could damage the trust, openness, the raison d’etre of blogging. I can see no difference between this practice and the infamous Edelman/Wal-mart fake blog. Whilst ‘paid for bloggers’  may involve ‘real’ people, I’m under no illusion that this tactic is just as bad as the Edelman/Wal-mart blog fiasco. In both instances there is no disclosure, audiences are being lied to and the blogger is guided on what to say – it is classic astroturfing.

Blogs are SEO friendly so it is not surprising that unscrupulous agencies are trying this tactic. However, I cannot help but feel that companies would be better off either investing in a product or service that people really want to blog about or carrying out some in depth analysis to target bloggers who would be genuinely interested.

This practice has made me question my own motivation to blog…I write SWT as I like to state my views and hopefully stimulate conversation. When someone offers me a story, I think about it, evaluate if it is relevant to the blog and if I can get any mileage out of it. I don’t do it for financial gain.

Whilst, I don’t mind people suggesting a topic, being paid to do so would call my impartiality into question.