Looking closer at blog ethics and perfume blogging
You may have read in the past few days about a little tempest of sorts regarding the existence of perfume blogger payola and swag. (Due to a family emergency which I prefer to keep private, I have been unable to spend much time reading on the computer, and was not aware there was any drama until late.) It’s been the subject of posts and vigorous commenting at Aromascope, Bois de Jasmin, Now Smell This, Perfume Posse, and Perfume-Smellin’ Things. It’s also been the subject of a lot of conjecture and debate on the perfume board at Makeupalley.
The initial blogger’s post that sparked what I’m going to go ahead and call a debate drew attention to a comment I had made 5 months ago on the Photo Matt blog. For those who don’t know, Photo Matt is the personal blog of the WordPress founding developer (the open source blogging platform Scentzilla uses) and a founder of Automattic (the company behind Wordpress.com and Askimet.) The post in question was very brief, and talked about click-through rates. My comment was actually a fairly emotional (on my part) response to something another commenter brought up, which wondered if people are mentally blocking out ads, then how long until they start blocking out the blogs themselves, too? With the rise of commerciality in blogging, this struck me, as a blogger who discusses consumer goods, as a very good question to ask.
To put my comment in a very personal context, I wrote it right in the midst of what felt like an onslaught of Christmas shopping PR agendas being delivered to my email inbox. There were offers for freebies of all sorts (not limited to perfume alone) sailing in, which was daunting enough… And then I was offered payment for reviews. These offers did not come directly through any perfume houses. They were extended by third parties. The first one I simply deleted immediately, as I figured they were nothing more than crackpots with a really bad idea. The second one I received (from a different source) wound up giving me the heebie-jeebies. I declined, and tried to offer up the unsolicited advice that this tactic was a questionable practice and not in their best interest to be making. I did so because I thought the party was misinformed about how blogs work. My advice brought back an apology, which was good, but it was bundled up inside the explanation that (and I’m paraphrasing) it wasn’t meant to offend, but that’s just how some other bloggers liked to do advertising.
Holy.
Crap.
WTF?!
I interpreted that as implicitly indicating that there were/are other bloggers accepting payment for positive reviews. My reaction was negative and visceral, so when reading the question brought up by the Photo Matt commenter, I wound up pouring out my concerns and worry what that sort of practice on such a limited blog topic meant for the whole of the blogosphere.
But the issue of direct payola is not the primary issue faced by bloggers. I believe it is rare, though its existence shouldn’t be denied simply because it is not overly prevalent. Yet.
The much more common practice of indirect influence of payola via freebies, or swag, should also be of concern to both bloggers and blog readers. I wish I had spoken up more about that in my comment, but at the time I was upset, and choosing the best wording ever was not my main objective. I was attempting to explain that if even such a small interest such as perfume attracts that sort of PR/advertising/marketing intrusion, bloggers on all subjects ought to remain wary. This practice may negatively influence the whole medium of blogging – not just perfume.
In fact, it was after I wrote that comment that I strengthened up the language in my own PR guidelines in order to leave no doubt in the minds of PR reps and readers alike where Scentzilla stands. Yet despite this, one somewhat prominent niche perfumery’s PR rep attempted to astroturf (see Wikipedia explanation here) on my blog, either in defiance or willful ignorance of my stated policy on the subject. The lesson I took from that was that the question of ethics falls squarely on the shoulders of bloggers. If there’s money to be made, companies’ PR wings will try to stick their fingers into the pot however they can manage.
I was not and am not inclined to name names. I would prefer not to risk sticking myself in legal hot water. Moreover, that’s not really the point. It’s a blogosphere wide concern; it’s not limited to perfume blogging only or to specific people, groups, or businesses. The issue is a ripe discussion topic, and I find it a compelling discussion to have for the health of blogging in general.
I regret that the comment left seems to have been taken and used by some individuals as a kind of ad hominem attack on all my perfume blogging peers. I am horrified that anyone would glean the assumption that ALL bloggers are engaging in unethical behavior; I was clumsily trying to say that I was highly persuaded that SOME bloggers in the fashion/beauty arena are. I’m disturbed that some folks have decided we’ve landed on some perfumed grassy knoll, and have consequently become conspiracy-theorists, when there in fact is no conspiracy. I do, however, understand that it may well come as a shock to some blog readers that free stuff (products, samples, etc.) may be offered to and accepted by blog authors. But it’s not as if some great big truth has been revealed. There’s no perfumed grassy knoll to become obsessed with finding, nor is there some imaginary Warren commission to rally against or around. Frankly, I find it disingenuous of some folks to feign naïve shock that there’s commercial interest in blogging when it’s plain that advertisements run all over many fashion and beauty blogs. The issue is a blogosphere wide issue, not one that is singular to fragrance blogging alone.
The giving and receiving of freebies, as well as blogger relationships with various PR firms and sponsors, raises interesting and pertinent questions about the supposed independence of bloggers. This is a valid area of concern. Whether or not any one individual blogger engages in these relationships and practices is irrelevant to the larger issue: Payola and swag do exist. Advertisers and PR will try in any way they can to control information about their products, and there are those who will accede to their attentions. Thus, all fragrance bloggers should look critically at the effect this has on our own blogging community, and more importantly, the blogging community at large. How does commercial attention shape the public perception of blogs as independent and personally driven media? How are these relationships influencing the conversation about our own chosen topics, both in tone and subject material? What kind of direction is the commercial attention driving us towards? Is that direction good, bad, or neutral? I ask, because right now there are more questions than ready answers, and we should be prepared to question ourselves about such things whether using the medium as writers or readers.
These are weighty issues to consider. The creeping commercial attention to amateur online reviewing is something every site owner should watch for as they navigate their way towards finding a personal code of ethics. I struggle with navigating those choppy waters frequently. It can be tricky, and it has not gotten any less tricky in the 3 years I’ve been blogging. If anything, it’s become more difficult as the beauty and fashion blog community has grown in size and diversity. Some sites are highly commercial, while others are less so. Therefore, relying upon the practices of your virtual blog neighbors when forming your own site’s guidelines may not always be the best or easiest solution.
This issue is not one that can be resolved by any one blogger categorically stating that PR, advertising, and its attendant weight of influence does not unduly cloud their judgment. What we need is a collective transparency as a blogging community if we wish to continue to be taken seriously.
The influence cash payments for posts can make on a blog is unequivocally direct. However, the influence a relationship with PR firms and their freebies might have on a blogger can be a danger as well. People may feel beholden to positively mention the products they receive. Others may feel compelled to construct or maintain an insider persona by repeating those firms’ press releases verbatim, possibly without considering the repercussions such posts may have within the whole sphere of a blogging community’s discussions. There is also the risk that some people may refrain from writing anything that could be construed as negative, because certain products may be carried by site advertisers. Perhaps, less obviously, there also exists the fear that if one pans a product represented by a particular PR firm, that PR firm (which may represent many brands) will sever their relationship entirely, thus cutting themselves off from a particular outlet for new information… or even more freebies, to be perfectly cynical.
Again, this is not to say every blog you read is run by unethical individuals, nor is it to say that every blog you trust doesn’t have to deal with these issues on a daily basis. It can be hard to find a balance on how to manage a site in a transparent but unobtrusive manner. Mistakes can and will be made – by both the scrupulous and the unscrupulous. But the blurry line between independence and commerciality can be confusing to follow for any blogger whose subject matter happens to be consumer goods. My own worry is that if the majority of perfume bloggers are all acting as willing synchronized cogs in one big giant PR machine, how long until the public simply begins to generally regard reading blogs akin to watching infomercials? Already there are blogs about other subjects that currently beg this question.
I suppose it’s worthwhile to point out that some beauty & lifestyle magazines also stray deeply into infomercial territory. Unfortunately, I think some fashion, beauty, and perfume bloggers try to take their stylistic and editorial cues from those sorts of magazines. Perfume blogs are not exactly Consumer Reports, but should this mean by default that they should follow instead after Allure, O, Lucky, etc? I’m not sure perfume bloggers should adopt whatever code of ethics they presume the editorial staff at those magazines take towards PR freebies, because I am not convinced that the standard there is entirely germane. While glossy mags may indeed receive press releases, products, and samples for mention in their pages, the editors do allegedly bend the content of those pages to kowtow to their advertisers. This is done without any of the transparency that might benefit their readers. In other words, the relative ethical practices of even the fashion and beauty print media can and should be viewed with a healthy amount of skepticism by bloggers. The idea they are the role model to follow is sketchy and a questionable suggestion.
Readers of blogs need to question themselves about the reliability of a blogger’s source of information and what motives a blogger might have in sharing that information. In most cases it’s a fairly benign motive: creative expression, and a desire to participate directly in the conversation about their favorite subjects. Reader awareness is as warranted for perfume blogs as any other type of blog. Enjoy the perfume blogs as possible sources of information and entertainment, but chose carefully how you read them. Because as a blog writer, I’m counting that your own personal bullshit detector will keep the honest and well-written blogs afloat while the rest all drift off into oblivion in a sea of homogeny.
Wait. Did I just say well-written? Crap. I just shot myself in the foot. Well, it was nice having you all visit Scentzilla while it lasted. Thanks for reading. Heh.
14 Responses to “Looking closer at blog ethics and perfume blogging”
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Hi, I’m Katie, the dork behind Scentzilla. I live in the Pacific Northwest, near Portland, Oregon. This is my personal site documenting my profound addiction to fragrance.
Robin
Said this on May 11th, 2007 at 9:29am:Great post, K, and somehow, I entirely missed that your post at photomatt was that old.
Am curious what you mean by “Others may feel compelled to construct or maintain an insider persona by repeating those firms’ press releases verbatim, possibly without considering the repercussions such posts may have within the whole sphere of a blogging community’s discussions”. I quote verbatim from press releases when I can get my hands on them. And I would guess that you could call my blog “highly commercial”. I hope that I’m not trying to “construct or maintain an insider persona”, but hey, we’re all in denial of one kind or another. At any rate, if that is my hidden agenda, I doubt it’s working — I certainly don’t feel like an insider. But what is the harm in quoting press releases?
Can vouch for the fact that not surprisingly, bad reviews DO tend to cut off the source of information, if the source was a PR company or fragrance company. Have had this happen even for reviews that were just less than glowing. But have never had a retail advertiser complain because I gave one of their products a less than glowing review. Hopefully none of them are reliant enough on the sales of any one scent to care. But like most people, I guess, I do way more positive reviews than negative — it is just more fun to write about things you like, so perhaps I have not really tested the waters.
Mary Ault
Said this on May 11th, 2007 at 12:04pm:I fail to see the question of integrity or truth in advertising (which is nonexistent in fact) to be an issue.
It is common nowadays in this over saturated commercialization that passes for life in mass culture that one will be deluged with products to be discussed and thereby disseminated to the marketing public. As you mentioned, many magazines so-called “devoted to you the gentle reader” are no more than pages of shilling under the guise of “editors picks”. They are amusing to read, but are self serving in essence, and as for as information, are less than worth the paper they are printed on.
I have found your site to be witty, amusing, and informative. The rest is gravy.
Thank you for a most intriguing site!
Scentzilla!
Said this on May 11th, 2007 at 12:19pm:Thanks Robin. Yeah, it’s kind of funny to me that it’s coming up now, considering the comment was from last year.
…
“But what is the harm in quoting press releases?”
One thing I didn’t mention is that I think where real harm lies is in using that press release language to make up the bulk of a review body, which makes it not so much of a review at all. (Which is not frequent, granted, and I hope that kind of behavior remains sporadic.) I don’t think there’s harm like that being done when they’re delineated specifically as the official press releases.
Anyhow, my concern here, however, which is harder to pin down, is more of a holistic concern. If one thinks of the perfume blogging community (for example, but it can be which ever genre) as a natural environment, all the little elements that make up that environment are interconnected and interrelated. If it rains a little, it’s actually good for the place… it makes everything greener by allowing the flora to flourish, and therefore allowing the fauna to feed better from the bottom and moving up the food chain. But if it rains too much, flooding will occur, drowning out much of the environment’s ability to function in a healthy manner. And what I really fear is a flood of press releases being repeated ad infinitum and drowning out new information that would otherwise flourish. It’s not that no bloggers should ever share those press relases, they can be valuable information to share, it’s simply a question of volume when the same releases are being republished over and over by multiple sources in the whole community.
Additionally, I fear some individuals may feel compelled to share any old press releases, because they want to maintain a relationship with the PR firm that gave them.
“I would guess that you could call my blog ‘highly commercial’. I hope that I’m not trying to ‘construct or maintain an insider persona’, but hey, we’re all in denial of one kind or another.” Well, yeah, your site is fairly commercial, but I’m not really seeing you pimp products to make any houses or corporations happy simply for the sake of making them happy. I think you do have a little bit of an insider persona, but I think a lot of that has to do with the sheer volume of knowledge you have on the subject of fragrance. And I feel like that’s a very different thing than someone trying to establish themselves right off the bat as an “expert” (so to speak) by virtue of their relationships with companies and firms that give them access to types of information that might not necessarily be easily obtained by the average person.
“Can vouch for the fact that not surprisingly, bad reviews DO tend to cut off the source of information, if the source was a PR company or fragrance company. Have had this happen even for reviews that were just less than glowing.” Me, too. Which… meh. I don’t really care so much when/if it happens, but the risk is that there are those who will care. And of course, it’s doubly annoying when you’ve praised other products from the line or brand, which tends to go without notice, but then you say a bad word about a single one, and THAT they pay attention to. It’s kind of understandable from their point of view, but, meh.
Scentzilla!
Said this on May 11th, 2007 at 12:21pm:Mary Ault - you slipped right in while I was typing out a reply to Robin! I’ll come back with a reply for you in half a sec - I gotta go take the dog outside to go potty before he ruins my carpet!
Scentzilla!
Said this on May 11th, 2007 at 12:52pm:Okay, dog is now happy with me again!
\”It is common nowadays in this over saturated commercialization that
passes for life in mass culture that one will be deluged with products to
be discussed and thereby disseminated to the marketing public.\” It is common, and made no less so by blogs like this, heh! I think the best we can do as individuals is to choose to be aware we are part of the culture whether we like it or not, and then use that awareness to guide us, rather than let ourselves by swayed into letting ourselves become slaves to brands as if it were some vital part of our individual personas.
\”As you mentioned, many magazines so-called “devoted to you the gentle reader” are no more than pages of shilling under the guise of \’editors picks\’.\” And I guess I\’m hoping that by and large the perfume blogging community won\’t fall vicitm to this syndrome. It\’s good to have hope, and maybe by talking about these kind of things we can keep some of the egregiously non-transparent shilling at bay.
helg
Said this on May 12th, 2007 at 5:47am:Katie,
first of all brava on your brave stance and your explaining your comment in such clear and succinct terms.
I do hope we continue to enjoy your posts in the future, in fragrant or non-fragrant matters.
A few comments, if you will allow me, please:
* “These offers did not come directly through any perfume houses. They were extended by third parties.”
This is what most people who commented on the subject failed to see…that it is PR companies/advertising teams who do the gifting/paying/swag.
* “My advice brought back an apology, which was good, but it was bundled up inside the explanation that (and I’m paraphrasing) it wasn’t meant to offend, but that’s just how some other bloggers liked to do advertising.”
This is highly interesting and points out that no, you weren’t the only one approached.
For some reason I felt really bad for you when I read someplace (don’t recall, don’t care to recall) that you were the only one and it was wrong of you to assume that others got offers for gifts/payment as well. It left me with an impression that the fragrant community is not as angelically shaped as is purpoted to be. Pity….
* “How does commercial attention shape the public perception of blogs as independent and personally driven media? How are these relationships influencing the conversation about our own chosen topics, both in tone and subject material? What kind of direction is the commercial attention driving us towards? Is that direction good, bad, or neutral? I ask, because right now there are more questions than ready answers, and we should be prepared to question ourselves about such things whether using the medium as writers or readers.”
Excellent point and indeed instead of simply stating that we are above those things we should really question ourselves about those limits. Because it is a delicate issue.
* “This issue is not one that can be resolved by any one blogger categorically stating that PR, advertising, and its attendant weight of influence does not unduly cloud their judgment. What we need is a collective transparency as a blogging community if we wish to continue to be taken seriously.”
Another excellent point!
What good does stating that one does *not* get gifts/payment/samples/whatever do? It’s still their word in print (and even less than that as it can be deleted at a moment’s notice when it doesn’t suit or added on when the occassion demands it)
Of course that is not meant to say that I do not personally believe the people who stated so. It is just that as conclusive proof it doesn’t stand a chance. It’s still a question of believing said blogger is honest in divulging so.
* “Perfume blogs are not exactly Consumer Reports, but should this mean by default that they should follow instead after Allure, O, Lucky, etc? I’m not sure perfume bloggers should adopt whatever code of ethics they presume the editorial staff at those magazines take towards PR freebies, because I am not convinced that the standard there is entirely germane”
This has been brought up as a possible “justification” that since everyone is given freebies in the industry it is all right. I agree with you.
* “And I feel like that’s a very different thing than someone trying to establish themselves right off the bat as an “expert” (so to speak) by virtue of their relationships with companies and firms that give them access to types of information that might not necessarily be easily obtained by the average person.”
Highly intriguing!
Thank you for being so honest and plainly spoken on all those matters. Much appreciated.
victorias own
Said this on May 12th, 2007 at 2:25pm:I am quite shocked to hear of all this. I guess I am not big enough to be offered payment, because I have not been approached. I might be tempted to print the letter if I were. As for freebies and swag, If I dislike something it usually doesn’t get a review. I don’t see the need to trash something that someone else might like. I’m not Consumer Reports. I doubt anyone is looking to me to point out the bad smelling perfumes, to save them from their buying disasters. I prefer to write glowing reviews for things I love, that is when the words flow. Otherwise I struggle. I have been known to run press releases, but only to share the information about notes, rather than to paraphrase. I think if you read someone’s blog consistently you get to know the blogger. You either trust them or you don’t.
A paid glowing review, might make me search out and sniff something, but I certainly would not buy anything I didn’t like. So if Blogger A gets paid for promoting Product X and Blogger B does not, yet both give glowing reviews, what is the difference if when you go to try the fragrance you hate it?
I understand that it is ethics dilemma in question here but the bottom line is the consumer needs to be savvy. People will be and are unscrupulous. Such is the current state of the world unfortunately.
Victoria
Said this on May 12th, 2007 at 4:55pm:In many ways, I am glad that we are discussing this. It is an important topic, and it needs to be addressed critically. Maybe, the way it was originally raised on Cognoscented blog was not the best way to do it, but oh well, what was done was done. The most important thing is that as the discussions on various blogs show, people are concious of these issues and have formed their personal codes of ethics.
“This issue is not one that can be resolved by any one blogger categorically stating that PR, advertising, and its attendant weight of influence does not unduly cloud their judgment. What we need is a collective transparency as a blogging community if we wish to continue to be taken seriously.”
I cannot agree more with you on so many points you made. Blogs are not necessarily autonomous entities.
Great post, Katie! Thank you.
helg
Said this on May 13th, 2007 at 2:25am:Oh, but since you mention it, you see I just went back and saw Cognoscented Blog and there is now a *new* entry commenting on Katie’s post here (and clarifying the circumstances in which the original post was made: not to harm Katie at all; which she isn’t by the way, not to the eyes of anyone who posseses half a brain) and I think it sheds new light on those aspects and it’s really *quite enlightening*.
Quite so, indeed.
http://cognoscented.blogspot.com/2007/05/after-reading-what-scentzilla-had-to.html
Scentzilla!
Said this on May 15th, 2007 at 8:44am:Helg - “Excellent point and indeed instead of simply stating that we are above those things we should really question ourselves about those limits. Because it is a delicate issue.” I think delicate is the key word here, no? It’s not easy to figure this issue out on either an individual basis or for a whole community, and thus, one I think is worthy of continued discussion beyond the scope of just perfume bloggers. Thanks for letting me know about that link. However, I must note that I have no idea about any eBay brouhaha going on, so I’m not sure what to say about any of that. I know that there were some dishonest eBay sellers refilling older bottles with fake juice, and the perfume boards were going ape about it, but I’ve not personally witnessed any perfume bloggers engage in reselling freebies on eBay. (Of course, I haven’t been stalking eBay for much of anything lately except for a couple highly specific items that I have email notices set up for, so perhaps my own observations are less than keen. I didn’t even know about the refilled bottles until other blogs highlighted the sketchy practice and pointed out the methods used by some of the practioners to defraud bidders.)
Victoria O. - I think we all struggle. It’s a fine line to tread sometimes, and made no less confusing by the fact that one of the valid outlets for receiving information are the PR firms themselves, not just directly from the house. “I think if you read someone’s blog consistently you get to know the blogger. You either trust them or you don’t.” I think you’re dead on there: if you can get a feel for how a blogger overall manages their affairs, you tend to know better where they’re coming from, and find their own objective subjectivity much more reliable as a consequence.
Victoria F. - I too am glad that we’ve got this out as a discussion topic. It’s perhaps an overdue one to talk about, for that matter. I truly feel like by the very act of bringing the issue to the forefront in the way many of us have, it discourages poor practices from becoming widespread. If it’s a known issue that fashion and beauty bloggers deal with these things, perhaps it gives readers a better critical eye for looking at all blogs.
Karthic
Said this on May 16th, 2007 at 7:58pm:Katie,
You were right to bring the issue up. I respect you for doing so.
So far as blog readers are concerned, Caveat Emptor generally, and, in the case of perfume blogs, sample before buying.
kuri
Said this on May 17th, 2007 at 3:28am:whoa! Missed the whole debate, but your post was great. I think you covered it all. Personally, I would prefer that reviewers mention if they have received free samples of the item being reviewed. It’s just information that I would like to have. Alternatively, if their policy is to not bother mentioning it, then that fact is similarly helpful.
Anyway, it’s been fascinating to read everyone’s opinions on this, so I’m glad the topic came up.
Patty
Said this on May 18th, 2007 at 6:25am:Thanks for posting this!
I think the thing that is bugging me most in this whole kerfuffle is definitely not your original comment, which was based on your personal experience and brought up a question and an issue, and it was out in the open for anyone to see. What irritated me to no end is how your comment was then taken and whispered about, apparently for a while now, and there was this whole underground backlash happening, perhaps throwing tar at some bloggers — whether rightly or wrongly, I have no idea since I don’t participate in that crap, no time.
It’s that whisper campaign that really makes me itch with fury. If people have issues, they should bring them up to the people they feel like accusing, not try and impugn their integrity in some backroom way, without ever making an accusation openly to the person involved. Just to make it clear, I don’t think you did that — you just made a comment and went about your life. I think others took your comment and started cococting some big conspiracy theory of blogger payola.
When the vintage refill thing surfaced, I did blog about it, posted links, and I also got a couple of psuedo-threatening (in a legal sort of way) from the person that I believe was the perpetrator, though they tried to pretend they were someone else in their e-mail.
If ever someone had an issue with me, our blog, or wanted to make an accusation, I would surely hope they would find their big, round ones and pony over to their e-mail editor and fire off that accusation so I/we could address it. It is that surreptitious innuendo that is the most damaging thing to a community.
Okay, having said all that, I absolutely do think the perfume blogging community should be transparent and keep their dealings with PR agencies out there as public information and be ready to respond if anyone asks, and they should note. I only get e-mails from one, and I normally ignore them, though I asked for samples once and got full bottles, which I promptly gave away and didn’t review. I know other bloggers have gotten bottles of things that they gave away that I never got. Do people assume that all bloggers get the same thing from the same companies? I don’t think they should.
Listne, if ever Serge and Freddie start sending me samples of their latest to review before everyone else, I’ll be the first person posting about it and bragging, but since I don’t think that’s ever, ever going to happen, it should be a long wait.
Okay, I’ll hush now. I hate whispering and gossip, which is the piece of this whole thing that chaps me, but the underlying issue I think is a great one to make sure we all address and think about.
Scentzilla!
Said this on May 20th, 2007 at 4:49pm:Karthic - “Caveat emptor,” even with our reading material is an excellent policy to take to heart!
Hey kuri, that’s okay. It’s one of those things that is a bit more interesting for bloggers to talk about than it is for readers to read. But glad it’s getting blogged by whole bunches of folks.
Patty, the whispery implications disturb me, too, but mostly because it’s harder to deal with if we can’t “hear” what the concerns are. If people talk, they’ll talk, nothing to be done for it. Gossip is a function of human nature. But the fact that no one directly asked any of the various perfume bloggers publically upsets me, since it makes it seem as if the issue was being regarded as a dirty secret, rather than simply a fact of how the PR industry works. That’s not good, I don’t want any blog’s readers thinking they have to guess at motives rather than be able to talk about them explicitly and clearly. I have no clue if there was any sort of “whisper campaign” but I am sure many readers had their silent suspicions about many different sorts of bloggers, not just the perfume bloggers, when it comes to commercial asperations. Look at the whole Windows Vista laptop debacle, or the Dutch tourism brouhaha. Again, it’s better that it’s an issue openly addressed now by a lot of us, because the discussion itself is an invitation to readers to seek out transparency.