N.B. – This was published in The Lobbyist (March 22) where I write a column (Subtext).

Corporations are now using social media and the blogosphere to get that much-needed (online) push in their advertising and public relations (PR) campaigns.

It is not enough for them to put up their own Facebook pages or blogs in their respective websites. They are now actually mobilizing bloggers to get as much virtual fans as possible in their social media accounts; they are also relying on bloggers for the word-of-mouth feedback on the products they sell or services they provide.

An interesting case study is Smart Bro’s Broadbandest Blowout blogger contest launched last March 11. Bloggers are required to “like” Smart Communication’s Corporation’s Facebook page and, of course, to write about Smart Bro. (Details of the contest for Nuffnang members are found in this URL: http://www.nuffnang.com.ph/blog/2011/03/07/smart-bro%E2%80%99s-broadbandest-blowout-blogger-contest/)

To ensure that blog posts will project the advantages of having the Smart Bro service, specific guidelines are provided to highlight the gifts subscribers stand to get. “In the blog post, the promo benefit must come out that now is the best time to subscribe to SMART BRO Unlimited Home Broadband Plan 999 or 1995 because of all the amazing freebies…The offer may not happen again so you have to grab the opportunity now.”

The criteria for judging are also skewed to favor the embedding of photographs and videos provided by Smart Communications. How else can one interpret this subtle encouragement? “You may then include the Smart Bro Image badge at the end of your blog post, and/or embed the Smart Bro YouTube video as well (Remember: this is 20% of the criteria, but it’s fully optional.)”

The subtext in this case is that the blogger has the decision, but he or she runs the risk of compromising 20% of the criteria if he or she opts not to use the corporate/official badge and video.

Of course, I should commend Smart Communications for not threatening to disqualify entries that have a negative slant on its Internet service (though a careful scrutiny of the criteria shows an indirect push toward a positive review). It is also good that Smart does not prohibit bloggers from having a disclosure in the post stating that it is an entry for a contest and that the reader should just take it for what it is worth.

I need to stress the importance of a blogger’s disclosure as it can explicitly state the motivation behind the writing of specific posts. A simple declaration that the post, for example, is an “official entry for Smart Bro’s Broadbandest Blowout Contest” would give online readers the proper context as to why it is written in that manner.

The absence of a disclosure gives online readers the impression that there are no strings attached in the writing of a post, and that the only motivation of the blogger is to just simply inform, educate or entertain. Any form of remuneration (whether in the form of an advertisement, paid link, contest or any other forms) must be made known to the public.

Looking at some of the entries in Smart Bro’s contest, I am a bit worried that many bloggers failed to put the necessary disclosure in their blog posts. But I am somewhat happy that there are a few who did. If only for that, I hope that they get the coveted prize of three Samsung Galaxy Tabs to be given away by Smart.

Sponsored blogging, anyone? As a journalist, you should know that this is not for me. But a blogger like you could think otherwise. The only thing to remember at this point is that there is nothing wrong with making money online, for as long as we do not engage in deception. Adherence to the highest standards of ethics could help promote truth-telling and accountability in one’s posts. Honest and responsible writing, after all, is done in a more conscious manner.