eric tatro dot com

Apparently Microsoft and Edelman recently sent out fully-loaded laptops running Windows Vista to a handful of influential bloggers, and it appears some people think such practices are highly unethical. Initially Microsoft encouraged the bloggers to give the machine away, send it back, or keep it after they finished reviewing it. Now it appears the machines are for review only, and Microsoft has sent new e-mails asking bloggers not to keep the machine, but rather give it away or send it back only.

My question is: Doesn’t the ethical burden fall upon bloggers to disclose they’ve received the machines for free and what they plan to do with them after the review? Unless I’m missing something, I fail to see how Microsoft and Edelman are in the wrong. Josh Morgan puts it very well:

This is a review program. Many, many hardware and software
companies send products for review trade, consumer and business
publications all the time. For something as big as an OS it’s
practically required because most reporters don’t want to install a new
one.

If people keep the laptops, then they have the ethical problem, not Edelman. Not Microsoft, and not Acer.

Transparency should be the name of the game, right? Robert Scoble gets it right when he says he would have "forced disclosure by those who get the laptops." That detail would have saved a lot of trouble.

While I have no idea who received a machine for review, it looks like plenty of recipients have disclosed their receipt of the machines or intend(ed) to at the time of review. A few even intend to auction the laptops for charity, which might be the way to go in this situation.

Ultimately I think Microsoft and Edelman (and anyone in PR, for that matter) can chalk this up to a learning opportunity. If companies seeking blogger reviews insist on full disclosure and more clearly state the terms of the review up front, ethical dilemmas such as this one can be avoided.