Amanda Congdon's newest gig is pitching for DuPont.

It incited some controversy:

"Poor Amanda Congdon. The bodacious videoblogger and ABC News contributor just can't seem to understand why she should be embarrassed about playing journalist while taking money from companies like DuPont to shill for their products." (from RadarOnline)

The videos were made for online audiences looking for different and interesting stories told through video," said DuPont in a release. "Each video showcases how DuPont science helps to protect people and how innovations developed by DuPont enhance people’s lives."

"We're going to be measuring the impact," said Spangler. "Does this deliver of DuPont science resonate with the audience? Is this the way they would like to receive information? Did we pick the right blogs? Is it the right channel strategy? Should we broaden it to other channels with video?"

"This wasn't supposed to be a viral marketing program like one of those `look how cute this is' type of thing. We really are just telling the story behind DuPont science in an interesting way... They were made around the story, the delivery, presentation and, to some degree, Amanda."

This is the problem all conventional vloggers looking for corporate dollars will run into: "Selling out" and "ethical lapses". Interesting to note, though, that most critiques of Amanda's DuPont deal are about Amanda as journalist vs. corporate shill, rather than the question of whether DuPont itself is ethical. DuPont has not been faulted...Oops wait! How about this, (also from RadarOnline)?

Posted by Owen on April 9, 2007 04:24 PM | Permalink | Comments