Some interesting nuggets:
...In fact that 46 of the 50 bloggers we invited to participate immediately accepted. Of the remaining four, two haven’t had a chance to decide yet and two declined as they were engaged by other PR firms and felt it would be a conflict.
It’s interesting that the loudest protesters of this program are individuals who weren’t invited to participate…or who emailed us asking to be included…and in one case harassed my staff and even threatened us if he were not given a camera. Unfortunately, the program had already been filled. It would appear that for some, not being included has suddenly fostered mock outrage and a pretense of higher ethical standards. I guess wounded pride can make some people act in a self serving and personally destructive manner.
But, I can’t say that I am unhappy with the debate. I’m really pleased that this program has stirred discussion and constructive debate. Honest debate is good…I’d love to hear more of it. After all, isn’t that what it’s all about?
From my perspective, it seems the biggest criticism was the number of months the bloggers could have the camera on loan [6 months or (with an extension, 12 months]. How long should the loan period be?