After posing the question of credibility and gifts yesterday, it seemed like the thing to do would be to actually talk to one of the bloggers who were flown to Seattle for the big product announcement of the Zune. I talked to Glenn Peoples from Coolfer, who was more than willing to talk about his experience and his thoughts on the subject of bloggers accepting gifts.

Should bloggers be accepting junkets? According to Peoples, it depends on a number of factors. “First and foremost,” he says, “the blogger should disclose the junket,” something which he suggests does not happen as often as it should.

“Readers don’t want to get the company line. They want honesty. Lately a lot of people don’t think they can get that honesty in the mainstream media. Blogs are expected to be untainted. That’s a reasonable expectation. The less outside influence in blogs, the better.”

While most reputable news organizations have strict rules about what gifts they can accept, bloggers have no such code of ethics. However, asking a blogger who is making little to no money from their site to self-finance such a trip would be impossible. Glenn insists that the trip had no effect of his objectivity, but that without his expenses paid, travelling to Redmond would not be an option.

“To be honest,” he says, “I would have preferred that they all came to my living room and we all did the interviews and presetation right there. I’m in business school and don’t have a lot of free time, nor do I love 7am flights, but I was presented a wonderful opportunity to see an important new product.”

But what about pressure for positive reviews from the company? Peoples says that there was no pressure to be anything but honest with his readers, and that he would not have accepted the junket had the case been anything but this.

“My name is on my blog. My reputation is on it. That’s very important to me. I’m not trying to win favor with anybody in Redmond. My readers should know that. I strive to present a thoughtful, fair and open-minded blog. My posts on the Zune have been and will be fair and objective.”

Because Microsoft was clear that such favouritism was not necessary, he says that he thought the coverage of Zune by and large was fair an unbiased.

“Positives and negatives were brought out into the open. Personally I don’t think Microsoft cares what is said about the Zune. They want people talking about it, and they want feedback. They want discourse,” he says.

He also adds that while some restrictions were placed on the bloggers who visited, (for example, no photography was permitted), he understands why some limitations had to be put in place when dealling with a prototype product.

“I would have preferred to take photos, but the devices I saw were not final and I understand why Microsoft does not want them photographed,” says Peoples. “Had I taken photos, my readers would have seen demos, not the final product.”

As for the commenters who accused him and others who covered the launch of shilling for Microsoft he said that he respects opposing opinions, but hopes that such characterizations would be based on “substantial concerns and objective reasoning.” He also adds that the negative comments did not surprise him.

“I’m never surprised by negative comments in blog posts. People say all sorts of things in comments sections. I would be surprised if a critic took the time to email me and voice his or her displeasure, or said it to me personally. In fact, I would prefer negative emails. That would show me somebody is being more than a troll.”

As for whether these sorts of junkets and gifts to bloggers will pollute the credibility of bloggers in the future, his answer shows a journalistic dedication to his readers.

“If it turns out that readers don’t want bloggers to accept such trips, I think we shouldn’t accept them,” he says. “Until that happens, we’ll have to see which direction opinion goes and what events influence readers’ opinions.”

“Joining the conversation” is a phrase that is often echoed in Web 2.0 and social media circles. Even now, a lot of PR professionals and clients are unsure of the benefit of entering this mysterious conversation, and don’t see the necessity.

The reality is that if your product is worth talking about, good or bad, it will be talked about. This is nothing new – word of mouth has destroyed a lot of products in its day. The Ford Pinto, despite their attempts to cover up the fact that they would explode in rear-impact collisions, was forced out of the market by people talking about it. This took almost two years – in the new information economy, a story like this would make it around the world a dozen times in less than a week.

In general, there are two kinds of things being said about your products or your company on the Web. In most cases, the buzz is either negative or glowing. It’s rare that a blogger would go to the trouble to say “I bought X today, and it was not bad.”

So how do you respond when the buzz turns against you? Join the conversation. Negative buzz is one of two things – accurate or flawed. It’s important that both of these things are addressed quickly before that buzz gets out of control.

If the negative comments are factual, in the case that a product is flawed, a policy is unjust, or a mistake has been made on the part of your company, the best way to address it is to acknowledge that fact, and explain what steps are being made to correct it. This is very similar to a crisis PR approach, though the goal of this exercise is to fix the problem before crisis arises.

Kryptonite Locks are a perfect example of blog buzz destroying a product. When it came to light that these top-of-the-line locks could be picked with a bic pen, it was all over the Web, yet Kryptonite never responded with anything other than the same old line that “Kryptonite locks are the best.” Had they become a part of that conversation and explained what they were doing to fix this problem, and how they would compensate customers who had a flawed lock, they could have looked great. Instead, their stock plummeted, along with their reputation.

The main difference between blogs and the media is a lack of accountability on the part of blogs. Opinions are fair game in a way that newspaper columnists could only dream of. As a result, there are many unique opinions, and many, many flawed opinions.

When you’re hit with a negative and factually inaccurate buzz, it’s especially important to act quickly before another blogger sees it and reprints it as gospel. Simply by commenting on a blogger’s post or contacting them directly, you show not only that you care about what your customers are saying and how they are experiencing the product, but you’re also helping other bloggers who might be having the same problem, and preventing a mass negative buzz in the process.