I was really looking forward to reading Jeff Bullas’s ‘Blogging the Smart Way’ that I had downloaded. I was sure that there would be some worthwhile insights and some fresh lessons to be learnt. He did a pretty convincing job of setting up why reading this book was ‘for you’ be that you were an entrepreneur, author, musician, business owner, programmer, corporate executive or marketer ‘working on a big idea’. That is a rather wide range and other than including a clown, politician or economist, has securely set-up the call, “all bases covered”.
After briefly exploring ‘what is a blog’ Bullas goes on to share how he grew his own readership to 300 000 per month. Yes, you read that correctly, 300 000 people per month read what Bullas has to say in his blogs. In fact Bullas isn’t shy to reveal that he also has ‘nearly 100 000’ Twitter followers and that he has been named as one of the top 50 social media power influences on Forbes.com -coming in at number 14 on that listing. Oh yes, and he gets paid to speak at events and conferences around the world. Big ‘wow’ isn’t it but I suspect you sense something sinister lurking in my appraisal.
You would be right.
It was Chapter 4 when the wheels fell off. The chapter is titled: ’12 Blogging Essentials and Getting Started’ where Bullas explores the theme of motivation. In doing so he proceeds to quote (almost verbatim) from Dan Pink, the author of Drive and TED speaker. The section was immediately recognizable as I have watched and used the Dan Pink TED clip many times, finding it one of the most compelling narratives on why we need to rethink many of the current management practices within business. Here I was reading familiar words that make a compelling case, without any form of acknowledgement of their source. I checked again and couldn’t find any reference to the fact that this was in fact Pink’s work and not that of blogger Bullas.
So, my first thought in Bullas defence was that maybe, just maybe, Pink was the plagiariser and not Bullas. I can’t prove that this isn’t the case but the likelihood is that print would ordinarily imitate the spoken word. Given that the section in Bullas’ book is almost a carbon copy of what Pink verbalizes would seemingly indicate that he (Bullas) is not the originator.
My second defence for Bullas was that he simply did not know he was plagiarizing Pink’s thoughts and words. This is possible but again unlikely given the almost exact nature of the phrasing in his book.
It is said that there is ‘nothing new under the sun’ and certainly whatever ‘new insight’ or idea you come up with, the chances are that someone else somewhere has beaten you to it. In TomorrowToday we regard ourselves as an ‘intellectual property’ company and as such put a huge amount of effort into ‘originating ideas’ and rethinking and reworking well worn business themes and practices. We also work hard at giving credit to others whose work has contributed to that of our own or perhaps influenced how we arrive at a certain destination. In fact the destination of others often serves as our own starting point.
When I came across Bullas’ use of Pink’s words without any form of acknowledgment whatsoever I must admit my motivation to finish his book went down the toilet. Blogging requires integrity and should be no different to the integrity that marks the world of literature. Certainly it may not follow form in this regard but it doesn’t mean one can take credit for work that is not one’s own.
I will be interested to see what Bullas has to say about this as I have no doubt this blog will somehow find it’s way to his inbox. I hope he has a reasonable explanation and in so doing is able to restore my hope. Failing that, I hope he has the courage to acknowledge his error – for which of us has not made a mistake in the mess that is the publishing world – be that formal or informal?
The book? Well apart from what tripped me up it offers a practical and worthwhile insight into the world and practice of blogging. I am sure you will find it helpful and engaging. After all, someone with 300 000 readers must know a thing or two about the subject!
(And just in case you were wondering: when we make use of Pink’s TED talk it is with the full acknowledgement of it’s source with massive promotion of both the TED Talks as well as Pink’s work. In fact I wish I had shares in the sale of his book Drive given how many copies I must have contributed in selling!)
Keith, one of the checks for a genuine authority in Twitter is the ratio of how many people they follow to how many follow them. Many people simply follow you back on Twitter – in fact, you can buy Twitter followers too.
Daniel Pink follows only 1,151 people but is followed by 232,734 (as of 1 May 2013).
Jeff Bullas on the other hand follows 134,783, and is followed by 149,125. Jeff has obviously chosen a different approach to Dan, but I know who I’d consider the genuine authority.
A second measurement of a Twitter account involves checking how many fake accounts are following you. While you cannot stop fake accounts following you, a fake follower ratio of more than 10% begins to indicate that this is not just chance but probably something you have orchestrated (by buying followers, or at least using a bot to generate followers). On ths measure at least Jeff Bullas shines – less than 1% fake and 9% inactive: pretty good scores.
A social media guru he may be. But not cool to be copying someone else’s material without reference.
Any reason you didn’t quote some of the offending passages so we could see for ourselves?
It was too extensive Jeff. It was over two pages and is not merely a quote but an entire ‘thought piece’.Pink has since seen it and immediately agreed that there was a problem and he has been in direct touch with Bullas. I don’t know the outcome at this stage. It was also confirmed that Pink was the originator and although Bullas has intimated it was cited, in the digital version at least there are no such notes.
Keith ~
I appreciate your integrity in keeping Bullas and the rest of us honest about sources. This lack of citation when appropriating others’ ideas and research troubles me only in its pervasiveness. Someone with Bullas’s apparent creds should know better and be more careful.
Such carelessness has been the downfall of quite a few authors (e.g., Jonah Lehrer).
I think I’ll skip this book.
Some interesting developments are unfolding as a result of Pink having seen my blog. I hope this makes us all a little more honest and give credit where credit is due. I suspect this saga is far from being fully played out and my intention was certainly not to ‘make trouble’ but went to the deeper principle at play.