Professional Network Bloggers: Do they owe their networks a fiduciary duty?
I’m late to the party recently discussed in numerous blogs about the actions of bloggers that write and freelance for a number of blogging networks. I don’t personally write for any of the blogging networks so I don’t have a stake in the argument other than an outside view of a business owner that hires bloggers for companies to use to their benefit. I use the word benefit not because I lack the ability to find a better word in the nearest Thesaurus, but because of the word “beneficiary”. The company is the beneficiary of the blogger’s knowledge, expertise, writing, and ability. For that benefit they pay to the blogger money. This creates a fiduciary duty between the company and the blogger. Wikipedia states the fiduciary duty clearly:
“A fiduciary duty is the highest standard of care imposed at either equity or law. A fiduciary is expected to be extremely loyal to the person they owe the duty (the “principal”): they must not put their personal interests before the duty, and must not profit from their position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents.”
The principal’s consent here is an important factor in the equation. In the arguments and debate I have read, the principals in the discussion are the owners of the blog networks. Some of the principals require the blogger to uphold a fiduciary duty and others not, therein lies the distinction.
Wikipedia also discusses the the elements of a “Fiduciary Duty”.
I want now to apply the duty of the professional blogger to the principal or network owner. I don’t mean to be too simplistic and I don’t know exactly any of the business models at bar, but for purposes of the discussion I will hypothesize. The blogger provides quality (we hope) content on the network blog within a certain niche, i.e. a gadget blog. For this content, the network owner pays the blogger a sum of money, be it a revenue share, a salary or by the piecemeal post.
The professional blogger may be a blogger for more than one network. The network owner is aware of the fact and consents to the blogger having a relationship with other networks. The fiduciary duty has been waived by the principal by their knowledge and consent. We can consider this Blogger A. In the case of a network owner that has no knowledge of the blogger’s other freelance positions is the flip side and the blogger owes that network owner a fiduciary duty. This is Blogger B.
Using the example of a gadget blogger, that blogger acquires some breaking news or inside scoop about a gadget that is going to be launched by a company. The blogger quickly pounds out a post to reveal this exciting news, and will probably be the first to write about the gadget and will benefit greatly from the traffic and notoriety of the post. In addition the network he blogs for will also benefit greatly from the blogger they pay to break this news, in traffic and in stature as having knowledgeable writers.
Given the two examples above, blogger A has no duty to post his hot story on the network owners site and could choose to post his money maker on any of the networks he chooses. In my mind he would post it to the network where he would benefit most with the gem he has written.
Blogger B may have other writing contracts, but he is now placed in a dilemma. He cannot benefit from this post as can Blogger A. He must post this news on the network blog of his principal or he breaches that fiduciary duty and risks damages to his principal.
Herein seems to be the heart of the debate. Should a blogger be allowed to write on as many networks as possible to his own benefit or should he or she be limited to one network?
I for one encourage my bloggers to put their own interests first. I would love to be able to employ all of them with a huge salary, but in today’s market that is not the case. Bloggers are left to do whatever they can to pay the mortgage, and I am a champion of paying the mortgage. In fact my own partners are bloggers for other companies and networks. I have consented to this and have waived that portion of the fiduciary duty. Has it been detrimental to me? That question remains a mystery, but if it has been a detriment it was by my own choice.
Each network owner can choose which path to take and one model is not better than another unless you are the principal or the blogger. Each has its benefits as stated above.
For more information on the debate, please visit these sites as well for the discussion:
but the way you articulate the conflict of interest provides plenty of scope for thought without being either judgemental or personal in what you are writing (certain ppl at 9rules should take note 
