Opinions, Morality & The Content Crossroads
I think that I may have reached something of a content crossroads.
It began when Ed Gaze of the Lloyds Lab planted the seed in my head that my new format, DEMO10, would be better if I offered an opinion on what I'd seen.
But I've always tried to be agnostic with guests and focus on presenting them all on a level playing field.
I also didn't want to make DEMO10 about me and my biases.
Otherwise, I could be accused of picking favourites, right?
Agnosticism feels safer. It's a platform, nothing more or less.
But I was chatting with somebody about Vendor Spotlight earlier this week.
They asked; "What happens if somebody comes on the show whose solution you don't actually like? Or moreover, would you still have them on if you'd heard horror stories about them?"
It's a great question and one I hadn't considered.
More importantly, by having someone on as a guest, am I implying they have my stamp of approval? That I am vouching for them?
Am I aligning my reputation to theirs?
The difficulty is that market reputation can often be unfair. You hear about the bad things, but rarely the good. I've seen horror stories about great companies and vice versa.
Equally, I'm conscious that there is rarely smoke without fire.
The point being; everything is subjective.
I've always been of the opinion that I should give everybody the platform. The audience form their own opinion.
DEMO10, in particular, was meant to close the gap between what they were saying they could do them proving it.
But should I be fact-checking the claims they're making on my show? Should I be holding them to account and challenging them more?
I'm inclined to think that if I did, guests would be far more reluctant to take part. Additionally, it would impact the ability to monetise.
But what do you think? What would you do?