[By Craig Wilson]

Gareth Cliff is a probably the closest thing SA has to a shock jock — which says a lot about how conservative we still are. He’s always been a polarising figure, but even those who detest him have to concede that he has influence. And a pretty wide influence at that. Now, for a not-so-nominal fee, you too can reach his audience with your brand or product.

Before you reach for the cheque book, let’s consider the scope of Cliff’s influence: he holds one of the two most desirable slots on a national radio station; acts as a judge on that annual warning against telling your children they’re good at everything; has a group-buying website; more than 315 000 people like his Facebook page; and more than 126 000 people follow his Twitter stream.

According to Cliff’s social media rate card (PDF); a Facebook update about your brand costs R20 000 while a banner on his Facebook landing page will set you back R30 000/month. Getting a photo uploaded to his page is a relatively frugal R15 000, but making it the profile picture for the week will cost another R20 000.

A tweet in addition to a Facebook update costs R15 000, so if the tweet in question is the maximum 140 characters Twitter allows, that’s a rate of R107,14/character. Not bad for 10 or 20 seconds of work, depending how quickly Cliff types.

Considering that Cliff has almost 500 000 people connected to him on social media alone, these figures don’t seem extravagant when one considers what a single billboard campaign costs. However, it’s impossible to gauge how many of these connections are active.

The fact that more than 315 000 people have, at some point, clicked the like button on Cliff’s Facebook page gives no indication of what percentage of that number actually reads his updates. Things are no better on Twitter.

Nevertheless, there will be those who are outraged at these figures, but surely in purely capitalist terms the prices themselves are irrelevant? If Cliff can sell 140 characters for R20 000, good on him; if he can convince advertisers that there is sufficient value in that sort of investment the rest of us have the right to be envious, but that’s about all.

The problem isn’t how much Cliff wants for his audience, or the fact that he’s treating his fan base as a commodity. The problem is that if he discloses that a particular update is in fact sponsored, the factors that made the deal appealing to advertisers in the first place largely disappear.

Sponsorship and product endorsement is a long-standing practice, and there would certainly still be value to advertisers were Cliff required to disclose which endorsements are unsolicited and which are sponsored, purely because even choosing to align himself with a declared sponsor is a tacit endorsement.

The question isn’t whether or not it’s acceptable to sell your audience to advertisers, or at least, it shouldn’t be. If his followers don’t like being bundled together and sold to the highest bidder they’re free to stop following his social media exploits — something that may happen to Cliff in coming weeks as he tends to attract the zealot sort who won’t take kindly to being used as fodder for the Cliff retirement fund.

The real question, and the one that’s most likely to prompt public backlash, is whether it’s okay to pretend an endorsement is unsolicited, thereby lending it greater legitimacy. Most people will tell you they think it isn’t. It’s okay for politicians to get gifts if they declare them, and it’s okay for celebrities to endorse products, but if the endorsement was purchased the audience has a right to know because endorsements perceived to be unsolicited are inherently worth more.

I called the number on Cliff’s rate card and spoke to a somewhat terse and standoffish Anthony. He confirmed that the details are correct, and when I asked if he thought the exercise would alienate Cliff’s fans he answered with an emphatic “no”. “I don’t expect any drop in Gareth’s popularity, it’s not like he’s selling databases or people’s information or anything.” Well no, but isn’t the self-styled “defender of the faithless” abusing their faith?