TechCrunch promotes PayPerPost again, unintentionally |
There’s a saying that there’s no such thing as bad publicity and Techcrunch ongoing obsession with PayPerPost continues by labeling it “officially absurd” listing the various funding it has received and provides details on the additional $10 bloggers can receive for posting a PayPerPost Disclosure on their site. The Techcrunch post closes with Michael Arrington writing (emphasis mine):
Blurring the lines in this way - facilitating the pollution of the blogosphere while creating an illusion of doing something good for the public, is a good business move for PayPerPost. But it is a terrible development for the blogsphere and public trust. I hope that very few bloggers are suckered into going along with this.
Last week I saw a video from Loren Feldman at 1938 Media (see below [video embed no longer active]) ranting against Jason Calacanis and Jeff Jarvis over — you guessed it — PayPerPost.
I’m not sure if my favorite part is where he calls Jarvis “some 200 year old guy” or advises Dick Parsons from AOL what he should tell Calacanis to do about the “horror show” that is Netscape. Loren has become Valleywag’s “hero.” Made me chuckle. Subscribed!
According to the video Feldman, like me, isn’t signed up, affiliated with, or know anybody at PayPerPost. I’ve spent less than two minutes at the PayPerPost site but all this negative publicity is admittedly drawing additional mindshare. I’m guessing this isn’t what the PayPerPost detractors are hoping to be the reaction.
Don’t worry I’m not going to sell out the soul of this blog for a few bones, but I’m curious what the deal is really like and would consider signing up as an experiment. Sort of go Geraldo undercover. I’m not the only one with this line of thinking, as Toni already signed up:
After all the hoopla about PayPerPost, I wanted to form my own opinion. I opened an account, scanned their offers from advertisers and picked one more or less at random. It was from a site called WeddingStrategies. They offered me $10 for writing a blog post about them with at least 300 words. Their instructions included “title needs to include keyword wedding or weddings, PR3 please, no business blogs, no mention of PayPerPost.”
Check out the comments section of Toni’s blog for the discussion with VC Dan and Toni as they debate what is/isn’t proper disclosure. I’ve pondered this disclaimer stuff in detail here before but haven’t created a formal policy page yet. Heck, it took more than three years to create an official Hmm comment policy and privacy policy. For those who don’t know or are new readers, I look at this blog as my writing exercise, not a full blown professional site. We’re not trying to be The New York Times and I chuckle when people try to hold me to high journalistic standards. I’m not a journalist or reporter, I’m a guy sharing experiences, tips, tools, tricks, opinions, drama, commentary on news, some fiction and the occasional rumor. Things that make me — and hopefully you — go Hmm. I think if things become too professional here than that edge will be dulled. If I want to be a journalist or adopt to certain standards, I’ll get a job doing that.
At the same time, I understand the need to use disclaimers where relevant. For example, I frequently mention what stocks I own when writing about said companies. So much that it makes me uncomfortable for regular readers that they are thinking we know that already. I try to rephrase it or change up where it’s mentioned so it fits the posts without being too redundant and haven’t mentioned in every Google post that I own GOOG stock, but try to mention in posts where I’m being overly positive on something Google is doing. I mention it less often on negative posts. Does not mentioning owning the stock on every post mean I’m trying to hide that I own stock? No, it just means that I only mention it when I feel it is most relevant. If this was a professional publication, I’d follow more rigid, posted rules, but sorry to the blog police, it’s not.
I also try and mention any personal contacts when writing reviews. For example I promised my friend Rob Greenlee a review for Melodeo, but the site and concept just bores the hell out of me (I am not into listening to podcasts on a cell phone), so I haven’t been able to deliver on that promise. It’s got nothing to do with me feeling like I have to give a positive review, it has to do with me not feeling the site. I already told Rob that if I didn’t like the site my review would say exactly that, and no punches would be held. He didn’t ask me to do any differently. A friend wouldn’t ask a friend to give some bogus positive review just to help them out. They realize that an honest review is the most valuable: pro, con or indifferent.
Awhile back I reviewed a few blogs from readers. I could have posted those reviews, but chose not to do so. Why not? We’re the reviews not good? No, I thought they were helpful and the feedback received from the bloggers was positive. I think the information would have been helpful to others but I didn’t want to publish them here at the time. Maybe someday later I’ll publish the original comments and then what they’ve changed as a result of the review. You don’t get to see blog reviews like that very often, so maybe there’s a compelling future avenue.
Quotes elsewhere about PayPerPost (updated)
Thatedeguy: “I’ll jump on the bandwagon and state that you really must be transparent if you’re going to use a site like PayPerPost and clearly state that you are being paid for the post. Positive review or not. That’s what makes it on a level playing field with the banner add on TechCrunch’s sidebar. It clearly is a paid advertisement.”
Jeneane Sessum: “I signed up for PayPerPost after the panel I participated in today on business blogging, where payperpost came up as a sort of “icky” thing. I had been hearing a lot about it, and had NO idea if it was legit or not. After an initial look, I’m not so sure it is icky.”
Patterns of promotion to acquisition
I think PayPerPost is really enjoying all this promotion over whether they are evil or not. YouTube got a lot of negative publicity over the abundance of copyrighted content on their site. Remember Calacanis crying foul over them too? I’m seeing a pattern here, are you? Wouldn’t it freak people out if somebody in the GYM (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft) bag acquired them? Doubtful perhaps, but stranger things have happened.
Any readers sign up for PayPerPost or have a good friend that has done so yet? Your real experience thoughts? No shills please, keep it real. Maybe we can learn together whether or not this is the Death Star in the distance.
Did this post make you go hmm?
(Hmm, no ratings yet)
Loading ...Maybe Related Posts (plugin generated)
- Soapbox can import your blog reviews automatically
- The FTC and somebody please give me something positive to write about Sony
- ReviewMe offers $25,000 to bloggers in exchange for honest reviews
- One of the 28,000 performancing members sold and Microsoft’s review laptops
- Protecting the TechCrunch secret sauce
- Hooters Casino Hotel blog “not appropriate” place for customer service issues
Great article yourself! (Subscribed!)
Me Thinks the Tech doth Crunch too much over this issue. I’ve been blogging for about a year, and I do it for primarily personal reasons. I started as an exercise to get more and more hands on experience on the web. I originally heard about PayPerPost in late June right around when they launched. I signed up after the Fourth of July. Since then I’ve written about 150 articles for PayPerPost and earned about $1100 ($800 in the bank already).
I’m not quitting my day job, but this revenue towards a hobby and revenue towards a practical exercise to learn more about the web is proving fruitful.
The TechCrunch thing complaints does seem hypocritical and if you listen to any of the podcasts from TechCrunch interviewing the guys from PayPerPost it sounds elitist to boot. Seems like old internet money trying to protect its territory to me.
All that said, I think there is a very strong chance that G, Y or M will take a close look at picking up payperpost within a year. I own Microsoft myself and have had a terrible run with Yahoo! this summeer, but don’t own Google. Maybe since Google was quick to grab YouTube, Microsoft and Yahoo! will try and be first in this time. Given Yahoo! lagging ad revenues, this might be a good thing for them to change their stocks momentum. As a stockholder of Yahoo! I sure hope so, I believe in the company for the long haul, but don’t like being underwater with them. lol and crying a little too!
On a more technical note, the payperpost model is not really new. This same type of pseudo advertising / link building effort goes on in many many consulting/SEO forums all over the internet. The big difference is that this made it very easy for the least technically savy people to participate. Compared to the SEO boards, the rates are discounted at about 30-50% what you’ might see on a site with PageRank of 6 or better, but most of these PPP sites are in the 1-5 range, just getting ready to make a transition to the big time. (My own blogs are 3 and 4.
Comment by brettbum — October 30, 2006 @ 11:53 am PST
[…] TDavid points out that all of Mikes bluster, ironically, is really just free advertising for PayPerPost — and includes a video commentary from Loren of 1938 Media on Jason Calacanis which I think is hilarious […]
Pingback by Mike gets all medieval on PayPerPost » Mathew Ingram: mathewingram.com/work — October 30, 2006 @ 12:55 pm PST
Joseph Nagy over at Ameliorations has been doing some PayPerPost posts, and he asked on his blog about how readers felt about that. I told him that to me it seems perfectly OK so long as you fully disclose. What’s the problem with hawking a product, if readers know you’re being paid to do so?
Comment by Sterling Camden — October 30, 2006 @ 1:47 pm PST
[…] From blogosphere: The Intuitive Life …, Things That, Mathew Ingram, Blog Business Summit, Syndicator Blog, Joe Duck, What Will You See Next?, Lost Remote, ALLIED, Rex Hammock’s weblog […]
Pingback by The Blogging Times » PayPerPost launches DisclosurePolicy.org — October 30, 2006 @ 2:20 pm PST
Hi brettbum - and welcome
Thanks for sharing your firsthand experience.
Just as Loren says in his video rant, the market corrects itself. If the products/services these PPP bloggers are plugging suck and they are saying they are great and not disclosing they were paid, they’ll lose their credibility and readers. I have a lot of faith in readers being able to smell BS. Myself? I think I’ve got a pretty good BS indicator and will be out the minute I feel like I’m being over pitched. Treat me with a little respect from a content to ad ratio and show me a commercial now and again and I’ll stick around. I want webmasters to get paid, I just don’t need to be slapped in the face with this realization every time I visit a site.
Sterling - disclosure is important to me as a reader too. I wouldn’t be very interested in the deal like the one Toni got into where it couldn’t be disclosed unless there was some extremely creative angle I’m missing(?) I wonder what the percentage of these type deals are to the ones where you are free to saying it’s a PPP deal? If most of the available writing assignments are ones where you can’t disclose then that sucks.
I just found this list of PPP sites. I’m sure others that are using PPP are sharing their experiences.
Comment by TDavid — October 30, 2006 @ 2:31 pm PST
I agree completely about a readers BS detector. PPP is relatively new and so they are going through lots of crucible like growing changes. I think their push to require bloggers to establish a disclosure policy now is a great point. I’m still working on my privacy policy so that I can get an affilliate deal with Audible, which I love, but I keep getting a little distracted and my privacy policy is 90% done.
One interesting thing about the whole thing is that PPP serves up access to a marketplace. Bloggers meet with PPP as the middle man that brings in advertisers. The advertisers typically drive the requirements and the Bloggers provide the ethical feedback. PPP serves to guide the middle ground. Sure PPP gets some flak because they are the face of this relatively new market, but the market was already coming together unofficially with far few rules and disclosures before PPP showed up.
Do advertisers show up sometimes at PPP that say, I’ll pay you $4 to write 200 words saying my product or website is great? Yes. Do the bloggers take the offer and do this? Typically, no, unless they really do like the product or have experience with it.
Much more common the requirements ask for a neutral review, which basically is a request for the blogger to write about the article in context with what the product or service is about. Now, if this were infomercial TV, these would all sound pretty droll and readership of these blogs would fall away to nothing. What happens is that the bloggers want their readership (PR requirements and other things make them eligible for better paying ops) so they rapidly learn to write good engaging content.
To put it differently, the outright call to buy something are almost non-existent unless the blogger really feels that way. Typically, these are awareness increasing articles.
Anyway, I’m going to leave off here, I don’t want to sound to preachy, there’s lots of room for abuse and good in any technology especially when its new, just pick your NASDAQ 100 company and read some reports on their history and you’ll find similar potential. I think this one is fairly safe because there is so much dialogue about it that the policy is getting rapidly shaped when the companies is only a couple months old. Can you imagine how Microsoft would have been shaped it if its policies had been publicly discussed in 1980?
Comment by brettbum — October 30, 2006 @ 3:10 pm PST
brettbum - here’s a handy privacy policy generator you might be able to riff off.
Comment by TDavid — October 30, 2006 @ 3:45 pm PST
Hey I like that, I suspect that this may have been the model that many PPP bloggers are using through DisclosurePolicy.org
I’ve been hand typing one of these based on 3-4 different policies that I’ve seen on the web. I don’t know how I missed this one, but glad you provided the link!
Comment by brettbum — October 30, 2006 @ 3:53 pm PST
Nothing like video bitchin!
- I have my thoughts here:
http://www.centernetworks.com/payperpost-disclosure
Comment by Allen — October 30, 2006 @ 6:53 pm PST
I like this part, Allen: “When someone gives you compensation for a post, you must disclose it within the post. And the key is ANY KIND OF COMPENSATION. Not just cash. But where is the line drawn? That is where the questioning will begin. I know in the business world, anything over $25 typically must either not be accepted or must be disclosed. $25 is probably too high in the blog space though. So if a company sends me a tshirt, is that compensation?”
If you are sent anything including a T-shirt before writing the review? I think the answer is yes. Why wouldn’t you want to tell readers that hey, I received this t-shirt or widget from XYZ company? Heck, I’d take pictures wearing it. If you’re paid why not tell people I was paid X dollars for this post or given ___ and perhaps even ask readers if the post was worth it?
I think if you have any sort of interaction with the product/service/support/management before publishing that should be part of the review. If it’s a private conversation and you don’t have permission or it’s information under NDA than you should at least be able to disclose you signed an NDA.
If you met the owners at a show and they said, hey, please check this out and/or blog about it. This information helps for readers understand where and why you decided to post a particular review. Motivation for why a review was written is an important piece of information — at least to readers like me.
I’ve written to reviewers to complain about obvious missing information. Including some really important things like: a) where do I buy this and b) how much is it? I don’t understand a review which skips telling me the price unless the price is completely unknown. At least get an estimate. Furthermore, I support affiliate links (preferably identified) being used to link to products. I’ve written here time and again that I want website owners to make money from their work. Just shoot straight about it.
As I write this, I’m working on a review on a new Amazon service. What is my motivation for writing this review? It’s something new and was offered to my wife, who passed the invitation onto me. Maybe not vital information to some readers, but I like to know why somebody is reviewing a product/service in every review. When that question is left unanswered, a lot of these disclosure discussions can (rightly) be raised by the reader. Why not answer the questions before they are asked and just write why you decided to write each review. Because it’s your job, you were paid or asked by XYZ to do so are all answers. It’s up the reviewer at that point to convince readers that their opinion is truthful once a sentence or two has been burned on why write the review.
Too many writing pieces don’t answer the most important question: why. If your next review doesn’t answer that question, take two minutes before posting and be sure to answer it.
Whether or not someone is being paid to write a review is the most important thing (to me, anyway): is it useful to others?
Comment by TDavid — October 30, 2006 @ 7:31 pm PST
At the end of the day it’s real simple. People can do what they want with their blog. It’s theirs. What is so hard to understand?
Comment by Loren Feldman — October 30, 2006 @ 10:29 pm PST
Loren - I liked how you said it on video with profanity better
Comment by TDavid — October 30, 2006 @ 10:57 pm PST
They’ll be plenty tomorrow when I open a dialogue with Mr. Arrington.
Comment by Loren Feldman — October 30, 2006 @ 11:02 pm PST
TDavid,
I appreciate your comments on Melodeo.com. To be clear, I actually asked TDavid to give us a negative review if needed. I want the upper level leaders in the company to see the real comments about Melodeo.com. I am now really concerned about the companies website as TDavid’s review above is actually the worst type of review a site can get. Indifference is the worst kinda review and it speaks to the level of work that will be needed to be made to the site to get people excited about it. It is bad when nobody cares to even write a review about the site. Please go visit the site and post back here on TDavid’s blog about what you think is wrong with the site.
Rob Greenlee
http://www.melodeo.com
Comment by Rob Greenlee — October 30, 2006 @ 11:10 pm PST
[…] Related Reading: + PayPerPost is now Officially Absurd + TechCrunch Promotes PayPerPost again, unintentionally + Mike gets all medieval on PayPerPost + PayPerPost creates DisclosurePolicy, TechCrunch calls it absurd? + PayPerPost launches DisclosurePolicy.org Tags: PayPerPost, TechCrunch, trolls, ideas, feedback, press, marketing October 31st, 2006 at 04:16 pm […]
Pingback by Brilliant Marketing from PayPerPost » Mitchelaneous — October 31, 2006 @ 4:19 pm PST
maybe the ass has options. Laugh last on us!
The old triple lindie by Arrington
Comment by howard lindzon — November 1, 2006 @ 8:24 am PST