The FTC and somebody please give me something positive to write about Sony |
2006 continues to be a sucktacular year for Sony. A company it is becoming all too easy to loathe and put on the do not do business with list. Earlier today a friend suggested the Mylo to me. No thanks, I said, I’m trying to do no business with that four-lettered word. The only exception in my crosshairs is the PS3 and I’m not counting on that happening until March or April 2007. That might be my only Sony purchase in 2007. Sony is a company that is hard to not do business with. Try it sometime.
The newest jig is up with a PSP shill site which Wired ponders might be a proactive response to the FTC investigation to crack down on word of mouth deceptive marketing:
companies engaging in word-of-mouth marketing, in which people are compensated to promote products to their peers, must disclose those relationships.
From what I can see from the PSP site it was way too polished to be legitimate. Lots of Shilldars were going off. Too bad, they could have started the site out saying it was a Sony blog and worked from there, but instead they didn’t. Doh!
Speaking of the FTC, Techcrunch hundred dollar burning Michael Arrington is calling out the site PayPerPost in this FTC crackdown, wondering (hoping?) if this will force PPP to make bloggers disclose their dealings. I’ve already went on record saying I think every paid post and affiliate deal should be disclosed prominently.
I think Engtech may have wires crossed on this (emphasis mine):
If bloggers try to do paid reviews via a more ethical / legal service like reviewme.com, they may still be penalized by search engines (more recent)[1]. Search engines like Google use links heavily in their algorithm to determine the top results, and companies have been trying to use sites like PayPerPost and Reviewme.com to buy links and increase their position.
The [1] footnote is the suggestion to use rel=”nofollow” for links but his linked text for Matt Cutts is from a blog post in September 2005. That’s a pretty old post comparatively, Engtech, when fresher opinions on the subject have been offered since from Yahoo, Google and Microsoft. All three basically said they wouldn’t penalize publishers for using paid advertising and review services as long as the content was related and not spam.
No matter what you read or are told search engines are nothing without good content. They need publishers and can’t be promoting content that is spammed up and crap or they won’t be in business. Would you use a search engine that only led to spam, unreliable, untrustworthy sites?
So why should publishers penalize links to sites who pay for reviews and not penalize those who don’t? This has been part of my problem with the whole rel=”nofollow” thing from the beginning and the reason I’ve only used it, accidents when upgrading software aside, a couple times here (and disclosed in every case, I believe). It’s not even being used on comments/trackbacks below (although we do scrutinize the links to make sure they don’t lead to spam/splog or illegal sites, see comment rules). Search engines aren’t going to penalize good content, regardless if the content contains paid links, but I can see them penalizing the source sites if they lead to a lot of unrelated content.
With that said, as smart as the SE engineers are I seriously doubt that they can’t figure out a blog comment from a third party from editorial from the site without a rel=”nofollow.” Matt Cutts once told me that nofollow was an answer for lazy people.
And BTW, wasn’t rel=”nofollow” originally billed as a solution for dealing with spam? Laughing out loud yet? Nofollow remains the red herring it was the day it was introduced.
Are paid links hurting blogging?
No, I don’t think paid posts are “ruining” blogging as Vaspers the Grate seems to believe but the following is a sad reality:
If we praise or condemn something, we may be accused, or privately thought of, as being paid to do it.
No matter what you write there will always be some people who think you have some sort of agenda, ulterior motives or are on the take. Environment has a lot to do with it too, for example if you post favorable Microsoft comments at Slashdot you are almost guaranteed to be labeled some kind of shill.
I’ve been dealing with these bogus accusations at various levels for years and it gets more intense, not less, as your readership grows. The only way to successfully combat these accusations I’ve found are to:
- be upfront about all advertising activity and conflicts of interest. A good offense truly is the best defense.
- refute and ask for facts when a reputable source challenges your credibility on something. For example, when I was accused of Astroturfing for Microsoft regarding the Zune, I called out the fact that nobody from Microsoft had ever contacted me about the Zune (which only recently they have done on their official Zune Insider blog via Cesar).
- Highlight paid activity. Use bold text at the beginning of paid posts or reviews, as I’ve done with the five reviewme reviews I’ve written. Another way is to change the color or font of a paid review. This also includes adding the word “affiliate” or some variation thereof following any text link in the editorial section.
- Don’t do any advertising deals where you hide or attempt to deceive anybody or anything (readers, visitors, search engines, etc). The -9000 hidden text deception that Matt Mullenweg pulled with Wordpress will always haunt him.
- Every advertiser used at a website is at the least a subtle endorsement even if you disclaim or mark it differently, so believe in and do business with your advertisers. There are exceptions where advertising is somewhat out of the publisher’s control like contextual ads from Google, YPN and others. This really bothers me, BTW, and I wish these programs would give us more editorial control over what ads appear on our sites. Yes, Google has a filter, but that doesn’t allow keyword filtering, only domain filtering (200 sites max) and the bad guys have tons of domains. If I’m Microsoft or any other Adsense competior, I’d give the publisher keyword and site type controls with no URL limits so they can effectively keep the bad guys out.
- Disclaim the review origin at the beginning of any editorial post. Where you get any review product/service, especially if it is was given to you. Professional reviewers are terrible about this and I think it damages all their credibility. Some of them can’t say anything because that’s part of the deal in receiving free loaner copies and that’s BS. What kind of legitimate review starts with “Shh, it’s a secret where you got this from, you can’t say.” This is the part of the PayPerPost service that rubbed me the wrong way. I would be interested in their service otherwise, I still am somewhat (still haven’t tried them yet), but this just left a really bad taste in my mouth. I can see why others don’t trust them and find it more difficult to trust bloggers using their service.
The bottom line with any type of writing is put your axes on the table in plain sight.
Whenever possible, link back to anything contradictory you might have written. As your blog grows in terms of number of words, the importance of a good site search and self-referential linking will be helpful in explaining to readers not only the post you are making today, but the hundreds or thousands of posts you made in days past. Readers have better memories than you think and if you don’t explain why there is some inconsistency with something you said last week, last month or [gasp] last year, they will bring it up at the most unpredicatable times.
Now back to Sony, is there something positive about them I can write about (that doesn’t require me going out and spending money on one of their products/services)? Maybe I need to add some Sony Kool-Aid sources to my aggregator. Happy Sony thoughts, please? Bueller?
Did this post make you go hmm?
(2 votes, average: 2.5 out of 5)
Loading ...Maybe Related Posts (plugin generated)
- ReviewMe offers $25,000 to bloggers in exchange for honest reviews
- TechCrunch promotes PayPerPost again, unintentionally
- One of the 28,000 performancing members sold and Microsoft’s review laptops
- Another single page linkbait farm
- Crackdown on 18,000 Internet cafes in China
- Protecting the TechCrunch secret sauce
Nice post.
Towards the end you say “What kind of legitimate review starts with “Shh, it’s a secret where you got this from, you can’t say.” This is the part of the PayPerPost service that rubbed me the wrong way. I would be interested in their service otherwise, I still am somewhat”.
All PPP bloggers are allowed to fully disclose exactly as they deem appropriate. You have some great suggestions to maximize transparency. If you believe bold type at the top of a post is appropriate, you can do so with PPP. If you believe tagging with PayPerPost is appropriate, you can do that with PPP. You know your audience best and PPP puts the blogger in control.
I apologize if you already knew this, but there is plenty of misinformation and FUD floating around on the topic…I’d be interested in your views after trying PPP and fully disclosing exactly as you advocate.
Comment by VC Dan — December 13, 2006 @ 11:29 pm PST
VC Dan, I’m not one taken in by FUD or mob mentality and have read up and commented on PPP in the past basically saying that I will judge them if/when I ever decide to try them out, certainly not because people like Arrington dislike them. I don’t have a problem with people getting paid to post, but I have a huge problem with those who get paid to write about something and don’t disclose it very clearly up front. As a reader and a publisher. That’s an instant violation to me.
It’s my understanding that there are some advertisers in the PPP system that require bloggers that accept their deal to only write positive things and not disclose that they were paid for the post? If that indeed is true I have a huge problem with that.
Yes I understand that I wouldn’t have to get involved with that but in some sense I can understand confusion among readers that become confused which bloggers are on the take — again, if those type of arrangements exist in PPP. If they do, PPP needs to terminate those offered deals ASAP and ban future occurence of them. It’s very unlikely I’ll ever try them out as long as they are allowing those types of deals to be offered.
That’s just blackhat behavior to me.
I’ve also seen you, VC Dan, posting in almost every anti-PPP post I’ve read although I haven’t done any checking to see what your involvement, if any, is with PPP. What’s the story? You are already on shaking footing with me if you aren’t offering a disclaimer about your affiliation with them here and now (ironic, isn’t it?). Are you one of the PPP VCs or what?
You must be their biggest fan and PPP user if you aren’t associated with them. Save me the browsing and tell me what you have to do with them front and center, please.
Comment by TDavid — December 13, 2006 @ 11:44 pm PST
Happy Sony thoughts? hrm… what about all the … well.. let’s see. memory stick? no. DRM. betamax? no… hrm.
Oh oh. What about having the demos of games downloadable for free! Christmas LocoRoco! That’s gotta count for something.
Comment by darkmoon — December 13, 2006 @ 11:47 pm PST
The 2005 link was the most explicit one I found. What actually prompted my post was Matt Cutts in a message board Dec 9th 2006:
http://www.seomoz.org/blogdetail.php?ID=1576&jump_to_comment=13001
\”Google wants to do a good job of detecting paid links. Paid links that affect search engines (whether paid text links or a paid review) can cause a site to lose trust in Google.\”
Discussion:
http://www.calacanis.com/2006/12/11/use-payperpost-get-you-blog-bounced-from-google/
[edited, page too ad saturated] labnol.blogspot.com/2006/12/stop-writing-reviews-for-money-or-face.html
My take on it too is that youre fine as long as your pointing to related content and not spam. Its all about what neighbourhood youre playing in. Point to the wrong people and it can hurt you more than any $$$ benefit.
Comment by engtech — December 14, 2006 @ 12:29 am PST
Something nice about Sony:
you can install other operating systems on the PS3: http://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/ps3/current/settings/osinstall.html
Comment by engtech — December 14, 2006 @ 1:09 am PST
TDavid: Yes, I follow this closely and do a ton of commenting. The standard method for providing/finding context on a commenters background/affiliations is the siglink, which I either link [sig link] which clearly states I am a PayPerPost investor or disclosurepolicy.org (DP Dan) which clearly states it was launched by PayPerPost. I speak with different hats at different times, and try to communicate that via the siglink. I believe a big reason for siglinks is to provide readers that context.
Your belief that PPP advertisers can require no disclosure, regardless of tone, is incorrect.
I hope these details help.
Comment by VC Dan — December 14, 2006 @ 1:38 am PST
VC Dan - Thank you for the follow up and admission that you are a PPP investor.
Now what the heck does this mean: “I speak with different hats at different times.” So you are speaking here as VC Dan, but non-investor of PPP until we follow to your website and learn that about you? Are you expecting us to Google your name so we can fully understand your bias? Just speaking as regular guy Dan? What do you mean?
You wrote: “I hope these details help.”
What details? That you think I don’t know what a sig link is used for? (Maybe you should apply your own sig logic to reading past posts I’ve made here about PPP as well as follow who I am). You wrote that my “belief” is incorrect, without providing any supporting information to counter most everything I’ve read negative about PPP.
Bottom line: you have somebody here that appreciates straight talk, not BS, and is mildly interested in PPP so talk to me straight about PPP and why I should be interested. I want the VC Dan straight shooter hat, not the slick polished shill hat.
Yes, I could go to the PPP site and study it — and as I said above, I’ve contemplated doing exactly that — but since you seem so passionate about it, please answer these specific questions:
1) Do any advertisers in PPP require positive only reviews? Yes/no? If the answer is no, then why do you think people have been writing that this is the case? Why are they mistaken? Is this really FUD or is there any shred of truth to the misinformation?
2) Do any advertisers in PPP require that there is no disclosure that a post was paid for? Yes/no. If the answer is no, then why do you think people have been writing that this is the case? Why might these people be mistaken?
I’m listening.
Comment by TDavid — December 14, 2006 @ 8:04 am PST
engtech - lots of speculation without much real information there. Calacanis is a well known blowhard and I don’t take anything he says as the “game over” gospel. He’s also been wrong on some key things involving Google (like when he claimed YouTube was the ultimate evil, and then Google bought them).
Ironically, I feel like the search engine should downgrade links like the one from labnol you gave above. While the page is related to this discussion, it is littered with ads and other garbage that is distracting to the reader. When I come to a page like that, I usually exit quickly no matter what the person is saying. I edited your link not to be active in the comment. It’s an example of a link that many would agree is not spam, but a page I think search engines should downgrade over pages like this one that aren’t ad saturated.
From an SE perspective, I hope they are focusing on pages like that vs. whether or not a single link in a page was paid for or not. I think no matter what they are telling us in public, that’s exactly what they are doing. Especially now with all the splogs littering the web and contaminating pure search results.
Comment by TDavid — December 14, 2006 @ 8:37 am PST
I was very direct in my last comment. I shared I was an investor. I shared how readers who find me here and elsewhere can use siglinks for background on my comments. I told you very directly that you are incorrect about PPP advertisers being able to require no disclosure. I’ve been very respectful of you, so let’s skip the “slick polished shill hat” name-calling and stay at that level.
I like straight talk as well so here’s some more direct answers:
1a) Advertisers can limit their opps to tone-specific (pos/neg rather than open-tone) buzz, a very normal way for advertisers to pay for any advertising. The open-ended review is a very narrow use of what this platform enables. Some marketers may ask for people to make wacky videos, they may use it to recruit talent (as PayPerPost did to recruit their new VP Sales away from MySpace), they may ask for “what would you do for a new digital camera?” — all items where marketers aren’t interested in paying for an open-ended review. This is also a very new space and some advertisers use tone-specific to dip their toe in the water (and help get management more comfortable), before growing their spend. All that said, PPP CEO Ted Murphy repeatedly encourages open-tone (see http://blog.payperpost.com/2006/10/attention-advertisers-keep-it-real.html) and I know that Posties rate those advertisers lower (similar to eBay buyer/seller feedback). Believe me, this is one of the questions I had when I started researching the investment.
1b) I believe the FUD comes when people try to spin this option into something a blogger MUST do to participate in the marketplace. Just as the buyer is always in control at eBay to buy from sellers they like or with terms they like, Posties can pass any opp they like and take ones that fit their experience, tone and voice. Actually, this is one of the things I like about PPP versus other services that require you to make a one-offer-a-time yes/no decision. I believe a Postie who has 50 opps to choose from will more likely choose ones that are appropriate than if they have to say yes/no to a single $5-$500 opp that doesn’t really fit their experience or audience.
2a) As I said directly before, no PPP advertisers require no disclosure and they cannot. Early FUD may have come from no-disclosure options that existed at launch in June (prior to my investment) — still leaving blogger in control to accept/reject. No-disclosure was an option I did a ton of research on prior to investment and it no longer exists today. The biggest reason for remaining FUD is this echo chamber and that many, many bloggers parrot what they read elsewhere — particularly if it comes from an elite blogger. That’s why I encourage you and others to try the service for yourselves, take opps that fit your tone/experiences/audience, fully disclose as you see fit and then comment with that firsthand knowledge. I could be wrong, but I think you’ll find it’s far more innocent, interesting and empowering than some believe (and the PPP team and Postie community is a ton of fun!).
I hope these details help!
Comment by VC Dan — December 14, 2006 @ 9:23 am PST
While I knew the proverbial crap was going to hit the fan, when as an organizer of ConvergeSouth, I saw that PPP wanted to sponsor us, I do recognize a couple things. PPP doesn’t force the bloggers it pays to disclose. But there isn’t anything against disclosure either. Fortunately for us (speaking for CS), PPP sponsored us without asking for any commentary or anything back. They were just there to support. That’s cool of them.
I think that from a business standpoint, it’s better to have your people disclose, but there’s two sides to everything. One: Blogger doesn’t get paid as an employee of PPP. Thus, I would imagine that it’s good that PPP doesn’t dictate certain rules and let it be more flexible than not. I think disclosure is good blogging ethics from a business perspective, but PPP also doesn’t constrain the blogger. Two: I think that PPP is taking a lot more flak than it should. There are plenty of services out there that don’t force their bloggers to disclose. Just because Calacanis made a big hooplah about it, now PPP is the target. There’s plenty of businesses out there that don’t deal ethically. I’m not so sure this is a matter of PPP not laying down some better TOS for bloggers to sign, or if it’s not constraining bloggers period. Either way, I have to say that my personal experience in doing conference planning with PPP as a sponsor was an extremely good one, even with all the people badmouthing them.
Comment by darkmoon — December 14, 2006 @ 9:28 am PST
PayPerPost and WOMMA and compensated buzz agents are blog whores. They are destroying the Trust Web of peer to peer recommendations, and it will require us to flame them, boycott the companies that use them, and do other damage as swiftly and aggressively as possible to destroy this insidious disease in the blogosphere.
Comment by vaspers the grate — December 14, 2006 @ 10:56 am PST
VC Dan - I think most reasonable people understand that the option is there for bloggers to choose whether or not to participate, but the question I continue to have about PPP is why is the option there at all? If they didn’t offer this option, then my interest in the site would be stronger. You have an option to go buy a gun and shoot somebody today too, that doesn’t mean it’s right that you do that. Yes, an extreme analogy, but hopefully you get my point.
I’m not comfortable with the idea that bloggers have a choice to be dishonest with their readers (I think any plan other than “open tone” is something as a reader which makes me suspicious) because it puts readers in the also uncomfortable situation of trying to figure out if a post came with any other criteria as to the substance of the content.
Opinions shouldn’t ever be for sale, that’s advertising. As I said earlier I don’t have any problem with someone paying for me to write a post about their site, I have a huge problem with the ability to pay for my opinion. The fact that I can not choose that doesn’t help our readers who can’t be sure, right?
Are the advertiser to blog publisher agreements open to the public so readers can link to them and share this information at the top of the post? If they aren’t, I think that would be a helfpul piece of additional disclosure for readers.
I understand the advertiser perspective about being unwilling to jump into an area and get flamed, but whatever happened to there is no such thing as negative publicity? I would think an advertiser would be most concerned about honest, open feedback which sadly is becoming harder and harder to find these days and no doubt the reason the FTC has become interested in this medium. Some blogs provide it but all too many don’t which is poisoning the well.
Now for point two …
This comment is very telling to me (emphasis mine): “Early FUD may have come from no-disclosure options that existed at launch in June (prior to my investment) — still leaving blogger in control to accept/reject. No-disclosure was an option I did a ton of research on prior to investment and it no longer exists today.”
Not my business, and feel free to tell me that, but why would you invest in a company that ever had a policy like that at any time?
PPP has done a terrible job of getting that message out (the emphasized part). Perhaps because in the early edition the only thing people heard was “not requiring disclosure — red alert! alarm” — it’s difficult to unring bells and I think that’s a credibility mistake PPP is going to have a rough time overcoming. Great, they aren’t doing it any more but you admitted that they did do it at one time. Some people will be reluctant, myself included, to trust a company that would ever offer a service with no disclosure at any time.
That’s not FUD, that’s an ethical problem.
Comment by TDavid — December 14, 2006 @ 11:43 am PST
Let me make it more clear: if you want to buy a new digital camera, do you want to hear from a compensated opinion blogger or incentivized comment poster…or from a user who spontaneously, genuinely, with no ulterior motive or pay, speaks about how they love or hate a specific model or brand?
Comment by vaspers the grate — December 14, 2006 @ 12:01 pm PST
And now to answer my question with those provided by VC Dan (paraphrasing):
1) Do any advertisers in PPP require positive only reviews? Yes/no?
Yes, they can and do. It’s up to the blogger to choose only “open tone” if they aren’t comfortable with this option. PPP encourages advertisers to use “open tone” rather than pos/negative only.
2) Do any advertisers in PPP require that there is no disclosure that a post was paid for? Yes/no.
Not any more. However, they did allow this at launch in June.
Comment by TDavid — December 14, 2006 @ 12:02 pm PST
I need to document this, but I read recently that PayPerPost was paying people to flame AdSense.
Comment by vaspers the grate — December 14, 2006 @ 12:05 pm PST
vaspers, you wrote: “if you want to buy a new digital camera, do you want to hear from a compensated opinion blogger or incentivized comment poster or from a user who spontaneously, genuinely, with no ulterior motive or pay, speaks about how they love or hate a specific model or brand?”
I don’t like the term ‘user’ and prefer to hear from customers honestly expressing their opinion. If the blogger has been paid that should be disclosed up front as well as providing any pertinent details. I would much rather read a review from somebody who went out and bought the product or who looked it as something they would genuinely be interested in purchasing. I’m in favor of blog owners making money as long as readers clearly understand the parameters and are getting an honest POV, not a paid endorsement without upfront disclosure.
I’m not entirely convinced that PPP meets my own smell test with the information I’ve learned to date, but I’ve still got a (slightly) open mind to the site and its various participants. Certainly not as vehemently against them as you are.
Lastly, any proof for your allegation in #15?
Comment by TDavid — December 14, 2006 @ 12:20 pm PST
I will try to find that link. “User” is a term that usability professionals use to describe people who use a site to obtain info or accomplish tasks. I keep running into language purists who don’t like “user”, I guess because it reminds them of “players” or “exploiters”, those who manipulate or take advantage of others. That’s not what we mean when we say “users”.
We say “users” because web site visitors are not necessarily “customers”. See?
Comment by vaspers the grate — December 14, 2006 @ 12:30 pm PST
By googling: payperpost + flame + adsense, I found some links, and here is the one I originally had discovered:
http://www.bloggersblog.com/cgi-bin/bloggersblog.pl?bblog=1013062
Comment by vaspers the grate — December 14, 2006 @ 12:34 pm PST
This strikes me as illuminating: “I keep running into language purists.”
Maybe you keep running into them because people genuninely dislike the term and connotation, not because they are “language purists.”
I understand what a ‘user’ is in the technology sector and I’m saying that’s the wrong verbiage to use when describing the reviews I want to read. That term is derogatory to many people who don’t consider themselves users of anything. I’m not a ‘user’ and don’t want to read “user reviews.” If I buy or try a digital camera, then I’m a prospective customer or customer, period. I like reading customer or prospective customer opinions.
I don’t want to read canned reviews from ‘users’ of anything.
If I’m with Adsense (I am) I’m a client, not a user. I use Photoshop, but I had to buy it so that makes me a customer. If I’m trying it out then I’m a trial prospective customer. I’m a Gmail customer because even though I haven’t paid them anything they are showing me ads for their service and monetizing my eyeballs. That makes me a customer of theirs.
If I visit your site, I’m a visitor, not a user.
Comment by TDavid — December 14, 2006 @ 12:47 pm PST
Ummm, Vaspers that post clearly refers to “Some Adsense book or newsletter” — it doesn’t specifically finger what you wrote in #15: “paying people to flame Adsense.” Paying people to flame a book or newsletter about Adsense is not the same thing as flaming Adsense.
I know, I know, language purist. Hey, it’s all we have here without voice and eye contact.
Comment by TDavid — December 14, 2006 @ 12:50 pm PST
Well, TDavid, I appreciate your honest and combative opinion on my utilization of “user”, for I learn more from harsh critique than from knee-jerk agreement. I don’t like to consider myself a “customer”, “consumer”, “shopper”, or “buyer”, since then the emphasis is on money parting hands. Most of what I use is free stuff, open source software, free and legal music mp3s, etc. So we probably agree in essence, but have differing viewpoints and experiences.
But I disagree with “flaming a book about AdSense is not the same as flaming AdSense”. To me, it’s like burning the American flag. The book on AdSense represents AdSense, I assume, for I have not read the book. To me, it’s like saying “I flame the Vaspers the Grate blog, but not Vaspers himself”, it’s a slightly good analogy, though not as precise as my tired brain is groping for.
Hot, lively, gentlemanly debate is what preserves the blogosphere as a valuable resource.
Comment by vaspers the grate — December 14, 2006 @ 12:58 pm PST
Umm. obviously no one bothered to read the linked post that was mentioned.
The Blogger’s blog post was talking about how there is a book called “Death of Adsense” and that PayPerPost was pushing for reviews of it. It doesn’t flame PayPerPost, nor does it say PayPerPost is pushing the book. All the post says is that PPP is paying for reviews and discussion about the book. Then it goes into how there is legitimate discussion on the subject itself.
Comment by darkmoon — December 14, 2006 @ 1:08 pm PST
darkmoon: PayPerPost is in competition with AdSense. PayPerPost was (maybe still is?) paying people to flame AdSense by publicizing the “Death of AdSense” book. Try Googling “PayPerPost + AdSense” (remove quotes) and you’ll see the raging blogocombat fury.
Comment by vaspers the grate — December 14, 2006 @ 2:08 pm PST
Uhh. PPP is not in competition with Adsense. That’s like saying Ducati and Ford are in competition because they both make “vehicles”. Or McDonald’s competes with Flemings because they’re both “restaurants”. If that’s your logic by combining two corporations in a broad sense, then I’m thoroughly amused.
You’re the one that was saying that there’s flaming of Adsense and that the bloggerblog post was the original one you read. I’m pointing out that there’s NOTHING in the post you linked that talks anything about 1) flaming Adsense or 2) PayPerPost flaming Adsense.
The post itself talks about how Adsense could be going downhill due to clickfraud with links and that PayPerPost is paying people to review the book “Death of Adsense”. Nothing says there that they’re 1) flaming, 2) paying for positive reviews of the book, or 3) paying for negative reviews of the book.
Comment by darkmoon — December 14, 2006 @ 2:35 pm PST
darkmoon: I did not say that Blogger Blog was flaming anybody. I said PayPerPost was paying people to blog about a book that attacks AdSense. And PayPerPost is in competition with AdSense, in a roundabout manner. It’s all about “monetizing” a blog, making money as a blogger. You can attempt to monetize a blog, or profit from blogging, via PayPerPost, AdSense, Qumana, and many other avenues.
Comment by vaspers the grate — December 14, 2006 @ 3:35 pm PST
I’m guessing you don’t read my comments either. Did I say Blogger’s Blog flamed anyone? No. Let’s go back a couple comments since you’re having troubles following:
vasper #15. “I need to document this, but I read recently that PayPerPost was paying people to flame AdSense.”
tdavid #20. “Ummm, Vaspers that post clearly refers to “Some Adsense book or newsletter” — it doesn’t specifically finger what you wrote in #15: “paying people to flame Adsense.” Paying people to flame a book or newsletter about Adsense is not the same thing as flaming Adsense.”
vasper #23. “PayPerPost was (maybe still is?) paying people to flame AdSense by publicizing the “Death of AdSense” book. Try Googling “PayPerPost + AdSense” (remove quotes) and you’ll see the raging blogocombat fury.”
dm #24. “You’re the one that was saying that there’s flaming of Adsense and that the bloggerblog post was the original one you read. I’m pointing out that there’s NOTHING in the post you linked that talks anything about 1) flaming Adsense or 2) PayPerPost flaming Adsense.”
Now let’s see now. The subject matter was PPP flaming Adsense. Is that in the post linked? Nope. Nothing says anything about PPP flaming Adsense in that post. Blogger’s Blog was reporting that PayPerPost was paying people to review the book. Review doesn’t mean: “write good things about it.”
You’re trying to misdirect by reinterpreting someone’s writing to fit your arguments. Your counterpoints are all based on the fact that PPP supports “attacking Adsense”. That’s incorrect. That’s like saying that because Phillip Morris pays for anti-smoking campaigns, they’re obviously against the tobacco industry. This logic doesn’t make any sense.
There is only 1 single plain fact here:
Fact: PayPerPost is paying for bloggers to review a book.
Comment by darkmoon — December 14, 2006 @ 4:57 pm PST
So darkmoon, making snide remarks about others is your form of blogodebate? And are you in favor of making money via blog whoring?
Comment by vaspers the grate — December 14, 2006 @ 5:41 pm PST
Here is exactly what is found on that Blogger Blog post. I interpret this as saying “one reason why so many posts are being written about AdSense being dead is because PayPerPost is paying people to blog about it”. It also seems like Blogger Blog is contrasting the PayPerPost posts with legit discussion of the AdSense is dead issue.
From the Blogger Blog post:
[QUOTE]
Why so many Death of AdSense or AdSense is Dead type posts? Here’s one reason why.
Bloggers are getting paid for discussing some Death of AdSense book or newsletter by PayPerPost.com. This campaign ran from September 14th to October 14th and apparently paid $10 per post. We have no way of knowing if it is being renewed for another month because and PayPerPost.com now blocks the opportunities page from non-members (we are not a member).
Aside from the ad campaign there is also some genuine discussion taking place.
[END QUOTE]
Comment by vaspers the grate — December 14, 2006 @ 5:48 pm PST
vaspers - I didn’t see anything snide about darkmoon’s comments above (looks like he is trying to reason with you, actually) and I can tell you from past discussions with him in the comments area here that he doesn’t even seem interested in putting advertisements on his blog. Did you check out his site (sig link)? Sort of answers your “blog whoring” question (#27) with an exclamation mark.
Really, I think darkmoon would be one of the last people I know online to sign up for something like PPP.
As for myself and PPP: I think after reading back through this thread, reading the specific information VC Dan and others have provided — thank you to all — and talking to others outside of this post, I’m going to continue to stay on the sidelines.
Others might feel comfortable using them but I still don’t at this juncture. Maybe I’ll learn more that will rekindle my interest later. I wouldn’t use them as an advertiser either. I’d rather pay and get honest feedback than engineered commentary for anything our company does. I realize I could buy exactly that at PPP, but there is an odor of other advertisers being able to offer an option to do things I don’t agree with at the site and that taints the site for me.
Sorry VC Dan, but this seems to me like a bad investment.
Comment by TDavid — December 14, 2006 @ 8:52 pm PST
[…] In the comments area recently VC Dan, a PPP investor, tried to interest me in the PPP service but I remain disturbed that they had to be forced into requiring disclosures that should have been required for all bloggers from the beginning. […]
Pingback by One of the 28,000 performancing members sold and Microsoft’s review laptops » Make You Go Hmm — December 29, 2006 @ 2:54 pm PST
[…] Past Hmm posts about the nofollow attribute December 13, 2006: The FTC and somebody please give me something positive to write about Sony September 28, 2005: Debating what is/isn’t spam in the comment sections September 26, 2006: TypePad offers tip jar feature, still forcing rel=nofollow on all comments? March 15, 2005: Disabling nofollow in Wordpress 1.5 Jan 22, 2005: Google responds to my nofollow concerns Jan 19, 2005: Treating all commenters like spammers is a slippery slope Jan 15, 2005: No Google juice for nofollow attribute, will this negatively impact legitimate comment activity? […]
Pingback by Why continues to be against the spirit of the web » Make You Go Hmm — February 12, 2007 @ 4:52 pm PST