October 10, 2006
PayPerPost vs. Transparency
There is a fantastic blog controversy raging on the Internet. A company called PayPerPost has started paying bloggers to bloggertise.
What is PayPerPost
A blogger interested in making a few bucks can create an account with PayPerPost and then filter through the list of opportunities. Each opportunity lists who the advertiser is, how many words need to be written, the amount to be paid to the blogger upon posting and if the tone should be positive, negative or neutral. The blogger is not required to disclose that the post is an advertisement, but they are often required to include pre-defined link and sometimes a picture.
The opportunities that bloggers can choose from include things like video phones, neck ties, vacation locations and many, many more. The price paid for a posts ranges from $2.50 up to $10.00 and there is no limit to the number of posts a blogger can do. The only requirement is that the blogger has been blogging for 90 days prior to signing up with PayPerPost.
Blogging about the advertisers product does create buzz in the blogosphere, but the real value seems to be in gaming the search engines. The search engines look at the words that are actually linked and then the destination of the link to determine some authority. For example, in PayPerPost’s opportunities exists an opportunity to be paid $10 to blog about the PayPerPost’s crew as seen on The Today Show. In the opportunity, bloggers are asked to link to the blog post the crew did about the appearance, but the words they needed to link were "Guerilla Marketing." Now, when you search Google on Guerilla Marketing they show up as the fifth result (I know it’s spelled wrong but that’s how they spelled it). Another example is the search for Ninja Costume. The number one result returned is an advertiser on PayPerPost.
What is the Controversy
Because PayPerPost does not require full disclosure, many "A-list" bloggers have come out to call PayPerPost and their bloggers evil, scum and the scourge of the earth. To quote Jay Allen:
Pay per post is one of the most vicious and vile economic schemes to cast its shadow over online publishing. Anyone who perpetuates such a system deserves a public stoning (even if they don’t say "Jehovah"). You either pay online publishers for who and what they are, or you keep your wallet out of the game. The Internet already has enough spam; we don’t need bloggers generating it for commission.
Jason Calacanus, who made millions of dollars by paying bloggers to blog, is adamantly opposed to PayPerPost’s model. The difference being that Calacanus paid bloggers to blog about niche topics and then sold advertising on these blogs. The line that separates journalist from advertiser existed in his model. PayPerPost’s model at best blurs this line - at worst, they erase it completely.
My initial reaction was not as strong as Michael Arrington’s, Jason Calacanus’ or Jay Allen’s. However, after talking with co-Horse Power author, Robert Payne, he made a point that changed my mind. He hypothesized that if he read a positive review of a pair of skis on a blog that prompted him to buy, he would be very upset to find out that the review was driven purely off of this bloggertisement. Especially if he found that the reviewer had never even tried the skis. This made me reflect on past purchasing decisions I have made because of blog and forum posts.
I think much of the controversy goes away if PayPerPost were to force bloggers to disclose these bloggertisements with each post. I’m not sure who would keep reading a blog that posted nothing but bloggertisements, but at least it would be transparent and honest.
Posted in Blog, Marketing, Marketing Tools, Technology
October 10th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Credibility is at the heart of the issue here. If you are using a review of any product from a blog you don’t already trust, you’re taking a big risk. If it turns out that they weren’t to be trusted, you’ve blown it. But if you treat a review of a product with skepticism, you’re less likely to use that review alone to buy the product anyway. How many of the bloggers with the most trust from their readers were taking part? I doubt many at all. As I read the post I was drawn to get paid to blog about stuff. But who would really listen to me?
However, the danger as I see it is in the aggregate of all the blogging that takes place. As more and more people are paid to blog about a product, search results might be overwhelmed by positive reviews and someone looking for a glimpse at the product might see that and make a decision. But what’s the difference between that and paying someone to game Google for better search results, for instance? I don’t see one.
Finally, I question Calacanis’ position. How transparent were his operations? I ask because I don’t know, and as a reader of one of his sites, I’ve still not come across a review of a software product that was negative. Many are less opinionated and more informative, but we’re just talking about degrees of positivity with that. It seems that far too often the big boys in blogging are very quick with the self-righteous trigger when little guys start encroaching on their turf - making money. That’s oversimplifying, but I think it sums it up nicely.
October 10th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
This is a classic case of trying to balance individual blogger freedoms (leaving them in control to choose what/how to write) while also providing value.
Leaving the blogger in control means there will always be those that abuse a system — with the proper quality rating controls (like ebay buyer/seller ratings), that number should be small and stay small. There will also be those that communicate an agreed/personal way with their friends/audience, that doesn’t match a social norm of the masses (or they are from different cultures with different communication norms) — that is a tough case because their ‘norm’ may get valued lower in any rating system. Last, there are those that respect their blogger freedom AND societal norms — those are the overwhelming majority and grow with proper rating systems.
There is no silver bullet that addresses blogger freedom and all of these cases, but there can be a commitment to build the best marketplace possible for all parties — creating a win-win-win for bloggers, advertisers and audiences. I invested in the PayPerPost team with that commitment and expect to see world-changing things happen as more and more people embrace blogs to cover kids/gas money, but fall in love with them for self-expression along the way.
October 10th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
I’m an A-list blogger now? Woot! Promotion!!
What surprised me about the controversy was the number of people who defended pay-per-post as an economic model. I certainly don’t think those folks are evil beings bent on taking down the Internets. I think they’re mostly good people, looking to make some side income the best way they know how. They don’t see the big deal with taking some cash to write what they might write anyway. I strongly disagree with them that this is innocuous, But I better understand where they’re coming from.
I agree that PPP should make bloggers disclose who ultimately paid for the review. It sounds like they’re moving in that direction.
Ryan, as someone who’s worked for Jason, I think WIN is pretty transparent. And when I worked at BloggingBaby.com, we did negative reviews and product pans all the time. Hell, making fun of stupid kid products was something of a cottage industry for us. But then again, I’m a bit of a snarky bastard.
(Can I say “bastard” here? Just edit that if I can’t. Thanks.)