Two new services that are similar to the controversial PayPerPost have announced their launch in the last few days: ReviewMe and CreamAid. PayPerPost, a marketplace for advertisers to pay bloggers to write about products (with our without disclosure), recently gained additional attention when they announced a $3 million round of venture financing.
The PayPerPost model brings up memories of payola in the music industry, something the FCC and state attorney generals are still trying to eliminate or control. Given the distributed and unlicensed nature of the blogosphere, controlling payoffs to bloggers will be exponentially more difficult.
Our position on these pay-to-shill services is clear: they are a natural result of the growth in size and influence of the blogosphere, but they undermine the credibility of the entire ecosystem and mislead readers.
ReviewMe is backed by Text Link Ads, a long time TechCrunch sponsor. It has not launched yet but was announced earlier today. Like PayPerPost, ReviewMe is a marketplace that allows advertisers to pay bloggers to write about their products. There are some significant differences in the business model, though. Where advertisers on PayPerPost set a single fee that is paid to all bloggers regardless of their size, ReviewMe uses an algorithm based on Alexa, Technorati and other statistics to determine the importance of a blog and charges a different fee for each blog based on the calculation. To their credit, ReviewMe requires bloggers to disclose that they are being paid for the post, and advertisers cannot require a positive post (PayPerPost makes disclosure optional and advertisers can require positive posts).
While we applaud the fact that ReviewMe requires disclosure and prohibits advertisers from requiring a positive post, we still think the very act of paying bloggers to write about a product is a very bad idea. Frankly, we’re not happy that one of our sponsors has launched this type of service, and we’ve notified them that we will not allow promotion of ReviewMe through TechCrunch.
CreamAid launched earlier this week. The service is similar to PayPerPost but requires bloggers to include a Flash widget in the post that links to CreamAid and also shows other blog posts that have discussed the product. There does not seem to be a requirement that bloggers write positively about a product, but there are few details on the site. Part of the goal of CreamAid seems to be to build a social network around paid posts using this widget.
My hope is that PayPerPost quickly requires disclosure by bloggers and eliminates the ability for advertisers to require positive reviews. It’s clear that simply stating we don’t like these services isn’t going to make them go away. VCs are now involved and PayPerPost has a large number of bloggers on their payroll that are willing to attack anyone that says it’s a bad idea. Given the very low likelihood of government involvement similar to the effort to eliminate payola in the radio industry, I’m not really sure what can be done to reverse the trend. In the end, individual bloggers will have to establish and maintain their own credibility.
Nothing can be done. Everything will be gamed eventually. Way of the world! Money comes first.
I don’t think there is anything anyone can do to control these services. As long as there is a marketplace for it, it will continue to grow.
What troubles me about it is companies are using money to get bloggers to write positive reviews instead of asking the bloggers to review the product. Sure, it wouldn’t be as easy, they’d have to form a relationship with the blogger and fit it into his/her schedule. but in the long run they would both win. the company would get their review for free and the blogger would maintain reputation
So long as there is disclosure, I don’t see the problem.
Putting aside the issues around distatefullness, how do the economics really work? At EchoSign we loved the blog attention but haven’t gotten any real users out of any blog that is subscale. Perhaps we’re not consumery enough but I’m not sure how the ROI can be high enough for it to pay off enough to create a material business.
Hi Mike,
While I respect your opinion, and understand where it’s coming from, I think the responsibility falls on the bloggers. Perhaps, PPP can benefit by regulating more closely, eliminating ‘buzz’ and “positive tone” posts, while only allowing for neutral opinions. I think it says something about the advertisers when they only accept guaranteed positive endorsements.
I wrote my opinion on it here:
http://shanthol...nd-sublime.html
Even mentioned your view, though I sound acidic, I don’t mean any offense.
this is complete crap. i would delete this entry. they don’t deserve free pub.
“..we still think the very act of paying bloggers to write about a product is a very bad idea.” How would this apply to what PodTech does with their corporate channels where advertisers are paying for them to podcast/videocast about products?
money makes the world go round….and from what i read, “PayPerPost” will win…first to market…and…i know you guys like to pretend, most of you seem like Mac fun-boy types, but do you know that most advertisers, when they pay big time, will require that a magazine or tv show do a write up or product tie-in of some sort.
@So long as there is disclosure, I don’t see the problem.
and when coke or pepsi or god forbid, apple, has a product placement in a movie..you probably recognized the mac, said to yourself “cool, i own a mac, i’m better than the rest,”….you demanded full disclosure…even writing you congressman…yeah…
best line in a song ever “turning rebellion into money” – clash, hammersmith palace.
Blogitive was the first, and I still think it’s the best. They give you press releaeses and let you write about those like a normal news agency. I don’t feel guilty about it at all then. And they started 2 years ago, long before these other guys.
didnt nokia (or is it motorola) give away phones to bloggers just a few weeks ago? (they didnt request coverage though, posting about it was “voluntary”)
I guess that if the advertisers can pick/approve the ‘blogger’ they don’t even need to ask for positive reviews; just have to review the blogger’s history…
we will not allow promotion of ReviewMe through TechCrunch.
This is somewhat ironic, given that the only way I would be likely to hear about this company is by this post.
Seriously though, I do not see what’s wrong with reviewit. There are so many products, websites, and services these days which find it hard to get exposre. Given that you can not pay for a good review, and the nature of the post is disclosed, this just seems like a good way to montetize the attention of bloggers, and use that to amplify a message– much like traditional advertising.
Thanks Mike (for finally featuring us).
Actually we’ve been around for quite a while.
In fact we’ve been featured on TechCrunch as Plugaid,
( http://www.tech...-myspace-xanga/ ).
Although Marshall mentioned we’re without a “clear business model”, this has been our business model all along.
We’ve been trying to get your attention since about 2 months ago.
I don’t know why we were rejected at Techcrunch back then,
which made everything PayPerPost’s world.
But now we(who have been trying to get your attention for so long)
are suddenly featured “along with” your sponsor’s
service which has been “announced earlier today”,
in a “6 line paragraph” introduction.
Plus, you don’t seem to realize what we’re trying to do.
The title wouldn’t be “The PayPerPost virus spreads”
if you had just taken a closer look and actually got our concept.
I must thank you for FINALLY introducing us, but I must say
the way you did so is embarrassing.
As long as there is disclosure, I don’t see why this is a problem. It’s no different from getting schwag at a TechCrunch party. How many drinks and dinners have been bought for you by a web 2.0 company Mike?
Just because it doesn’t go along with the old school crony “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” that you’re used to doesn’t mean it’s any better or worse.
Any site that accepts ads is doing the same thing. Yes that includes TechCrunch. You have advertisers that pay you for your content. If you quit posting, they would quit paying. The disclosure there is that you have Advertisers posted around their ads. The same with google ads. The only difference is positioning.
Trent – My suggestion is to work on your website messaging.
Mike, then perhaps you will be able to explain this:
How do you think CREAMaid will “undermine the credibility of the entire ecosystem and mislead readers”?
What do you think is bad about some bloggers taking some pictures at McDonald’s and sharing their “experiences” with others?
It’s so interesting service, CreamAid. In my opinion, it seems as if it showed nealy nice solution for disclosure problem. Although I did not catch all of the ideas by far, it looks like it has been spreaded like a real “virus.”
Making money with blogging is a little bit hard to understand at the first time. Even though the concept looks similar to Payperpost, the system is different. (am i right?)
Trent – its the fact that bloggers are being paid to do this, which you don’t mention in your comment above.
We review a lot of sites and we spent some time on yours. When I say your website messaging needs work, take it as constructive criticism.
Hi Trent,
I just wondering why you chose the name “creamaid” – it sort of sounds like some sort of cream that you would use on a fungal infection? Or is this perhaps correlated to the style of business you are adopting
(its a cheap shot 
)
Brad Isaac: It seems to me that those advertisers requiring a positive tone will fade away as bloggers decline those opportunities, as I have.
PPP, ReviewMe and CreamAid (surely the weirdest name on the planet…) are not as evil as you all like to hurl around. They just spread the opportunity for monetization to those of us less fortunate bloggers who do not get invites to Techcrunch parties or free cellphones or other fun things.
You thank your advertisers on Techcrunch all the time. I don’t blink. It seems like buying ad space from you might be enough, but every time you link them in your ‘thank you’ posts you give them a little more traction. Why, it’s almost a “paid post”!
And I disclose, so don’t be slamming me there.
DnW, who is really sick of the invective you all like to sling around.
The blogosphere has enjoyed an edge of authenticity over many traditional media organizations: the transparency of having an individual speak with their own voice.
The lack of transparency in traditional media starts looking good when payola becomes an important part of the blogosphere.
This isn’t a press release service, this is like bribing politicians. Some things are best not exposed to the free market (if that’s possible).
Creamaid just spammed their beta-signups with this email (I just got it):
“Guys,
We’ve been featured on TechCrunch.com, although we’re pretty dissatisfied
with their tone in dealing with us. Please check out this article
http://www.tech...t-virus-spreads ,
and if you agree with us, We would really appreciate it if you guys also
participated in the discussion.
Personally I don’t think Michael Arrington gets us.
I’m sending this to you guys because I’m sure you know
how we’re different from all other “blog-for-money” services.
Right? As you are aware, we are aimed at gathering experiences,
not links.
Thanks in advance.
regards,
creamaid.com”
I see a huge problem with requiring positive feedback at PayPerPost. This MUST be disclosed as well.
After all everything comes to reader’s expectations. It could be in a year or two when things like PayPerPost become standard readers will learn to take each blog with a grant of salt and no disclosure will be needed. For now the common believe is that bloggers are independent freelance writers expressing THEIR opinion.
I personally don’t like a future like that…
@Personally I don’t think Michael Arrington gets us.
quit now before you loose all your money. When you say shit like that and are doing astart up…you’ve got a problem.
Just wondering ….
It seems to me that most people only have time to review at most 5 to 10 blogs a day (granted, some of you may be able to review 100’s).
This “time constraint” presents a very interesting implication. Out of the 20 gazillion blogs out their, each of us has to chose the 5 to 10 blogs that gives us the “biggest bang for the buck.” (For me, TechCrunch seems to fall into this category, and hence, I visit on a regular basis.)
I don’t know the stats, but I would guestimate that a small percentage (perhaps ~1%) of blogs get the predominate share of “influential face time” – in other words, people actually value and act on what the author is articulating. The vast majority of blogs are either (1) visited by the author’s mom and a select group of acquaintances or (2) by nobody but the author. (Forgive me for this sweeping generalization.)
Here’s the main paint. It is my assumption that (1) a blog’s value to a “visitor” – as in me – is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to (2) the direct financial consideration that the author receives (revenues tied to adsense / etc. would NOT fall under this categorization).
Said differently, a blog has a lot of value to me because the author decided to write about a “certain something” on that “certain something’s” own merits. The author found that “certain something” noble, compelling, and interesting. He or she could have blogged about something else, but no, this “certain something” was better than all other options. Consequently, it is quite likely that I will find reading about this “certain something” equally engrossing, and I’ll keep coming back because I value this author’s judgement, especially when it comes to not wasting my time.
If an author makes “blogging decisions” based on direct compensation, his or her blog will go to $hit. The blogging entries will become “comoditized.” His or her blog is no longer any better than the other 20 gazillion blogs – and I only have time for 5 to 10 – and will soon loose “eyeballs.”
I suppose what I am suggesting is that PayPerPost is nothing but the “plague” for a blogger. Like cancer, the symptoms may not appear immediately, but once individual’s are clued in to the “integrity” of an author – or lack thereof – the harmful effects will be sweeping.
My time is valuable. If you are using my time to promote “crap” (if someone has to pay you to write about it, it must be “crap” / or just “OK,” but I don’t want to waste my time on stuff that is just “OK” either) to earn a few bucks, I’ll find someone else who will be willing to give me greater “bang for the buck.”
JonD,
I’m sorry if it was a spam to you. However, we didn’t mean it as a spam.
However, we must message our users to let them know about what we are
doing.
We won’t send you any e-mails in the future if you just let us know your e-mail address.
I am really sorry this happened, but we weren’t saying this in public.
Please note that this was only sent to our beta users, and one of our beta users doesn’t seem to like us. Maybe there are more who hate us for sending that message, and I want to say sorry to all of you who didn’t like it.
@lemon obrien – I agree, first question when you say things like this “I don’t think Michael Arrington gets us’ is to check whether the explanation of the model is not good?
you can ask yourself if the company themselves cannot explain clearly what their purpose and goal is – whoelse can?
@ Trent Kang:
Trent, I think you donot get the underlying criticism… You started the stirr on the wrong foot, by ‘ complaining’ tone of voice in your remark. instead of taking a positive swing and try to bring your message in line with your goals you started to complain about things too much.
I would advise you to take a more positive approach and be more patient when you need to ‘explain’ more
Taking the convesation a slightly different direction… Has anyone checked out knowmoremedia.com? They reportedly (according to a couple of their bloggers I was visiting with this week) started as a pay per click site with dummy content that is now running more clean by paying people to blog in their site. They make their money through AdSense on the pages generated by their paid bloggers. Bloggers have the choice to be paid or blog for free. If they decide to be paid, they give up rights to their copyright on their blogs. So, In their model, the bloggers are not told what to blog about, but they are being compensated for writing on topics that help Know More Media get Google revenues. How much more legitimate, if at all, would you say this approach is?
I have heard some argue, “well, if they are not blogging for direct compensation by those they are blogging about, then it is okay.”
Still others say, “Getting paid by a company making its money through adsense for your posts and giving up your ownership is degrading to your cred.”
In my view, this model is as legitimate as Blog networks who pay bloggers for their posts by way of sponsorships of their blog sites; its just a different scale of advertiser paying the bill for the sponsorship.
A number of bloggers that I respect (and read), and who comment here with some regularity, are found on the Know More Media site, e.g. Jon Watson of BizPodcast.
Thoughts?
*Anything* that makes money is acceptable and respectable, so I don’t see any problem with blogging reviews for money.
@Lee Gibbons – 3 words “Jason Calacanis Weblogsinc”
As an owner of an ecommerce site, a few thoughts come to mind. First of all, this could be good to gain (fake) credibility, improve SEO, and drive traffic to our site. In the end though, these people arent going to do a thorough review of the product to make it worth our while, and when people realize that a particular blogger is reviewing some obscure products every day, it will be obvious they are doing it for profit, and they lose credibility.
I would rather stick to legitimate sources. Not to mention if you have an exciting product it will be critiqued for free anyways, and if you have a boring product you can always have it reviewed by consumer reports, trade organizations, or similar entities.
Michael – I dont support these models, but heres my comment. How come its ok for AOL to pay digg users to start using their site, how come its ok for Yelp and Judy’s Book to pay folks in various cities to write content on their sites without disclosing that they are getting paid for writing content.
I dont understand why these double standards? Why arent these other sites singled out as viruses too!!
>In the end though, these people arent going to do a thorough review of the product to make it worth our while
My intent with ReviewMe was to pay people for their influence, time, and valuable feedback (both positive and negative). Realistically, if they do not make quality posts bloggers undermine their own credibility, and are selling off their own mind-share wholesale.
But the value of even negative feedback is well displayed in this thread. How much is Michael’s feedback about messaging worth if the reviewed company listens too it? Probably a lot!
Disclaimer: I helped come up with the idea of ReviewMe about 6 months ago, and have ownership in it.
If bloggers are to be required to disclose and also they can’t be made to give a positive review, frankly there just isn’t any point in investing in the service (for the advertiser).
a) Any sales that an advertiser could get from a post can drop by 70% just by mentioning that the blogger had been paid to review the product.
b) The idea that bloggers aren’t required to write a positive review is OK, since that way a crappy product wouldn’t get a bunch of positive reviews. I agree the review should be honest/genuine. But at the same time, there needs to be at least some assurance that the advertiser isn’t spending money to.. get someone to write negative stuff about his product.
c) I don’t see anything wrong with this service at all. Basically, if a blogger is in it just to make some easy money by reviewing anything and everything that comes his way, no one would read his blog anyway. But on the other hand, if a product is so good that a blogger *is going to blog about it any way*, then whats wrong with letting him make a few bucks off it? And it also makes the advertiser’s job easier, since instead of waiting for bloggers to find him (which can take months) he can find interested bloggers and get them to write about him right away.
Just my 2c.
Can’t understand what’s wrong with it. Newspapers have been doing press releases in their business news page for years now, which is nothing but promotion of companies, products. As long as bloggers name is disclosed, it is legitimate.
Of course, the reputation of the blogger, unbiased reviews or not, market will decide. Why the fuss about government involvement etc.
Just one question:
Who are you people to tell other people what they can and can not post on their blogs? kthanksbye.
It’s pollution, Eric, and it affects all of us.
Payperpost bloggers are required to include a tracking gif from conuttrackula.com (which points at PPP.com).
Although its not full disclosure its still a clear sign if you know where to look.
Are we facing an outbreak of these services now?
“blogging for money” fu*k it, ON THE OTHER HAND “blogging so good that gets you money” embrace it.
Michael, I don’t see blogs that do this as pollution at all. I see this as product placement. Your favorite actor drinks a coke in a movie, but in real life he hates it. Does that pollute the movie?
Conan O’Brien makes a comment about his Ford on late night TV. It seems like a normal comment, but in reality he gets a kick back for it. Does this make his show any less funny?
Splogs are the ones polluting the internet. Try doing a search on any major search engine… I dare you to use a “high dollar keyword” in your search and not get some useless scrapper site in your first ten results.
Hell, as far as I know, the post you just wrote would qualify for $10 from PPP if you were signed up with them. Does that make your post pollution?
Anywho… just my 2 cents. And no, I don’t use these services… not that there would be anything wrong if I did.
imho creamaid seems to the more democratic of the three, and it not so earlier like is described in the post, only a week?
probably the writer find out it only a week ago, but it use absolutely more older, at least a month older.
Services like these will continue to grow whether or not you like them. As long as users and creators of such services exercise some caution everything should be ok.
Trent Kang is actually right on the money. They have been round for a while. I reviewed them in post on the 29th of September. I am sure your article will be quoted as first mentioning it though…
http://roosters...outh-marketing/
It would pay to do a simple Google search before stating a product launched this week. You only found it this week. Credit where credit due, but who am I kidding – that will never happen.
Trent, you would really benefit from a PR filter.
And your site sounds ok in theory, but in practice all of the posts I have seen are basically just ad copy. BAD ad copy at that. I’m all for making money, but not at the expense of the community. I agree with Mike that this is pollution.
That said, I am sure you will have quite a few companies clamoring to advertise using your service. But I hope that the Techcrunches of the world are able to put a bad enough taste into bloggers’ mouths so that this doesn’t catch on.
I tell you if you can’t tell what is the plug and what ain’t you have a serious problem. I have read many of the posts people do for PPP and you would have to be a complete dolt if you didn’t realise it was the ones they are getting paid.
I really think called PPP a virus is over the top. You do seem to have a problem with people making money from their blogs. PPP actually pays you money as opposed to all the bullshit artists who claim to pay you big bucks and in the end you get squot.
Mike, I haven’t looked at any of these services, so I can’t comment or add much. I was just intrigued by this:
“We still think the very act of paying bloggers to write about a product is a very bad idea. Frankly, we’re not happy that one of our sponsors has launched this type of service, and we’ve notified them that we will not allow promotion of ReviewMe through TechCrunch.”
So Google in particular, and the search engines in general, view the idea of paid links as the type of pollution you seem concerned about. Text Link Ads, like other services, will put paid links on blogs to help influence search results — which themselves are a type of recommendation. That’s a form of paying bloggers as well specifically for influence, search influence.
I’m not trying to open the very complicate and controversial “are paid links bad” debate. I’m mainly pointing out that you seem to already accept advertisers with one type of pollution. Now you want to resist ads for another, but I don’t know that they are so different. If you don’t beat yourself up over people adverting buying and selling links, I wouldn’t worry about the blog influencing services. Or alternatively, you might need to not take paid link ads and further perhaps not take ads from any service trying to influence anyone.
Personally, ads are ads. I don’t assume you endorse the people advertising nor that it influences your editorial coverage — so take them or don’t
But I do appreciate the desire to not take ads you feel are bad in some way. It’s just hard when those areas are sometimes so gray.
I like the comparison to payola in the music industry when the bloggers are paid for positive posts without disclosure. I think with disclosure it essentially turns the blog posts into press releases.
Either way I think it undermines the credibility of the blogger/blog post as it would always be in the blogger’s favor to post positively about things they normally wouldn’t.
@Trent Kang – If you weren’t prepared to read an article with the criticisms cited in Mike’s article you really didn’t think your business through enough.
As long as there’s disclosures, this strikes me as being no different from talk radio. All day long Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, Howard Stern, Jim Rome etc do sponsored announcements without doing any disclosure besides the obviously scripted tone of what they say. Jim Rome will even say things like “I’ve got something new to pimp” as a lead-in.