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.
Oops – and don’t forget Paul Harvey pimping Roach Proof and True Value for the last 50+ years.
I think this high and mighty moral attitude exhibited by Mike and and many other bloggers makes no sense.
If you have any type of advertising on your site or within your posts then what’s the big deal about doing a sponsored post… especially if it’s disclosed? It’s all the same effect… it’s just a sponsor. Some people may look at it. Some may click thru to the sponsor. But most people will just ignore it. It’s called advertising. It’s a fundemental part of our consumer driven market economy.
All media needs a way to generate revenue. A sponsored post is no different than a commercial on the radio or on TV. And it’s really not different or worse than the sponsors you see plastered all over this website.
People need to stop being hypocrites.
Of course, it turns out that CREAMaid has already gotten into trouble with Paypal and can’t actually pay participating bloggers. See my detailed explanation:
http://www.askd...h_creamaid.html
Me? I’m still waiting for that promised $10 payment.
Dave, we’re sorry for that message. That was from weeks ago,
as the caption speaks for itself.
We forgot to change to the page, and we fixed it now.
NO, we ARE NOT having problem with PayPal right now.
Didn’t you receive the royalty that we have sent you?
Please let us know if you didn’t, because we have actually sent the money before you posted this. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Those two sites are good, but this PayPerPost competitor is what I think will become the biggest.
http://weblogvertise.com
It allows them to ommunicate directly, which leads to bigger deals. Plus PPP only gets 5-10 new opps a day and I have no doubt that this will get much more since its free.
@Danny Sullivan – Thank you for your comment. Esp. “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.”
@Notsure – like Danny’s comment, quoted above, your example highlights the slippery sloap nature of the subject Mike stepped onto with this post. To his credit, once again he got us all thinking this through and talking about it.
My view: Blogging is/will be subject to the same rules of nature as any other media regarding journalisic integrity:
1. People have a nose for truth, integrity, and they automatically factor in context.
2. People’s tolerance for the “polution” varies, and it varies not just from person to person, but also depending upon the context of the polution.
3. Their Tolerance increases with our level of interest and with the base of credibility of the blogger has built up with us in their area of expertise.
4. The risk bloggers take when they embrace models that make people question their motives is that their credibility is brought into question, which, depending upon our tolerance, results in a loss of trust, interest, and attention.
Some people, with low tolerance just go away. Some with the lowest tolerance go away angry, and some of them even blog about the polution.
Start your engines!
Michael, I don’t get it — the more you write about these alleged “viruses” the more you spread them yourself. Certainly you realize that by writing about these companies, there’s no question you’ve increased their pageviews, advertiser count and publisher count. Hell, if ever I want to try a couple of these, I’ll just come back to this post and have the whole list of options to consider.
When is your desire to inform your readers with interesting content/discussion trumped by your refusal to fuel the growth of those businesses which you obviously object to?
The only way I would sign on for this kind of thing is if I were allowed to write a negative review if the product sucked. Unfortunately, it seems like this isn’t the case because PayPerPost has to approve of your post before you get paid.
“CreamAid” has to be one of the worst dot-com names I’ve ever seen. It sounds like something I’d find in a medicine cabinet and doesn’t at ALL describe what the product is or does. PayPerPost, while having a controversial concept, at least has a name that describes it right up front and has a nice “ring” to it. I can’t see anyone seriously using this CreamAid service.
what’s wrong with bloggers trying to make some money. Hosting and maintaining a blog is hard work and why shouldn’t we get paid for it?
I think Creamaid.com is cool and I love the conversation widget. I like how you can find people who like or dislike McDonalds via the widget. It’s a cool way to discover new blogs and earn some cash.
“they undermine the credibility of the entire ecosystem and mislead readers.”
I have to disagree here. I don’t know of any such credible blogosphere ecosystem. Most of the blogs posting this stuff are probably not getting much traffic to begin with and are not part of the blogosphere you typically read.
Mislead readers? I don’t think so either. With enough topics to write about, you only have to promote the things you like, and get some extra $$$ at the same time. I would not write something for a product I did not like.
These systems are just a way to facilitate communication between bloggers and advertisers.
Arrington, what’s the difference between PPP and the link whoring you seem to engage in? Surely the more links to TechCrunch you get the happier your advertisers are, so at the end of the day you, too, are being paid to post.
“Arrington, what’s the difference between PPP and the link whoring you seem to engage in? Surely the more links to TechCrunch you get the happier your advertisers are, so at the end of the day you, too, are being paid to post.”
Well there is 1 difference… you know it’s advertisement here. That’s the main debate.
Payperpost is a better way for consumers to find out about potentially useful products over being blasted by multi-million dollar campaigns only large companies can afford. And clearly those aren’t unbiased.
Agree disclosure is generally a good thing but even without it, the author is correct… ultimately good bloggers (accepting money or not) who write accurate, useful product information will establish credibility and become the respected of their communities.
I say bring it on – the force of the masses will ensure Payperpost finds its right place in online communities.
PS. I was NOT a paid to write this…
While PayPerPost is an ethical issue, I don’t understand why people get so worked up over this new business concept. For years, companies have paid for inbound “links”, they’ve paid for “clicks” on Google, and they have paid for banner ads. What is the big deal if they pay people to blog about them too?
I did a test of the PayPerClick system a couple weeks back and had a pretty good experience. You can see the results of my experiment at
http://blog.cws...perpostcom.html
I haven’t used them for “real world” business beyond this test. But if you are a company who needs some inbound links, I would recommend them as long as you don’t constrain the blogger’s opinion.
This is delicate. Ads are ok, if they are acknowledged as ads. I don’t like PPP because shilling a personal recommendation for money is immoral (my mom always called it whoring).
I came out against PPP earlier this week on my blog (finally), and wouldn’t have seen this had not a reader sent me the link in my comments (thanks Yan). I have to say the comments herein are just as scary to me as the fact that PPP exists.
CreamAid doesn’t sound like they are spammers with the email quoted above. That’s ridiculous (and when did it become ok to air emails w/o permission?). And, they had issues earlier with pay so we ridicule them publicly and take away any possibility they have at success by slamming them cruelly?
You may not agree with them (I don’t), and if you don’t I hope you speak up. However, with cheapshots that they can’t live down (pay and spam), you are hitting below the belt guys.
Real criticism, like ethical considerations and the silly name, make sense. But the other is just plain unfair. How might you feel if your business was spotlighted on a blog like TechCrunch and underwent this treatment? I think we forget (or are too young to yet realize) what it’s like to start out in business.
**Shame on you if you resorted to this technique in your search for visitors to your own site. **
Oh, and by they way, I also write for Know More Media, allbusiness.com and b5 and the idiotic statement that paying someone to blog is wrong is bizarre. How many networks are there that pay their bloggers? I’m stunned. Do you not think that the bloggers **on the TechCrunch network** are not getting paid for their work? Noone has time to invest in a topic this fully and cover the news this thoroughly unless they are getting paid to do so.
Grow up.
Webomatica:
The review is to ensure compliance with the requirements; e.g., minimum number of words, correct linking, etc. Tone is not reviewed by PPP and you will find posts which are negative for which the blogger was paid.
I would think that as an advertiser, if you request a review or mention, you’d have confidence enough in what you were advertising to put it out there and let the blogger be objective. In some ways that’s more honest tan TV advertising or other media where the tone is always positive and full of hyperbole.
I’m a blogger — a personal blogger. I’m not a journalist. If anything, I’m just too full of opinions to keep my mouth shut. What better way to use those opinions to my benefit?
I don’t think bloggers can be controlled by anyone or any company for only a few dollars.
The idea of getting paid by a company will be a good incentive for bloggers if they approve of the company’s idea or any products. why not?
At least Creamaid is clear about what it is about, and you can see who is getting paid and who isn’t. Bloggers should be able to choose to write what they want, just like people can choose about what they read.
I installed google adsense when I started my own blog. So far, I only made a little amount. I doubt I can really get paid much from adsense. My blog is small.
The policy of adsense is to pay when a blogger collects $100. Even thouh I know I won’t get paid any from adsense until I close my blog, I still have fun to see how much I could claim moment by moment.
Bloggers have pride. I participated in creamaid’s beta invitation to blog about Mcdonald’s hamburger. If I didn’t like Mcdonald’s, I would have never participated in it even if they paid me tons of money.
Wow, so many comments this judgment brought up.
Michael, although I agree with you regarding the general negative effect of this services, I do think you should give blog readers a bit more credit. I think the blogosphere is already polluted. There are zillion of blogs-sites-articles etc. who are reviewing stuff with affiliate links for instance. Or just blogs full of crap, or someone else’s articles with hidden publicity in them or whatever.
Yet this creates the reader to be more attentive regarding the blogs he read and stay loyal to.
Nothing much to fear, the web in general already become a big disposal of undesired stuff, it just made me intensify-increase-improve my filtering abilities.
BTW Blogs like techcrunch can only profit from that cause it will push blog readers to search for more objective review-blogers to be loyal to. And yours seems to be pretty much so. The environment will learn to clear the bad stuff to the side of it.
http://paidpervideo.com
anyone ?
Interesting take – who knows!
Yet another? PaidPerVideo
May be one day majority of the blogs will just have paid content plastered all over.
StartUps- I hope blog clutter won’t get that bad! ahaha
You think so peever? Really think so? really really?
Well I was in radio in the past and we had to read adverts at times. We did not say…and here is a commercial for x or y. It was patently obvious it was one though and I think anyone reading a blog will be bright enough to know what is shilling and what is not. Some people here seem to believe that those who read our blogs are idiots…not quite sure why.
I wonder if Mike’s review of REVIEWME had anything to do with him being on TLA’s payroll (via sponsorship)? That is a bit ironic, Mike writing an article about a company because of a revenue relationship, and in that article he is talking about how bloggers should not be paid to write articles.
“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.”
For starters, you just did promote them though TechCrunch, as I never heard of them until now.
And regarding: “We still think the very act of paying bloggers to write about a product is a very bad idea.”
Quick analogy: if I was anti-war, believed that no country had the right to nuclear weapons, etc. I would not and could not support the manufacturer of a product that I might otherwise use or even endorse, if their parent company in today’s world of multinational conglomerates also owned a weapons manufacturer.
While it’s great you shared your beliefs with your sponsor, I’d like to see you put your money where your mouth is and stand by your beliefs and not your sponsor’s check book.
As a journalist, I agree with Michael Arrington on this. Integrity is all important which is why a journalist found to publish paid-for opinions and news is usually tarred, feathered and railroaded out of town.
However, the Internet being what it is, I suspect PayPerPost and the clones’ cunning ploy will backfire. Just imagine when the spammers and sploggers hear of it, and start signing up in droves…
“If a journalist takes money to write a story, it’s a scandal. If a blogger does the same, others will want to know how much and can they join the network too?”
The nature of the beast, is that we are taking two different media streams but trying to drive it via the the same rules set.
I justed visited a pay-per-contribution shopping site modoshi. I was a dealsplus user until I found this site. They have an interesting revenue sharing model. It’s an interesting twist on shopping.
http://www.modoshi.com
I have to completely disagree with your comments on Review Me. While the other paid advertising sites go against my principles, Review Me does not.
Is it different to write at a blog that is sponsored by an advertiser? They don’t require you to write a certain way. Is it different to work at a Tech magazine and review a PC that you were given for free by the manufacturer, explicitly for the purpose of writing said review?
I don’t think so.
I decided to participate in Review Me for three reasons:
1. I can pick what I write a review about
2. I have to let my readers know that I am writing a paid review
3. I am not required to be positive about the product
I would never review an item if I were paid to be positive. I would never review an item under the guise of a normal blog post. I would never review an item I was forced to review.
So where is the harm? Magazine writers get paid to write reviews. Ebert and Roeper get paid to write reviews. If you are reading a review in a publication, the person writing it is getting paid. Who cares where the source is coming from. At least with Review Me, I get a choice about what I review. Ebert and Roeper have to review every shit movie that comes out of Hollywood. PC mag has to review all the newest tech, like it or not.
If I am open and honest with my readers, and am not being pressured to write about a certain product, nor being pressured to write a positive review, I just can’t see the harm.
But that’s just me.
Remove all your advertisements here and we shall follow…
Michael and his rants…way to make people hate you this easily…
@Danny Sullivan:
Nice comment! I completely agree with you.
@Michael Arrington:
1. Ugly banners are polluting the web much worse.
2. I remember you saying that you wouldn’t recommend any startup to pay 10k for a banner here on Techcrunch. Is this credible?
3. Aren’t your “It’s Time To Thank The Sponsors” just such paid posts you say are polluting the web? Is this credible, too? Are you probably doing that because the classic banner business-model doesn’t work very well?
@Topic:
As long as these “payed postings” are fully disclosed and represent the true opinion of the blogger, I don’t see any problem with this kind of “advertising”.
Best regards from Switzerland
Remo Uherek
Founder of http://www.trigami.com (a European ReviewMe)
This blade cuts both ways…
I think bloggers can be controlled by anyone or any company for only a few dollars. And this is a good business model too,
So long as there is a clear disclosure, what is the problem?
In fact, with the disclosure, I believe this form of editorial advertising is more honest than 99% of traditional media that is bought and paid for through PR firms, etc.
At least this way, the reader KNOWS the editorial is an ad and not hoodwinked into thinking the editorial they are reading is some form of pure journalism.
As for requiring a blogger to be “positive”, the blogger has the right NOT to blog about a certain product or service if they do not want to.
That’s my 2 cents.
I’m not sure if PPP is a problem or not. It seems to me that if a blogger spends a lot of time to entertain his or her readers they should be able to profit some from it.
I like very much the writings and pictures and explanations in your adress so I look forward to see your next writings.
To provide useful information, please click to view
Bose headphones
ghd Hair Straightener
Women is Dakota
Sundance UGG Boots
Thank you!