The PayPerPost Virus Spreads

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://shanthology.blogspot.co.....blime.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.techcrunch.com/2006.....ace-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.techcrunch.com/2006.....us-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://roostersrail.wordpress......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.

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.askdavetaylor.com/m.....amaid.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.net/2006/10/we.....stcom.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…