PayPerPost Is Now Officially Absurd
Michael Arrington
211 comments »
Many commenters in previous TechCrunch posts on PayPerPost compared their business model to payola in the music industry. At PayPerPost, bloggers are offered cash to write about products. Disclosure is optional, and often the bloggers are required to only express positive comments. The company is now well funded, and a number of competitors have launched. This “virus” seems here to stay.
Don’t look for PayPerPost to require blogger disclosure anytime soon. Instead, they are creating a distraction, designed to keep the buzz about PayPerPost going strong, as well as to move people’s attention away from the core issue of blogger disclosure of product shilling.
In a move reminiscent of big tobacco funding tobacco research, PayPerPost is announcing a new initiative on Monday called DisclosurePolicy, which “provides policy creation tools, best practices and forums for discussing the delicate balance between content creator freedoms and audience transparency expectations.”
DisclosurePolicy creates a disclosure policy for bloggers to post on their blogs, based on their answers to a few questions. They will also pay every blogger who posts a PayPerPost disclosure policy on their blog $10.
While that sounds like a fine idea, PayPerPost bloggers should also be disclosing the fact that they are being paid for their post prominently within the post, not on some separate page in their blog. Also PayPerPost subtly works with the language they use, particularly around the definition of “compensation” to suggest that all blogs have bias (and therefore PayPerPost isn’t really that bad). Here are the three choices - bloggers must choose one:
This blog does not accept any form of advertising, sponsorship, or paid insertions. We write for our own purposes. However, we may be influenced by our background, occupation, religion, political affiliation or experience.
This blog does not accept any form of cash advertising, sponsorship, or paid topic insertions. However, we will and do accept and keep free products, services, travel, event tickets, and other forms of compensation from companies and organizations.
This blog accepts forms of cash advertising, sponsorship, paid insertions or other forms of compensation.
If you are a PayPerPost blogger, or the New York Times, or anything in between, you must pick the third option. That’s because “taking advertsing” and “paid insertions” are defined as the same thing. And even if you have no form of advertising or other revenue on the site, you have to admit to bias based on “background, occupation, religion, political affiliation or experience.”
Blurring the lines in this way - facilitating the pollution of the blogosphere while creating an illusion of doing something good for the public, is a good business move for PayPerPost. But it is a terrible development for the blogsphere and public trust. I hope that very few bloggers are suckered into going along with this.
I wonder how long it will be before search engines start figuring out ways to downgrade pay-per-post type sites? It’s a royal pain to wade through pages of fake reviews before finding anything real for tech purchases, now it looks like we’ll have to find a way to do this filtering for all of our online purchases as well. In the end, it just degrades the value of blogs in general, Ughh.
I agree, but they don’t deserve more free press.
Mike, a question for you. Do you add a disclosure policy to every post that you make on a company that also happens to be TC sponsor?
This is ridiculous. Now we have another level of posts to lookout for before finding real content.
Mike:
You’re losing credibility, or going nuts, by the day. I’ve followed your rants since I invested in PayPerPost and less than 5 days ago you stated on this blog: “I’m hoping that this discussion [about blog ethics] leads to a framework for a disclosure policy that can be adopted….” Therefore, you support a framework built upon Disclosure Policies. It sounds like you don’t like that someone actually moved from discussion to action before you got to bless it.
There’s been too much talk and too little action on this issue — until today. The DP Generator at DisclosurePolicy.org is an easy tool that will move more people to adopt DPs than just ranting about ethics — the tool will also improve over time/feedback. DisclosurePolicy.org also discusses best practices and provides forums for a variety of topics — allowing everyone to share their thoughts and bloggers to hear the mix of opinions (rather than just the opinions of those with the biggest pulpit).
There’s even some fun games in the forums, such as ‘DPs of the Rich & Famous’ and ‘DP Hunts’ to find the Disclosure Policies of top blogs — maybe you could win for finding TechCrunch’s documented Disclosure Policy where you promise to disclose all post-related competitive conflicts, non-cash perks, blogging about friends, advisory roles etc….
Last, I’d point you to my recent post there about 4 steps to blog transparency: B-L-O-G. You could benefit from that post.
Aside from the ribbing, I’d seriously recommend that you get behind the Disclosure Policy framework so audiences learn to look for the “Disclosure Policy” link wherever they visit. Continued bluster will only keep more people in the dark and slow the transition to a more open and transparent blogosphere. Put aside your competitive conflicts and let’s make this happen together…we’re looking for collaborators!
This entire idea is pretty lame. If I see a blog that discloses they get paid to write reviews, it loses all credibility in my mind.
I’m not sure how I feel about the idea, but I imagine if it takes off, it will just become another form of advertising that we learn to ignore, or take with a grain of salt.
Some people have compared this with how DJ’s on radio shows deliver ads. It’s clear when the ad is delivered that the DJ probably doesn’t own the product, and is clearly being paid to sell it. This is mainly obvious because DJ’s don’t ever talk about products or services for no reason. Bloggers, however, do, and I imagine this was brought up as a clever point in their pitch. It’s for this same reason that the idea bothers me - from now on when I read a review on a blog, I need to go searching for a disclosure policy to decide if I should essentially ignore the review and go find a real one.
The payment part isn’t so bad.. its the part where people have to be positive about the thing they are talking about in their post.. I don’t imagine someone getting paid for their experience is so bad.. I get that too and I bet most of ya’ll do as well.. we call it a job.
Simply because people can’t be unbiased towards the quality of the product they are describing this is turned into a very wrong thing and I think it’s going to be even harder to really find the quality posts among the masses now..
Aghh, what’s with the random smiling people in the bottom corner. They’re making me tear my eyeballs out.
Dan - This is like the mafia trying to lead the effort to control organized crime. Don’t try to preach to me on this, as a PayPerPost investor you’re on the wrong side of the ethical line.
Why is it important in blogging?
Are you kidding?
What an awkward way of disclosing!
It’s a “disguise”, not a “disclosure”.
In that aspect, I like CREAMaid for their disclosure policy.
They seem to disclose almost everything.
Even the suggested topic is disclosed through their widget,
so that no one will be able to ask for positive opinions.
I think it’s perfectly ethical once everything is disclosed.
I blogged about PPP the other day, linking to Toni’s exploration of one of the advertisers and the creepy sponsored videos on Youtube, and the comments blew me away:
http://photomatt.net/2006/10/27/on-payperpost/
I was very surprised how many people saw blogola as perfectly acceptable form of income and acted like I was personally trying to take money out of their hands by criticizing it.
Take the analogy for Lonelygirl15 on YouTube, once they released the idea that everything was staged, her videos went from hits to misses.
“While that sounds like a fine idea, PayPerPost bloggers should also be disclosing the fact that they are being paid for their post prominently within the post, not on some separate page in their blog.”
Is it the pay issue or the disclosure issue. I find that you often don’t info on your posts but just assume people somehow magically know your conflicts…
The biggest perks/advertising whore in the world: Michael Arrington is attempting to take the moral highground on the subject, that must be the insanity Dan mentioned. No one juices their blog for monetary gain like The Arringtonster.
Someone is going to pay bloggers to post, sounds like Michael has sour grapes about not investing, or is about to launch a competitor.
The name is good advertising, but cuts both ways: PayPerPost is a disclosure policy of what that company does to anyone who hears it.
TechCrunch’s name implies some sort of neturality, which doesn’t exist at all.
This is an issue with review sites, as well. I used to run one, and I still occasionally review hardware. The problem is that companies send you products to review, and when it’s not so positive, they get pissy, and don’t send you anymore, and in some cases demand the product back (99% of the time you’re allowed to keep the product.) Then they tell others companies not to send your site products to review, and thus you get added to a secret black list.
Play their game? You get products to review, so long as you play their game. How many review sites out there are misleading consumers? How many are honest? There was the issue one time where people uncovered advertising invoices from Gamespot and IGN, where game publishers paid them for “spotlight ads”, or basically large features on the front page to look like an article, but were merely just ads.
I agree. Go on Michael, do the disclosure policy for TC and post it here. If you have the guts that is.
Mike discloses all his sponsorships on every post. WTF? Payperpost eats ‘royale penis’, and is attempting to sydnicate a method of monetizing freedom of speech. Instead of bloggers posting about their good old normal topics, they now instead get paid for and talk about “how good toothpaste is” or “how great this shower head is”
Either post your own friggin opinion about something or dont post it at all. I dont wanna read some pay post by some blogger about how “good something is”. Its the same concept as references in you CV or resume i.e. “a reference never has a bad thing to say” - of course they don’t otherwise they wouldnt be your friggin reference.
Im with Mike on this one, Payperpost is a $3 million dollar waste of money
Your rant here is obviously just that. This idea doesn’t take away from a blog in the least as a matter of fact it is an attempt at informing the public and a good idea.
It’s much better then the current ways of having nothing and not knowing anything about the blogger and the intentions of that blog. You don’t like where you fit in this particular scenerio is that it?
Since you would currently sit in the number 3 slot of the choices.
I’m with Mike on this one. First of all, I don’t really like the idea of bloggers getting paid for reviewing products, that doesn’t “do it for me”, so to speak, but if that’s what people want to do with their freedom of speech, I’d like it to be as transparent as possible.
The disclosure policies introduced by PPP are a bad joke: displaying ads on your website outside the actual content is a completely different thing - we are talking about the same thing as in TV advertisements, where ads aired during breaks (separate from the content) is different from product placement, and BOTH are separate from touting, plugging and mixing content with ads in the actual shows, such as news for instance. The first is generally accepted, as there is a clear boundary between the content and the ads, the second is probably differently accepted depending on where you live, but the last one is not OK anywhere. And that last case is closest to what PPP is trying to do, while at the same time trying to mud the waters by mixing all three very separate practices under one policy statement.
I think it’s well done for Mike to bring these dodgy practices up for discussion, I don’t think this would die on its own. Those of you who are challenging him for disclosure, I do remember he’s mentioned sponsors when reviewing their stuff, and if you read his previous post about this, he actually says: “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.”
And dear fellow bloggers, if you accept payment for writing about stuff, that’s fine for me, enjoy the money: I think I and many others can smell a blogola when we see one, and if in any doubt, I take my reading elsewhere - if it’s openly disclosed, I might read it as an ad.
And no, I have no connection to this blog or the author or anything whatsoever - just would like to see the democratic and open tool that we have in blogs be as little corrupted by hawking as possible.
Michael@10: It’s clearly just FUD and competitive response from you until TechCrunch adopts a Disclosure Policy and links to it from every page. Transparency starts with committing to specific practices in a place audiences can readily find. I understand that committing to a policy means audiences would expect you to abide by it, but it puts you in a position to lead on the topic. Plus, it’s just the right thing to do.
Adopt a DP at TechCrunch that details exactly how you think bloggers should disclose (cash and non-cash comp) and lead by example, or get out of the way…
VC Dan, that’s like asking people if they’ve already stopped beating their wife and only giving them the yes/no options. The disclosure policy PPP is offering does not work, and therefore demanding people to use it is absurd.
If any of you really think that TechCrunch is really not cashing in for some of the posts published here, you’re either incredibly naive or incredibly nuts.
I wonder how a guy that’s making tens of thousands of dollars a month from his blog can keep this ridiculous ranting going on for so long.
We all need a new badge on our blogs that states “PayPerPost Safe”
The difference between Payperpost and Techcrunch advertisement is that TechCrunch was paid over the cashier by its advertisers and Payperpost paid their publishers over Paypal. Techcrunch please stop this craziness, it’s all envy man. Don’t worry TC for as low as 2 dollars your website can lose its credibility…
“If any of you really think that TechCrunch is really not cashing in for some of the posts published here, you’re either incredibly naive or incredibly nuts.
I wonder how a guy that’s making tens of thousands of dollars a month from his blog can keep this ridiculous ranting going on for so long. ”
You got the point Ric!
There’s one point that is being missed over and over again in these discussions: PayPerPost is NOT all about “positive reviews on products”. If it were, you might have half a point.
It’s actually more about text links within content areas. Most of the opportunities arent even about products at all - but rather they are about websites, events or other blogs.
You know, this attitude is kinda starting to tick me off.
I do blog postings for Pay Per Post. Every one is designated as such in both the title and the first line of content. This is because it is my responsibility to make sure that the people who read my blog know the score. I’ve got two policies: no offers that don’t allow me to disclose, and no required-postitive offers if I don’t actually like the thing to be written about.
In the meantime, Pay Per Post is paying for a service–so many words on such a topic with whatever tone (which is, I’ll note, neutral at least half the time, in my experience). If a given blogger doesn’t care that s/he’s alienating readers, why should Pay Per Post? It’s not their job to care; it’s their job to be the middleman between advertiser and blogger.
I just think it’s a little odd that you excoriate Pay Per Post when the people you should be excoriating are the bloggers who don’t disclose, and I find it frankly insulting that you assume the only reason anyone would disclose is being required to.
Please help me to understand how PPP is less ethical than a public relations firm issuing press releases on behalf of one of its clients.
Especially in light of Carrie’s comment above.
If you place a post inside a box saying “blatant advertising” whats the difference between that and google adsense or owning an Amazon associates ID?
My main blog does have any advertising - and the idea of “pay per post” on my personal weblog is a non-runner frankly.
But when I built the “Extreme Tales” weblog I placed adsense on the project blogs for “Extreme Tales” - then some Amazon books and ended up building an Amazon store themed around Extreme Sports.
If I now provide sponsored content - clearly marked as such - of items which were of interest to Extreme Tales readers - then so what?
Newspapers run sponsored articles all the time and they are required to be clearly marked as such - the only problem is when advertising content is “smuggled in” as editorial content - and is there anyone here who can say that never happens in dead tree media either.
Publishers all over the world give away free newspapers precisely on basis that most of their content is either sponsored or advertisments - yet they still get read.
Let people choose - do they prefer pay-per-click all over the place or pay-per-post which is on topic and possibly relevant.
I just wish I’d started a pro pay-per-post 10 months ago, then an anti pay-per-post blog 9 months ago - and then I could spend the next few years arguing about pay-per-post opportunities with myself and getting paid twice ….
How this got funded, I’ll never know. I can understand why people participate because they have #1 in mind, and nobody else. This idea will ruin the blogosphere if people continue to support it. The only word I can muster for this “initiative” is stupid.
I am but a small and unknown blogger and find these attacks on us posties as being slimeballs, lowest of the food chains, spammers and now, suckers very interesting. It is obvious that a few of these bigwigs, elitist bloggers find something major taking shape with PPP, just like an undercurrent. The fact is the internet is not ruled by these few elitists who write geeky, tech stuffs but billions of regular Joes and Janes searching for basic stuffs like where to eat, what to buy, which service to us. I see us posties as ‘filling the big void’ because we know our stuffs too. So, yeah to PayPerPost!
Anyone who supports this PPP bull, watch this scary and absurd video.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lQmY-S2YmOM
THIS got funded, people.
Stop writing about these a-holes. Don’t waste your time. You are hyping them which gives them what they want. They are happy because you are giving them publicity. WTF! Stop covering this type of shit.
Personally I think it’s a great idea. The only reason I could see for anyone to fight disclosure would be if they were trying to hide something. People get paid for talking about products. It happens every day.
I wonder if TechCrunch will disclose how many hits this site took today as a result of this topic, or if they will simply roll it into their overall traffic numbers that they undoubtedly use to SELL ADVERTISING.
PayPerPost has been great for TechCrunch … more traffic for TechCrunch equates to more dollars for Michael Arrington.
Mike, I hate to break it too you but you are making money from PayPerPost too!
It’s really simple. It’s hard to believe someone is being objective if they receive payment - even if they are allowed to be negative, and even if they disclose they got paid, you question their true motives. I feel the reason TechCrunch has become a success is because Michael has true passion and interest for technology. Nobody asked him to go out and start blogging about companies. The payoff he received came AFTER he built readership which trusted his opinions. People will easily miss that. If he had started on a PPP model it would have severely damaged the trust his readers have in his motivation for the content he comes up with. I’ve seen him disclose obviously on the post if he has a personal connection. Could he abuse/betray the trust of his readers. Of course he could, but that’s part of the raw powerful beauty of what this technology allows. I think that in the short term blogs may build readership whether or not they are on a PPP model, but the ones that will become largest are the ones that produce content from the heart first, and receive any ad compensation later.
Going by a lot on weblogs you see on the net I can honestly say that giving them something concrete to write about might actually improve the quality of the “blogosphere” …
.. sorry I haven’t mentioned what I had for breakfast yet …
Jerome, You have a great point, but let me also point out that ALL bloggers have been talking about products [for free] for a long time and now it is everyone’s turn to recieve a pay off. Why do so many people have such a problem with the little guy making a few bucks too?
I do NOT blog for PayPerPost and I do NOT get paid by them in any form to make posts anywhere. My passion is to understand why commentators are trying to say the blogosphere as a whole is so precious, but then they draw a distinction of who in the blogosphere deserves be paid for their words and opinions and who does not.
PayPerPost is being blamed for dividing bloggers into “Pro-pay” and “Anti-pay” camps, but in my opinion it’s the fault of the so called Elite bloggers [who were already being paid] raising a stink about everyone beng on a level field of play to make money.
I didn’t come to the conclusion that PayPerPost is shady because of TechCrunch, Mike’s rants (or lack of rants) or anything beyond the fact that PayPerPost earns it on its own - in fact, I believe it was a BusinessWeek article that did it for me. I don’t think it’s bad for PPP or bloggers to do this - I think it’s bad when readers don’t know about it. It goes against ethical journalism as the world knows it - “advertorial” isn’t uncommon in the real media industry, but nobody keeps it a secret when presenting it to the readers. It’s called a “Dedicated email”, a “Sponsored article”, etc.
I think most people are fine with PayPerPost and bloggers posting about things in exchange for money when it’s openly noted. I think we’ve all seen enough reader response to those who do not and are caught doing so - maybe a quick buck’s worth it to a blogger, but it’s probably worth the realization that doing so quickly kills your credibility - doing so reduces readership. No readership, no companies that want to shell out the money to have you post stuff, no PayPerPost.
@Geoff on press releases
I’ve been a publicist for something like 10 years and can hopefully share insight. A news announcement is put over the wire or released to the press with no financial transaction taking place for coverage between the media outlet/journalist and the company issuing it. It is to alert the journalist of the news - he then has the choice to cover it. Because the media does need news to write about - if the release has value, the journalist will write about it. At no time is any money offered to the journalist to do so - in fact, it’s strictly against policy for most media companies, newspapers, etc. I can’t even send reporters I’m friends with gifts - some are only allowed to accept food items, some nothing at all. They can’t even have you pay for dinner in some cases.
So, it’s a huge difference between releasing a news announcement that is optional for the media to cover and going to each journalist with money in hand for exchange in doing so.
Just wait and see what happens when political parties start buying blog entries.
I don’t mind if content is purchased, just let me know it is a “paid ad”…
@ Carrie regarding the focus of this being on the bloggers who don’t disclose - that’s like saying YouTube shouldn’t try to crack down on video blogs that steal songs, that it should be at the individual video bloggers who are policed and targeted. Yeah right.
At the end of the day, it always falls on whoever’s holding the valve, as it’s the only one who truly has the control. In this case, PayPerPost.
Steve,
I don’t have a problem with the little guy making bucks; I always support the little guy. However, like Patricia says, if it is not made very obvious that the article is cash generated then it looks shady, and as a result undermines the larger credibility of bloggers that stick to the model I recommend, which is writing for free to obtain a readership that trusts your objectivity - then monetize it AFTER with ads. The order is very important. Subtle distinctions, like a poster above said about separation for commercials from the main show mean a lot.
I was suckered into the idea when I was desparate to build traffic for my small e-commerce business. The fact is, you have no control over who accepts your post offers. I don’t know if my experience is common, but I ended up getting posts on no-name blogs with a PageRank of zero. This does absolutely nothing for me in terms of link building. I might as well stand on the street corner and pay $5 to anyone promising to pass the word about my business.
I think it’s very reasonable to think that someday, blog hosting sites may require disclosure across the board where users are required to do so.
Mike,
Does TC not also make money through “advertising”? If you really want to NOT appear like a hippocrate, why don’t you take down your advertising and then maybe you can rant like this.
You post great stuff like 98% of the time, why do you let you emotions get the better of you? PPP isn’t competition. Your advertisers won’t leave you.
The problem with talking about disclosure policies now, is that if I bring it up in my weblog everybody will think I am making $10 … and I won’t make $10 by talking about disclosure policies … but if I don’t bring it up and then talk about the whole pay-per-post issue (again) I’ll be in trouble for not-disclosing my disclosure policy ….
Steve #2, I don’t know what your experience has been, so I can only take your word for it; however if it didn’t work out for your business model, then you certainly don’t have to use the PayPerPost service. Saying you were “suckered” is like saying that you got suckered by the NY Times because your print ad didn’t give you the returns you had hoped for.
It’s my understanding is that they do have a system in place that checks page ranks and all the posts have to be approved to make sure that they meet some type of Advertiser minimum requirements. Just like paper advertising or advertising anywhere, there is no way to tell what will work for your model.
I do have to agree with previous posts here and on other blogs that I have read about the following points;
1. Michael Arrington mislead people about the text if disclosure. He only cut and paste from the first screen and did NOT go through to the end of the process. If he had made an accurate representation of the DisclosurePolicy.org site, then he would have shown that the disclosure generator allows for a much broader and more specific range of wording [oxymoron? nope!]. Shame on you Michael Arrington!!
2. You can choose to write about anything, paid or unpaid, and it only means you are giving your “review” or “endorsement” of the product. PayPerPost only provides a platform to find advertisers if you choose to make money from your opinions.
3. When PayPerPost launched, people including Michael Arrington complained that there was no disclosure requirement. Now that PayperPost has stepped up with DisclosurePolicy,org, those same people are slamming it. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
- Steve #1.
Chubbs @ #48,
Mike is not concerned about his advertisers leaving. He is concerned about the overall health of blogging credibility.
^ Yeah that kind of a nonsensical point.
What the issue is isn’t about being paid to produce specific content - IT’S DOING SO WITHOUT TELLING THE READERS.
Ads here and anywhere - including in magazines, etc. - are clearly, visibly just that: ads. The readers know. They’re aware. That’s the issue.
@ steve - are you saying that PayPerPost didn’t anticipate disclosure demands before it launched and has since, in response to backlash, put such practices in place?
I guess that would make sense, especially if you all were not familiar with traditional media policies on this kind of stuff.
Patricia, you said that perfectly.
Steve (#40) had a great point. Bloggers talk about everything, including products that they use and like FOR FREE all the time. What is wrong with me being able to write something that I was going to write anyway but instead of it being free ads for these people, I get paid? My words, my feelings, my experiences… I can’t tell you the number of times I have recommended things, sites, blogs, events, and even charity goods to others and have never seen a company or author come by to say “hey that was nice of you, thanks”. I am glad that they are now ready and willing to pay. It’s my thanks from them for all the years of free publicity. I enjoy writing for PPP because I know that the topics I choose are because they are things I would talk about anyway…or neat things I would have never even found if it had not been for PPP. It enhances my experience on the Internet as well as the experience of many of the people who read my blog.
Now, about this whole PPP bashing thing… Kudos to you for figuring out how to get more traffic to your site. I hope you get a pretty penny for all the things you have written about PPP. You must be, in order for you to take a few points and go off the charts with it instead of seeking the TRUTH about what PPP really is.
You can also go and thank PPP that they brought this post to my attention. I now get to go and put up a post about my perspective on what you wrote. You get traffic that pays you because of PPP and their involvement in refuting your heinous accusations. You really should go thank Ted and the crew.
Lapich Knewell…
Patricia, Jerome et al: I’m confused about your comments on the launch of DisclosurePolicy.org focused on increasing blog transparency rather than maintaining status quo (as Arrington is doing by refusing to adopt a Disclosure Policy).
All of your comments suggest that sponsored posts are fine with disclosure and PayPerPost is encouraging disclosure, providing tools and even PAYING people who adopt Disclosure Policies so audiences know exactly what they can expect.
With that in mind, would it be appropriate to say your comments are PRO DisclosurePolicy.org and bloggers using its tools/forums to maximize transparency? If not, what am I missing that is a problem with DisclosurePolicy.org?
TH@24: You should visit DisclosurePolicy.org before saying that TC is being forced to choose a broken Disclosure Policy or none at all. If you visit you will find that DisclosurePolicy.org makes it easier to create DPs, but the content still lies on the shoulders of the blogger. Therefore, Mike could create a DP that exactly matches his recommendations on disclosure for cash and non-cash compensation, competitors, friends etc.
Can you think of any reason Mike wouldn’t want to lay out his Disclosure Policy clearly to his readers and link to it from his pages so new readers can always find it? I sure can, but it doesn’t match his talk…
@ suni -if you knew that CNN reporters received fat checks to cover what they cover - would you find CNN to then be credible? It means that “news” can be bought and therefore, swayed by highest bidder, etc.
But again, the issue is not doing this - it’s not telling the readers you’re doing it. Reiterating now for the fourth time, that’s the point of the issue.
Maybe post an article asking your readers how they feel about you covering products for cash without telling them?
That could help share insight on how your readers will react. Most media - and this would be huge sites, like Daily Candy, etc. - seem to think readers react poorly to it and that’s why they disclose when something’s been paid for.
Hope that is helpful!
VC Dan,
Let me try to explain it plainly. DisclosurePolicy.org is an EXTERNAL reference. If an article is cash generated it should be OBVIOUSLY labelled, where the reader doesn’t need to go anywhere and check. Go to http://www.google.com and try a search. You will see results that they have indexed, and then CLEARLY LABELED “sponsor links” alerting the reader that the spot was bought. This means a lot for credibility. Google doesn’t need to list with a separate disclosure policy site.
Suni @#55 There is nothing wrong with getting paid to write! Just don’t be dodgy. Clearly make it plain to the reader without any extra effort UP FRONT that you received payment.
I feel like I’m in the twilight zone.
Disclosing is a choice and a practice, not a domain name. Oy.
i have no idea what these payperpost issues are up to.anyway good going people
There was a great article on Dateline NBC a few weeks ago whereby they created a fake product (skin pills) to create an infomercial. They were able to hire people who blatently lied about using them along with a doctor who said they were something great when all there was is jello or something on the inside. No medication at all. Do you really think if someone paid a person $10 to review their product, they would say its crap? I can tell you that in my 12 years of reviewing tech products, way before this 2.0 stuff, I have been offered money several times. I laughed and moved on. As a former accountant, I was shocked.
When we pay people for reviews or posts, we are doing a disservice to the public at large. If you look at a service like Reevoo, it only accepts reviews from people who have purchased the product. If you compare that to say Amazon, where anyone can post, including the company, you get biased reviews.
And of course, when advertisers appear on a site, would that blogger ever bash that company? Hmm, makes ya wonder. I know for me, I would/have always done the right thing before money. I turned down a huge ad deal on one of my sites because they wanted to link to scum adsense sites. Even though it may mean I have no money this month, what can I do.
And then, do we look the other way when an advertiser is on our site but providing crap for service. So bash those that don’t advertise, look the other way for those who do?
I do agree that sites like this have a responsibility to either be a leader or step down when it comes to ethics and getting policies in place. People in this space are so willing to put a stupid button saying their code is valid. Now put a button that your ethics are valid. And it is very easy for someone to do something wrong, and then after they tap the market to say “oh lets create a law to bar this” — happens tons of times in life.
@ VC Dan - i think the issue started with PPP not having a disclosure policy in place, followed by the fact that it kind of is still a little murky. I can see how this issue presents obstacles and potential threats to the company and I appreciate your being here to share insight and perspective from that end for us. But, the issue seems to still be in how you’re handling the issue - if people don’t think the policy is defined enough they can feel that way. Some may feel it’s fine.
I just think it’s going to bite everybody in the end if readers feel mislead. Right now there is a SLIM (and narrowing) opportunity for indie bloggers to really make a mark and be seen as a media outlet (to therefore generate revenue, etc.) - you can actually create a media company with success at it right now and believe me,that’s not going to be possible much longer as traditional media start to launch journalist blogs who are considered more credible to read and “safer” to give news to. Publicity firms are starting to already sway away from indie blogs, you’re seeing sites like technorati categorizing by authority, etc. - examples of your window narrowing. Throw in that you’ve got bloggers being paid to endorse something without telling people and I think you’ll see that window of opportunity narrow more.
What’s more, smart bloggers could and probably should simply reach out directly to companies in their niche, offer sponsored articles for far more than what they’re making with a service like PPP. If you don’t think you can’t find the appropriate contacts, think again.
Patricia,
First and maybe most importantly; bloggers [by their own admission] aren’t the domain of “traditional media policies” and in fact have struggled to seperate themselves from that comparison. So your correlation is moot.
Next, I don’t know what PayPerPost did or didn’t anticipate before their launch. I know what I have read since it’s launch and that tells me that they made a move to address an issue of concern from persons like yourself. Either way, it doesn’t take away from the fact that the policy is in place and people are still complaining. Like I said before - you can’t have it both ways.
Either you’re for or against disclosure and it appears as if you are for disclosure. Do I misunderstand you?
And let’s all not forget that while we are debating PayPerPost and DisclosurePolicy, we still have this little matter of Michael Arrington selectively posting only a snippet of the text from DP that serves his own purpose. That’s a true journalistic tactic … only printing part of the story so that you can skew the facts to fit your own opinion. So let’s not let the pot keep calling the kettle black. If everyone wants transparency in the blogosphere, then make sure you tell the entire story and not just the parts that make you look like you are taking the high-road. I didn’t see Michael disclose that he only reposted part of the text. Maybe we should check his disclosure policy to be certain that he states he may only print parts of the truth that fit his reality.
Oh, that’s right … he has no disclosure policy. That much I can be sure of.
So which side of the fence are you on? The self important side that complains about things but does nothing to fix them, or the side that listens and takes action?
“Oh, that’s right … he has no disclosure policy. That much I can be sure of.”
And spelling out a disclosure policy which may never be read by anyone is better?
^ I’m sorry - I’m not trying to stir up anything, just sharing my thoughts on the issue because I think it’s interesting and enjoy the debate.
I am for what is smart business overall and all signals point to paid endorsement without disclosure as a risky practice that can hurt credibility and ultimately, then, the bottom line. This isn’t generated by Patricia’s thoughts or feelings - it’s by the general response seen by the masses thus far. LonelyGirl, the Wal Mart blogs, etc. - I’ve never gone out and pushed the disclosure issue in any way, so this reaction has nothing to do with my thoughts on it or my swaying an audience. It’s how people seem to feel about it all on their own.
I don’t agree that “bloggers (by their own admission) aren’t the domain of “traditional media policies” and in fact have struggled to separate themselves” has any relevance to the argument that people react badly to paid endorsement of a product without knowing about it and its therefore potentially a bad idea to do so. If bucking traditional media policies means being paid for what you write about with telling your audience, buck away by all means - but I really don’t think that’s something most bloggers include in their drive to separate themselves from traditional media and many would probably back away from the practice if it meant a reduce in readership (which is reasonable to assume possible).
Unfortunately, blogs now are now seen as a form of media or information (much to the blogger’s benefit!) so some fair practices of course are going to be pushed on them from the audience. It doesn’t mean they have to adhere - they’re running their own show and can do things how they want. But I would be fairly confident in saying that eventually, readers (and therefore, revenue) will go to blogs they can trust - and it may not be those being paid to cover topics.
oops - last part of the sentence should read:
and it may not be those being paid to cover topics without telling their audience.
for me, it’s just a simple risk you don’t need to take. readers have traditionally reacted well to paid articles when aware of them, so bloggers can more than likely do the same without losing money or audience. everybody wins!
Yes Jerome, it is. At least they will have one … which is better than none.
Patricia, thanks for the well thought out response. I apologize if I came off abrasive.
“But I would be fairly confident in saying that eventually, readers (and therefore, revenue) will go to blogs they can trust …”
Exactly my point.
^ It’s ok! Nobody likes to hear somebody say their baby’s ugly.
including me. I like that you’re here to speak an opinion on it.
I think what PayPerPost is onto isn’t necessarily a bad idea - you’re basically the middle man in something a lot of true media already does itself (albeit with disclosure to readers). It’s similar, to me, in companies that broker product placement in movies, etc. and there seems to be a need for it.
this is an issue that would have cropped up eventually without you. but i think you will still see pretty good success even if you required bloggers to disclose because it’s a practice already adopted by consumers and media.
Steve,
You’re probably right. It probably is better to officially spell out a disclosure policy; what I was saying is that it seems arbitrary if it can’t be enforced in any way.
We live in a capitalist society folks. That means if you can figure out a way to make money legally, you are rewarded. End of story.
It really does not matter what anyone thinks about the ethical issues. PPP is here and it is going to make money. No one is going to be hurt, no one is going to die. Good blogs will continue to be good blogs. Bad blogs will continue to be bad blogs.
Should they be required to disclose? Sure! Am I going to stay up at night worrying about it? Nope.
A classic case of someone believing because they have an argument that they have justification. The key to ETHICAL PayPerPosting is HONESTY. It is possible to be honest without disclosing, even though I almost always disclose. Had a discussion on the Blog Ethics commentary on “The Last Podcast” where I explained why one might not choose to give paid-ad notice on a specific post, and it has nothing to do with deception. I encourage all bloggers to be honest, and to disclose, but that doesn’t fall on PayPerPost, it falls on the blogger. PayPerPost is a great innovation. I edited the Disclosure Policy post on my blog to be more specific about the way I post. And yes, it’s a little ironic/amusing that it’s a paid ad, but it’s marked and also serves the purpose.
Let me throw out this analogy.
When you first saw the anti-Prop 87 ad, it sounded logical, right? Then you see the ad that points out it was paid for by Chevron. Credibility of the first ad goes out the window.
Same thing here. A review that’s paid for is fundamentally similar to any advertisement you’ve ever seen. You understand it’s an ad, and you know it’s biased. EVEN if bloggers were going to write a positive review, and just want to get paid