PayPerPost Is Now Officially Absurd

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

1. Say No to Crack
   

   October 30th, 2006 at 12:05 am

   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.

2. Kevom
   

   October 30th, 2006 at 12:10 am

   I agree, but they don’t deserve more free press.

3. Startups.in/India
   

   October 30th, 2006 at 12:14 am

   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?

4. Anshul
   

   October 30th, 2006 at 12:17 am

   This is ridiculous. Now we have another level of posts to lookout for before finding real content.

5. VC Dan
   

   October 30th, 2006 at 12:23 am

   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!

6. Tommy
   

   October 30th, 2006 at 12:42 am

   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.

7. Ashish
   

   October 30th, 2006 at 12:49 am

   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.

8. Rian
   

   October 30th, 2006 at 12:57 am

   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..

9. Andrew Sutherland
   

   October 30th, 2006 at 1:09 am

   Aghh, what’s with the random smiling people in the bottom corner. They’re making me tear my eyeballs out.

10. Michael Arrington
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 1:10 am

    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.

11. AlineShall
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 1:15 am

    Why is it important in blogging?

    Are you kidding?

12. mike
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 1:16 am

    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.

13. Matt
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 2:23 am

    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.

14. Eric
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 2:25 am

    Take the analogy for Lonelygirl15 on YouTube, once they released the idea that everything was staged, her videos went from hits to misses.

15. Kevin Burton
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 2:33 am

    “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…

16. Olmert S.
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 2:33 am

    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.

17. Matt Burris
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 3:54 am

    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.

18. Dustin
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 4:19 am

    I agree. Go on Michael, do the disclosure policy for TC and post it here. If you have the guts that is.

19. Notsure
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 4:41 am

    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

20. BlogCruiser
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 4:46 am

    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.

21. TH
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 4:55 am

    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.

22. VC Dan
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 5:04 am

    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…

23. TH
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 5:38 am

    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.

24. Ricardo Tohmé
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 5:56 am

    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.

25. listikal
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 6:22 am

    We all need a new badge on our blogs that states “PayPerPost Safe”

26. ENVY PPP
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 6:23 am

    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!

27. Lynn Terry
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 6:27 am

    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.

28. Carrie S.
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 6:35 am

    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.

29. Geoff
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 6:40 am

    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.

30. Geoff
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 6:43 am

    Especially in light of Carrie’s comment above.

31. drk
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 6:44 am

    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 ….

32. Drew Olanoff
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 6:54 am

    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.

33. lilian
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 6:56 am

    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!

34. Drew Olanoff
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 6:57 am

    Anyone who supports this PPP bull, watch this scary and absurd video.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=lQmY-S2YmOM

    THIS got funded, people.

35. Andrew
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 7:25 am

    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.

36. Steve
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 7:26 am

    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!

37. Jerome
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 7:31 am

    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.

38. drk
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 7:39 am

    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 …

39. Steve
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 7:45 am

    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.

40. Patricia
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 8:05 am

    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.

41. Patricia
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 8:11 am

    @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.

42. Marcel
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 8:13 am

    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”…

43. Patricia
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 8:16 am

    @ 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.

44. Jerome
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 8:19 am

    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.

45. Steve
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 8:21 am

    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.

46. Patricia
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 8:34 am

    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.

47. Chubbs
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 8:45 am

    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.

48. drk
    

    October 30th, 2006 at 8:46 am

    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 poli