PayPerPost Does Something Right

December 16th, 2006 at 4:06 pm

Do you think this was because of all of the pressure from blogs to change? It is good to see a company like this finally do the right thing. Good for them. I am now a Pay Per Post customer.

December 16th, 2006 at 4:35 pm

Thank you for giving credit when its due. I realize you are trying to safeguard the blogosphere, but really, we who are involved with Payperpost are, as a whole, just honest, hard working people trying to make a living doing what we love to do. Isn’t that the American dream? I’ve had full-disclosure on my site almost from the start–okay, I got a little carried away the first day, or two and didn’t, but I had no intentions of every misleading my readers. Plus I never take opportunities that require postive remarks unless I truly feel that way. In ALL instances I speak my mind on the product posted for review if I choose to take it.) Just wanted you to know that most of us are not the devil in disguise as you may think we are, trying to bilk innocent readers.

Anyway, thank you very much for your posting here.

December 16th, 2006 at 4:51 pm

-Dennis- We’re going to paint pottery and get our nails done tomorrow afternoon.

December 16th, 2006 at 5:01 pm

Get a room you two!

December 16th, 2006 at 5:20 pm

Nicely written article about a terrific company. And if anyone needs any extra nail polish, I’ve got tons of bottles sitting around.

December 16th, 2006 at 5:38 pm

It is a step in the right direction although there have been rumors going around that they’ve ctually been manufacturing some of the controversy over the last few months and have been looking to do this for quite some time now as a way to turn it all around.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see them drop the need for positive reviews in the coming months when they need another burst of free publicity from everyone who had been critiquing them.

Have we all been manipulated?

December 16th, 2006 at 5:53 pm

I think Darren is on to something. If it weren’t for this little love-hate fest with TechCrunch, I wouldn’t have heard about the company. I guess that means their strategy is working!

December 16th, 2006 at 6:17 pm

Well…irrespective of whether all this controversy about PPP was manufactured or not it at least did help them get good publicity (for free) in blogosphere., thanks to Mike and other high profile bloggers. I guess Ted owes them all.

A lesson or two to take from all this!!? Happy Holidays everyone.

December 16th, 2006 at 6:45 pm

Thank you, Mike Arrington, for writing about this policy change in a positive light. I appreciate that.

Happy Holidays to you.

December 16th, 2006 at 7:04 pm

Maybe the bloggers will get paid less then?

-Mike
Tech Tutorials: http://www.hotcoding.com

December 16th, 2006 at 8:38 pm

Service is still crap. I don’t trust them or anyone who would use this service.

December 16th, 2006 at 9:46 pm

I don’t understand what the issue with PPP is? Giving full disclosure as to that it is a paid post doesn’t really change anything. It’s pretty obvious that most of the posts that bloggers do for them are ads.

Well now it is going to be required. Why the hate still? There is obviously a market for their service. It isn’t like it is any worse than sites that use Adsense and have a bunch of ads that the site owners likely thinks are garbage. They aren’t even product reviews on there. They are basically just website reviews. It isn’t like they give the bloggers a set statement they need to make. Most bloggers aren’t going to write a review on sites that are junk. They have too many sites that come through there that actually are good to waste time on ones you don’t want to write about.

December 16th, 2006 at 10:34 pm

You know considering you hate these guys so much you sure give them a lot of link love.

If only you hated Tailrank as much

They’re totally link baiting you man!!!

Kevin

December 16th, 2006 at 11:25 pm

I like it. It might be a direction for individual bloggers …

December 16th, 2006 at 11:41 pm

It appears that the press note is yet to be issued (on Monday, as you mentioned) as I cound not find any such press note on PayPerPost site. On the other hand, I noticed some Tips for Disclosure on their blog.

December 17th, 2006 at 3:16 am

There are really two main possibilities:

1) They really thought they could get away with their no-disclosures-necessary policy, and that the blogosphere would be satisfied with their “disclosure recommended” position. I think that’s possible if they are a bunch of suits who thought they’d caught the cluetrain but in fact caught some other train.

or

2) They knew very well that their position would be highly controversial, but they decided that the early money from advertisers was more important, and besides controversy=publicity. The prepared their fall back position with the full knowledge that they would be retreating to it eventually, and have now done so, as noisily as possible.

I’m betting on the latter. Which leaves two interesting questions:

a) Given that their current fall back position is insufficiently ethical for some notable members of the blogosphere (eg, Mr Arrington) and also insignificant ones such as myself, are they going to try and stick it out at their currently position forever, or are they already preparing to fall back to more ethical positions, maybe even all the way back to the squeaky clean “You must disclose the sponsor and the relationship to pay-per-post at the beginning of the post”?

b) Will enough of the self-appointed guardians of the blogospheric noosphere forgive and/or forget their prior business strategy that the “taint” wears off, leaving a viable, now “ethical” business enriched by their prior ethical lapses?

The way I see it is that the blogosphere is currently ripe for this form of exploitation, and if PPP doesn’t do it, somebody else will. Until there’s a general widespread understanding of the damage being done by the payola market, and perhaps some form of regulation in place, it’s inevitable that people will make a fair amount of money out of it.

They’re also cleverly working the controversy angle, and they can count on the blogosphere to have a bit of a natter about them every time they change their policy on the way to finally adopting the policy they should have had in the first place. NB: DisclosurePolicy.org appears to be the key plank in their plan to leverage and monetize the controversy, primarily through the pagerank value gained by people linking to it from their disclosure pages.

That’s not to say we should just all shut up about this because it’s really not hurting them. I think, on balance, the controversy is good. It’s educational. By educating the potential stakeholders in the blogosphere payola market we are gradually shrinking its size, because it depends crucially on the naivety of stakeholders. If PPP is the only major player that comes out of a lamentable but inevitable episode in blogosphere evolution with any money at all, then we can probably claim victory. But I half suspect that like the ever more sophisticated and painful email “spam” market, blog payola will be with us for a good long time. There will be more players, and the margins will go down as the volume goes up. Dunno. Maybe I’m being pessimistic here.

Oh, before anyone jumps on me and claims I’ve got them all wrong, I acknowledge that when a blogger makes a full disclosure at the top of each sponsored post they are not part of the “payola” market. So certainly PPP enables a substantial non-payola advertorial market, it’s just that they’re trying to own the payola part of the market as well. That’s what I object to.

December 17th, 2006 at 6:30 am

“I still think that it unfairly targets the little guys. When you have an ad, like the one at the top of this very page, it doesn’t say “This is an advertisement” on it. Sure, it looks like an ad, but some do not. Some look like part of the site. I don’t see anyone up in arms about those. I don’t see anyone screaming about product placement in television or movies.
An advertisement on your site, on anyone’s site, is an endorsement of a product. Simply because it is in a nice square banner to the right, or a cute rectangle at the top does not “disclose” that it is an advertisement.
You can argue that people know it for what it is just as loudly as I can argue that my ads are clearly just that as well.

I agree that it’s nice to see some positive buzz about PPP, it’s cynical comments about the whole thing being a manufactured controversy and that it was prompted by legal threats that prove you can’t make everyone happy. Which begs the question; when will it end? ” - GUY

Guy…I could not have this better. To me the punishment seems to be coming before the crime.

The double standards are glaring and I can only assume (to get everybody on the same level) that its just a matter of time before the FTC spreads its wings.

http://www.jollyjo.org

December 17th, 2006 at 8:07 am

^ Michael - that was not meant to be a shot at you or TC. I am a huge fan of your blog.

December 17th, 2006 at 9:05 am

no, brilliant freaking Marketing Plan by PPP

Pissing off bloggers makes blogger talk about it.

December 17th, 2006 at 10:26 am

My simple solution so that I can maintain another stream of income via PayPerPost and maintain my integrity as a blogger is to never accept an opportunity that requires a positive spin, unless I truly feel that way.

It doesn’t matter WHAT it is. There are always going to be people who have ethic issues, into it for the quick buck. Forcing a company to adjust is never going to work. Forcing people to take some pride in themselves will always work. Unfortunately, that can’t be done. So, there you are……

December 17th, 2006 at 10:50 am

Ted, where’s my check?

http://www.revenews.com/jimkuk.....02537.html

December 17th, 2006 at 12:35 pm

First, I’m a little appalled at the comments that suggest traditional journalists accept money and gifts in exchange for positive reviews. Sure, there may be some out there that do, but it quite clearly goes against every ethical policy, either within their media organization or within the journalism community as a whole.

In recent years, many traditional news organizations have come out and publicized their ethical policies. Very few bloggers have yet to create such a policy, though organizations like Media Bloggers Association, are beginning to emerge. But even MBA doesn’t explictly call it an ethics policy, rather a “statement of principles,” which some of their members choose to blatantly ignore (note the “Voters Say Yes to New School” link leads to a misleading page meant to look like a Wisconsin news site).

But that’s an extreme case. Bloggers in general pride themselves on transparecy. Why then, wouldn’t they want to inform their readers of what’s really going on behind their computer screens, as well?

Secondly, I have to agree with Scott Karp on the issue of burying such disclosures within the page: “While I appreciate the impulse to credit apparent good intentions, deceptive advertising is like pregnancy — it’s not a matter of degrees. If I’m reading something and I can’t tell it was paid for because the disclosure is buried on another page — THAT’S STILL DECEPTION!”

Honestly, I don’t care if you consider yourself hardworking individuals just trying to reach the “American Dream.” Decpetion is deception.

Whether you agree with your paid review of a product or not, I think it’s only fair to hardworking consumers that they aren’t tricked into buying products based on seemingly good-faith reviews. Eventually, you’ll be ousted. To borrow from Nietzsche: You may wish for the days of coping with a bad conscience when you’re dealing with a bad reputation.

December 17th, 2006 at 1:01 pm

The next post on TechCrunch: “You” are Time magazine’s Person of the Year.

December 17th, 2006 at 2:13 pm

I can’t imagine this will be good enough for the FTC. Ever listen to car ads on the radio? Notice how much disclosure they have to cram into the end of every ad? Infomercials on radio & TV also have to disclose themselves. The FTC will eventually catch up to this they way they did with search engines re: disclosing paid links.

December 17th, 2006 at 3:47 pm

payperpost sold out when they didn’t have to. bad business move. you should’ve let the government rule first, then change…now, you’ll never know and they were bluffing….

December 17th, 2006 at 7:18 pm

You all should leave PPP alone and give them a break. I agree about the whole thing about disclosure, integrity, ethics etc. but I do not see the case of where it warrants post after post of personal attacks and rants to PPP on a personal level from Tech Crunch. Frankly I am tired of reading petty rants about PPP and would like to read about other more productive material from TC.

Michael Arrington, no offense, but I believe you should be more dignified that this — you seem to treat writing PPP posts as a way to personally attack Ted Murphy with sarcastic comments. The more you write about PPP and Ted Murphy, the more I seem to see and think that it is not just about PPP and its antics. It seems like much more than that…. that somewhere in the past, Ted Murphy crossed you the wrong way and did something to you to either embarrass, insult or something of that nature for you to have a MASSIVE personal grudge against him. If you don’t put your personal feelings in the way, you may see that there is not just PPP that are offering this kind of service to bloggers and not offering disclosure — there are multiple companies out there doing this e.g. like Blogitive as one of the other big ones. WHY have I not heard you mention it at all? They are doing the same things, why home down on just PPP rather than the hosts of companies that do the same thing i.e. not requiring disclosure etc. etc.

Your constant rants on your blog posts have really depleted the quality of what Tech Crunch is all about, it has almost brought it down to a non-professional blog level of a teenage kid ranting about his mom making him do homework instead of letting him play his gameboy. You have to stop, the more you rant and rave like a spoilt teenager, the more you’ll lose the respect and dignity. You made Tech Crunch the way it is because reported great unbias news (or what it seems like it) instead of patty rants and personal insults. That kind of writing should be in an insignificant blog like mind instead! If I want to go one step further, I may almost think that you may have a personal investment in another company like PPP, PPP has beaten you to it and has taking alot of the money away from you (that you could have made) OR that you are just bitter at us small bloggers that are taking potential advertisement revenue from you.

Also, don’t you know that the more you rant and rave about how controvertial PPP is, the more Ted Murphy is laughing all the way to the bank as he is getting free publicity from readers of you blog and the more well known PPP will be. Controversy sells, and the more you talk about PPP in this way, the longer it’ll stick around. If you want to get back at him — stop talking about him and giving him free publicity.

PPP is a company that targets low traffic, non pro bloggers like me … Yes, disclosure is not there and I understand the whole outrage over it but when it comes down to it why make such a big deal about a miniscule $5-10 non disclosed post. If it was a significant amount worth thousands of dollars I see the case for making a hue and cry about it. Also, it is such a generalization to say that if one writes a review, I he/she is paid, and it is not disclosed - that the article is not honest. Honesty comes right down to the integrity of the blog writer itself and no amount of disclosure can make it seem that it is *honest*. I am a PPP writer and I write honestly, there might be people that don’t but who are you guys to judge whether one review is honest or not just because it is a paid post and/or there is disclosure. I am very sure that articles on TC (although there is disclosure of some kind on a seperate page) has positive biasness to it as there is some kind of monetary gain from it either now or in the future, no matter how much you deny it — do I question your honesty of the article? No. Maybe I just am a naive person in giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Like I said before, I am tired of hearing about PPP this, PPP that… it is already so old. I am sure I speak for many out there too. Do your readers a favor and write about something else instead.

December 17th, 2006 at 7:45 pm

Hail Festivus! and Joyous knaffed disks 2U.

UHHHHHHHHHHHH……do I have to pay you for this comment? Or you me? Thought it was a GREAT dichotomy to have Pay Per Post (which damn well should be disclosed) and the blurb on gifts in same eekmail. Thanks, I needed a laugh.

-Marty

December 17th, 2006 at 8:51 pm

Lets see, radio stations don’t disclose their payola before hearing the same damn song 50x during my workday, movies don’t disclose the marketing “help” they receive from the many products they write into their scripts nor does Bush disclose the real reasons for going into Iraq… so why the heck should the solitary blogger, with dollar signs in their eyes and an empty fridge be so special as to be the only forthcoming people in this world?

Jon
Disclosure: I was not paid by the television broadcasters, opera theaters nor the Democrats for writing this post.

December 18th, 2006 at 7:37 am

Isnt this article generating getting lot of mileage? Was this article also paid for?
Good move or not, they sure are getting the big guns to right for them and generate moolah never the less !

December 18th, 2006 at 12:48 pm

@ Jon, the difference between what you are saying (which is completely true) and PayPerPost and other companies masking advertisements as legit media is that the readers know. I’m not sure if PayPerPost did a massive print media PR campaign to alert the press thinking it’d bring advertisers or if it just got out some other way, but something led to awareness and suddenly, readers had issues with whether or not bloggers disclose.

December 28th, 2006 at 5:56 am

Why is it that bloggers whine so much about companies “not joining the community” and then whine when they do? I can’t believe how many people are complaining about a company hearing the market and responding. Isn’t that what you want? Yet many of the comments above want to frame this as a sinister plot.

Do you honestly expect a commercial venture to not take any ethical promotional opportunity avilable to them? These guys were smart enought to see that they made a mistake, correct it, THEN turn it into an opportunity to grow and improve their position in the market.

I am a big believer in transparency, so I applaud this move by PayPerPost. And I’m REALLY glad they aren’t requiring the disclosure in EVERY post. Michael, are you serious? I don’t think anyone want’s yet another link at the bottom of blog posts to clutter things up. A visible link on the page is more than enough.