Here’s a tip: If your business is so polarizing that you have to change your name the mere passage of time doesn’t suddenly make it all mom-and-apple-pie. In the last few months I have gotten the same pitch from PayPerPost (now called Izea) all sent from different names. My favorite part is this:
“…while compensating bloggers was considered taboo a few years ago, there has been a paradigm shift in thinking over the last year…”
Really? Yeah, I guess that whole Google resetting the page rank of PayPerPost bloggers was all the way back in November 2007. I must have slipped into a coma and missed the “paradigm shift” since.
Each time I’ve gotten this email, I have written back something like, “I’m sorry, I still consider paying for coverage incredibly controversial and, for a reporter, unethical. Can you explain to me what has changed about this issue?” No response. Month or so passes, then I get the same email. I honestly don’t know if the emails are being sent to me for press consideration or as a nudge that I should sign up, because it’s just obliquely titled “suggestion” in the subject line.
So, let me address this publicly, to save the time of future Izea employees cutting and pasting the email and sending it to me again: There is no time during my life on planet earth or beyond that I will *ever* consider accepting payment for coverage. There is no circumstance or situation where I will respect a journalist who does, especially if the details of that conflict aren’t clearly disclosed. P.E.R.I.O.D.
The release backs up this assertion that it’s no longer taboo by touting Forrester Research as endorsing “compensated conversation” as a great addition to your PR and marketing strategy. The great test case? Kmart. Wow. I wouldn’t consider trading in my credibility for, say, a lifetime shopping spree at Bloomingdale’s, but it’s definitely not worth talking up the latest blue-light-specials. What’s more, I wonder how they’re measuring that “success” as I haven’t been hearing any great Kmart buzz of late…
I’ve always had massive respect for former Forrester analyst Charlene Li and current analyst Jeremiah Owyang and was shocked that the firm would endorse this. So I sent a note to Owyang who quickly sought to put it in context and with good reason. According to Sean Corcoran, who authored the research note, Forrester said that this could work and could be OK, but with strict parameters including full disclosure of the items or services being received for free, and encouraging the bloggers to be negative if they had a negative experience. At no time, did Forrester suggest that it was no longer controversial and said that journalist-bloggers should never be considered in the “compensated conversation” mix. “We write for marketers and, like it or not, this isn’t going away,” Corcoran said. “Companies were thoroughly confused, and we want to show them how to do it the right way.”
Ok, fair enough. Reviewers are frequently sent free items with the understanding that they’ll write whatever they think. They also usually have to send the item back. I’d argue there’s a world of difference between that and cash payment that’s disclosed on another page of the blog.
Interestingly, Owyang tipped TechCrunch to the company in the first post we ever wrote on them saying he had “grave concerns” but that founder Ted Murphy was not “the devil.” More interesting, the post he wrote about it at the time, is no longer available on his site. He says he never pulls any post, and that it’s an old blog and a Web hosting problem. (I believe him.) He also notes that he wrote that in the early PayPerPost days when it was an undeniably shadier service with no disclosure rules.
As is clear from Forrester’s careful clarification, the problem with the thinking here– well, one of them– is that it lumps “bloggers” into one category. In reality, blogging is a tool that lots of professionals use, not really one profession. There are bloggers– like the ones at TechCrunch– who are independent journalists and then there are bloggers like Owyang who write about the industry and have smart things to say, but also get paid by clients. Then there are corporate bloggers or in-house employees who write about their companies’ news. It’s basically a more conversational press release and there’s nothing wrong with it, because you go to it realizing the company is going to put itself in the best light.
In each case these are professionals using a conversational tool to get across a given message. As long as we get what they do for a living, there’s no harm or foul. I appreciate the insight of an analyst, and more openness from reading blog posts written by companies like Google or Twitter.
Then, there’s the Izea concept: Sure it’s been tweaked to include vague disclosures, but as seen by how they positioned Forrester in this release, there’s just an underlying shadiness to the venture. Just go away. Or at least stop emailing me.
(For Michael’s endless rants on the subject, go here.)
Changes, Changes, cant we all just get along.
Sarah’s sarcasm is backed up with qualified content, so I say bring it…
She’s a hypocrite. She put in affiliate links to her own products on a recent techcrunch post. She didn’t disclose she was doing this either (the affiliate link to Amazon, not everyone’s a super sleuth and understands URL parameters, she should have disclosed this).
So Sarah, you are as bad as the people you are complaining about, perhaps worse because of your hypocrisy.
Zing. I still can’t believe that.
It’s fantasy to think that any advertising funded site (ahem! TechCrunch) isn’t already …functionally….pay per post. Let’s say you run a typical blog site and pay your bloggers $15-$75 per post to find and report on interesting topics. You fund these posts with the ads you sell. Eventually if you target a vertical niche……like start ups…. you will get endemic advertisers…..you know…start ups…. that will be willing to pay to get coverage.
Look at the Magazines, they’re already there. Endemic advertisers want editorial coverage, and the editors say “we can’t write for free, it’s pay to play”, so in order to have your camera covered, you have to advertise in our book. Granted the magazine industry is in the toilet, but that has more to do with the disruption of the Internet rather than faults in their model.
Right. Owyang and the other “analysts” are also pay-to-play, in the sense that their time is dominated by paying clients, so their opportunities to listen to other voices are limited. And, since offending paying clients is not a good plan, you’ll often see analysts soft-pedaling criticism of same, or providing “the other side” of an argument when there’s no justification for it (kind of like a science news report that gives Creationists equal time).
Its good to know your credibility is not for sale.
But I have to say it was too long. I stopped reading after your public address.
Same here. More pictures, less words next time.
This is America for crying out loud.
Come now, a slightly involving post is nice for a change!
“…I’ve always had massive respect for former Forrester analyst Charlene Li and current analyst Jeremiah Owyang and was shocked…”
Respect eh? The above mentioned analysts are pay to play whores. The analyst stables are pimps. I have interviewed at several, was offered VP at two, and always asked what the model was. First of all, all of the whore / analysts are expected to close business, although they are helped / pimped by the sales crew. Second, they can never talk down their ‘book of vendors”.
How these companies survive is beyond me – magic quadrant my hairy Jewboy ass. They take blood money, worse than paid bloggers, because they confer some stink of legitimacy.
I don’t know how they do it, and I don’t see how vendors account for the taint.
Alan, this kind of response is uncalled for. Lumping all analysts together as pay for play whores really tells me you don’t know how analyst firms work. No good analyst would ever write something positive about something they really thought was negative. Analysts talk down their book of vendors all the time. Why? Because we have global manufacturing and retail clients that are making million-dollar decisions partially based on our research. Furthermore, we get grief all the time from vendors when we express our honest opinion and yet we continue to do so. Until you’ve done some honest and critical research and then had to explain it to the executives of a billion-dollar software and services company, please keep your opinion to yourself. And yes, for full disclosure, I’m a research analyst.
I’ve a got a portfolio that would choke a horse, and I know the business. I can’t remember the last time a retained client of one of the notable whore shops wrote a negative thing about a client in their book.
The sponsored white papers, the backgrounders, the “magic quadrants”. Please, give me break. If you are an honest analyst, good for you – but the industry as a whole, as a major majority, it tainted, and your righteous indignation does nothing to mollify ME, sir.
With the exception of self sponsored, internally sourced, quantitative research (which is expensive to compile for the truly independent analyst), the whole business stinks.
Keep cheering for the team, keep taking the money, sleep well.
I got to this post from Michael Gray’s comments on his blog. (which by the way he says Sarah is deleting his comments and avoid him – but that’s not my business.) Anyway.. Sarah you seem to be teetering on the edge yourself. What about your paid trip to Israel? Isn’t that similar to pay per post.
Here is your damned honest and critical research, don’t tell me what I know and don’t know, I have been around this industry and told more than one paying client that I would not take pay to play – it has cost me:
http://www.scri...ly-Chain-EDIXML
http://www.scri...-Media-Metrics-
Well, for what it’s worth, of all the bad analyst shops, AMR is least bad. There, feel better?
Yes, oddly enough that does make me feel better, lol. I guess I just don’t understand why you get so angry about it. There are other dynamics going on. Don’t forget it’s not just about the written research. We have an advisory side to the business as well. Think about this scenario: I only have time to write one article and I’ve got two potentials. One is about a great new technology that I truly feel offers value to customers (e.g., Kiva Systems), and the other is a total piece of junk. Personally, I think it’s more helpful and more fun to write about the cool new technology and save my opinion on the other for the conversations with clients. Is that really so terrible? It’s certainly not pay for play.
So what is the difference between getting paid out right for promoting a product or promoting a product where you are getting affiliate commissions?
No difference buddy.
Look at it this way. Its like Politicians and big buisness. Case Study Is Robert Rubin Tresury Sectrary under Clinton.
Mr Rubin was instrumental in starting the whole derivatives, deregulation mess the economy is in. When he left office, he was rewarded handsomly, even though he’s not a handsome guy.
The conclusion is, these type of actions cannot be guarded against.
MP said…
starting the whole derivatives
And what is wrong with derivatives? State your case and show me studies that trading derivatives is something evil? Trading in stock price is no different from trading derivative. They all based on future uncertainty and if someone can somehow read the future like a psychic, then there won’t be any trading taking place in the financial markets at all.
Look, derivatives has been with us for around 2000 years and there was never any problem with it. People always look to blame something for the cause of a problem.
The economy was messed up by government interference and not Wall Street as you might have been misguided to believe by journalists who don’t do their homework. Here is an example of government interference that lead to the financial crisis of today:
Clinton Democrats are to blame for the credit crunch
There are more articles on the net that point directly to government interference for the economic mess that we see today. I can point you out to those sites for a more reason argument about this financial crisis and its causes.
dsfffffffffff dfDSF
Classic piece Sarah! I ran across one of these on google and quickly found out there are a few of these companies in service.
I am a big supporter of the blogosphere because unlike musicians, writers are taking the revolution by the horns and now the newspapers are desperately playing catch up.
I know Mike has been accused of taking “blogola” in the past, but it reassures me that you addressed this BS. You will always have politics in any line of business, but I would never read TC again if I ever found out there is blogola going on here even for high paying advertizers.
Awesome.
Honestly, I thought pay per post was dead (regardless of what name they go by). At one point I had a line on my about page that I don’t accept cash for posts but no one reads my blog anyway so it was mostly self-serving.
Scary to think this is still around.
Mike,
I am not aware of anyone on our team who would be contacting you. You are on our “do not call” list.
At the same time, I would like to point out the irony of this post. TechCrunch absolutely takes compensation for content. How about this TC post for the movie WANTED?
http://urlbrief.com/978adb
Not to mention all the “thank our sponsor posts”. If its not paid content why does it appear in the editorial stream?
Bloggers and advertisers may choose to do sponsored conversations in different ways, but as long as it is in the editorial stream it is all paid coverage.
I would like to add that I completely agree with you on the disclosure issue. It is something we continue to champion, pushing for higher standards and adoption among all players in the industry.
I have to aree on some level with you.
Was Techcrunch paid to have the “free showing”?
In that article it says ” Video comments get bonus points” and Mike owns stake in the Video response service….
I hate to agree as well, but he has a point — Techcrunch has numerous “give away” posts and integrations of partners for $$.
Even Google was caught paying for posts on blogs in an Asian sub-division.
As long as Izea discloses properly I dont see the problem.
I’d like to hear TC’s response to this point.
Don’t hold your breath, they don’t debate well. Only hurl baseless accusations and take a holier-than-thou stance on pretty much anything involving blogging/ppp.
As most people accurately point out, what PPP/Izea is doing is the same as what big media (TC included) does every day. They (Izea) just level the playing field so we call can play, and require disclosure (something no big media company will ever do).
About IZEA:
“IZEA is a social media marketing company and the world leader in sponsored conversations. We operate a network of over 250,000 bloggers and 25,000 advertisers around the globe. We create buzz, drive traffic and deliver ROI.”
They lobby bloggers
. If politicians can be bought, why can’t bloggers?
Not that I believe TC is bought or not. I do not know nor do I care.
Along those lines, serious journalists are also being bought every day but that’s certainly not disclosed either.
I’m not saying IZEA is the bad guy here, they’re just providing a tool to let corrupt bloggers make more money.
Sometimes the middleman gets the flack while companies and bloggers that do this don’t get put in the spotlight.
They (Izea) provide a tool for small-time bloggers who don’t cut private ad deals and don’t make enough from AdSense to do regular normal things, like pay their bills and live their lives.
Any blogger who is making decent money moves to the TC model where the money is exchanged behind closed doors and everyone is ignorant and happy.
I honestly had no idea Chris Pirillo did pay per post ads. I don’t subscribe to his RSS feed. sigh.
Anyone want to go to IZEA Fest 2009?
http://izeafest.com/ We can learn how to make money!!!
Hiring a PR agency will get you on TechCrunch. Hiring Izea will get you on smaller blogs.
You pay for coverage one way or another. Sarah just doesn’t like that Izea disrupts the normal flow.
Sarah,
I apologize. I just noticed that this wasn’t written by Mike. Can you drop me an email? I would like to understand who has been contacting you and have an open discussion if you are up to it.
Sponsored conversations aren’t a good fit for all blogs or bloggers, but I believe they do fill a need when they are properly disclosed and authentic.
“sponsored conversations”…nice spin.
woot!
“this comment is sponsored by Crocs”
I have to agree with Sarah. Where it’s paid, it should be labeled advertising. It just avoids weirdness. If there are new ways to circumvent that, then any disclosures should be made up front, so that readers/viewers can make up their own minds. Plenty of people still ante up for products after viewing infomercials — they’re cool with what amounts to a paid celebrity endorsement.
You’re not agreeing with Sarah. Her point isn’t that it should be labeled as advertising. PayPerPost/Izea requires that.
Sarah is saying that it’s not ok to accept payment for coverage. This of course flies in the face of what she and TechCrunch do on a regular basis (for example with their movie ticket give aways, Sarah dropping aff links for her book in a story lead, etc.)
The hypocrisy is overwhelming & yet TechCrunch & Sarah (it’s all about me) Lacy continue to act as if they’re above the rules they try to set for everyone else.
Don’t even get me started here!
the coolest girl on the planet
Why would you broadcast your daughters name on a website, and then have a link to your site and your name? It would not be hard for a pediphile perv to track down you, your address, and well go after your kid.
the coolest girl on the planet
I really don’t see any differance bettween paid display advertising and payperpost. As long as the post is disclosed to be PPP, then I don’t see a problem. Just about every blog, including techcrunch as some form of advertising in their content stream. It is your progative to not accept PPP, but, just because you choose not to, it doesn’t mean PPP is bad.
As long as a post is CLEARLY marked as sponsored and the relationship explained I don’t think its a bad model. I might suggest that this is a better model than display ads again as long the editorial integrity is kept by making sure the reader knows that this is a paid sponsor. As a reader, I would prefer that to flashing banner ads.
TechCrunch will often publish a “thank you to our sponsors” which quickly describes their key sponsors in a post. Clear to me as a reader that this is part of what they pay for, I can skip it if I want but I actually learn more about TC sponsors through those posts than I do from the display ads.
Well, I don’t think this is so bad. If you have a small budget or are bootstrapped its almost impossible to get press(Techcrunch will ignore you for sure, unless you write something related to the twitter api.). So why not just hire these guys to help get the word out.
Getting journalists attention almost usually requires a PR firm which costs 15k a month. So tell me then, whats a non funded bootstrapped startup to do?
Yeah, this whole news media business model works so well too. Everyone in the blogosphere should copy what journalists do (to get laid off).
The reality is that most bloggers these days are not journalists so this article is really preaching to a small audience.
Sure, but does this apply to bloggers with A cups?
That’s a -great- article image.
You commenters, well, most of you, are so full of garbage I’m choking on my dinner.
For a change, I am in full agreement with Ms. Lacy.
Pay-per-post services are totally unethical. No self-respecting PR person would EVER use them. I had such a service shoved down my throat by the “ecommerce” team at my former company, and I refused to participate. The company used them anyways (got approved in the non-PR budget), and the results were junk posts. Whereas the legit blogs like TC moved the needle. Finally I got my way and the vendor was fired.
There is NO comparison between the types of advertising that blogs like TC accept and pay per post. Journos at TC don’t ask for money when I pitch them stories. They mostly cover companies that don’t advertise, and often DONT cover companies that do. The Chinese wall may not be as unpenetrable as in the old days, but the general rules still apply. All you morons who are trying to draw comparisons between accepting advertising and taking money to shill a product (even if disclosed) are just that, morons.
and yes, now i feel oddly cleansed. Thanks.
You must have missed the affiliate links Sarah Lacy inserted in her recent article about Twitter (on TechCrunch) – that’s affiliate links to her own book – talk about double-dipping.
So Sarah Lacy is a hypocrite as she is astro-turfing almost everytime she writes about something. This is the FIRST article I’ve seen of hers on TechCrunch that doesn’t link to a “buy now” page of one of her books.
And no, she never discloses exactly what she’s doing – we’re lead to believe these links are somehow relevant to her article (which they never are).
Sarah, what would you call it if a blog accepted gifts or products in exchange for covering or mentioning a site?
Based on your rant I’m guessing you’d be against that sort of thing.
Unfortunately, that’s precisely what TC has done on several occasions (for example the recent Star Trek ticket giveaway).
I guess that makes everyone an idiot but you huh?
Quit being chicken little.
Dining and wining is also a method of payment. These methods have existed for journalists since ever and probably still exist as well as for bloggers.
Who paid you a lunch lately?
It’s a good thing that, 7 posts after this one, with its “I haven’t been hearing any great Kmart buzz of late…”, TechCrunch featured a story about KMart.
http://www.tech...are-on-aisle-3/
What does it take to be a Sarah Lacy cheerleader? Are there tryouts? I have to say that I have stopped reading your articles and go directly to the comments to read the ‘great post’ or ‘wonderful research’ that is littered within the postings. This time it is “Classic piece” and “Awesome”.
Maybe I am just getting old and cynical but this is a classic Faux News piece. Sure you are not taking cash directly from a fat cat but….
Exactly. “The lady doth protest too much” at pay per post, doesn’t she?
She is try to portray herself as being “squeaky clean” by writing this article and pointing fingers elsewhere. Talk about misdirection. Sarah Lacy is ruthless in her self-promotion, and shamelessly affiliate links out to her own products on articles on techcrunch.com – evidence abounds (just look up her articles).
Well, I agree but apparently the “experts’ that you have on this blog are not aligned with you. Consider Neil Patel
http://socialsp...quicksprout-com
He was touted as a consultant to Techcrunch recently in the guest post he wrote. I guess he never mentioned that he charges for posts on his blog. I guess he will write for the highest bidder. Ethics and journalism are reaching a sad day indeed.
So where’s the follow up Sarah? You’ve been called out. Or did you meet Techcrunch’s traffic quota and that’s all that’s required of your “journalistic integrity”.
It’s funny watching Techcrunch take jabs at Payperpost whenever traffic gets low. Federated Media pulled out and they become more and more irrelevant every day. I wonder how they will enjoy a dip in their own deadpool.
Here’s how to get covered by TechCrunch, http://www.medi...crunched-part-1