Jason Calcanis is ranting about PayPerPost.com again, and I've heard enough at this point to really question his integrity. In his two most recent posts on this topic, Making PayPerPost look like the losers they are and What bloggers are saying about the PayPerPost model, Jason makes this comment:
Hold the line bloggers!
Keep the marketers out of your posts and inside the ad units!!!
It takes more work to keep your integrity, but as bloggers that is all we have--integrity. That's why we are here!
Jason's perception of and comments regarding PayPerPost are completely off base. He rarely gives any information to back his opinions... his posts are only full of name-calling and bad guesses as to what PPP is all about at best.
But what really bothers me most about all of this is that he is playing both sides of the field.... Let me show you what I mean:
In this blog post, yes - by Jason Calcanis himself - is an offer to get paid for Social Bookmarking. Jason argues "if you are going to be doing it anyway, you might as well get paid". This article was 'dugg' and here is just one of the comments left there:
Now, let me ask you, guys at the top... Why do most of your articles make it to the frontpage? Because people like what you submit. They follow you, and digg what you put out there because they know you're going to put good content out. What's going to happen when you're submitting 150 articles a month that are beneath your usual quality threshold? You're going to lose respect, and lose some, if not the majority, of your following. What happens then? You may have gained a few thousand, but in the end you screwed your digg name over.
You see, Jason Calcanis was hired on at AOL... after which he pretty much turned Netscape into a clone of Digg. 'Buying' the top users at Digg to post a minimum number of bookmarks per month (150) at Netscape says two things to me:
1) The site isnt growing well enough on its own, so changes need to be made to attract the type of users that enjoy similar sites... and 2) the quality of Netscape's content will be completely compromised by paid poster's needing to meet minimums -- which will take this site in the opposite direction.
Paul Short makes some interesting comments on his own blog at Taking the Netscape Lets Pay People to Submit Stuff one step further.
The flaw in the Netscape.com ploy to pay Digg.com ’s top story submitters is this:
They’re paying people to “submit†stuff. Wouldn’t it make more sense to mine the top Digg.com Commenters instead? Those are the people who drive the community by sparking and carrying on discussions, voting stories up or down, etc.
I’d rather have a group of passionate people writing content for my sites than submitting links any day.
Obviously anyone could make the same argument about this model that you could make about PayPerPost, which is that bloggers (or bookmarkers) who are being paid to meet quota will not produce quality results... and will just be spamming or polluting the "blogosphere".
Here's the difference:
Netscape is one "authority site" potentially filled with 'polluted' content. People who visit this site assume that the stories posted (ie 'dugg') are legitimately important based on their placement there. There is no disclosure that, say for example, the last 50 stories posted were only put there to meet a quota and are nothing more than 'fluff'.
Individual blogs, on the other hand, rise and fall on their own accord. If the writer consistently produces bad content, the blog will fail due to lack of readership. If the writer consistently produces great content, the blog will be a success because of that.
Whether or not they choose to disclose revenue sources has no real impact on whether the content is good, or whether its bad. The bloggers that will rise to the top and gain substantial readership are those that have great writing style and always give an honest opinion - even if it is just an opinion, and whether its objective or not (Jason C's own popularity is proof of that).
So let's get back to that big word Jason used: Integrity.
According to the Wictionary, integrity means steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code. Jason says "keep the marketers out of your posts!" and "integrity is all that we (bloggers) have" and "integrity is why we are here!"
All I am saying is that what Jason Calcanis has to say in regards to PayPerPost is void in my opinion, considering that what he is 'bashing' is the same as (or actually, not even as bad as) what he is proposing to do himself at Netscape.
And really, the Netscape/Digg offer is just one example of where Jason Calcanis is the pot calling the kettle black so to speak...
P.S. PayPerPost is simply a network for blog advertising. Check them out, regardless of what some of the A-Listers have to say, because they are definitely on the rise 😉
Technorati Tags: jason calcanis, netscape, digg, payperpost
About Lynn Terry
AGREED! AGREED! AGREED! AGREED! AGREED! AGREED! AGREED!
Why is no else pointing this out??
You, Lynn Terry, are a moron. If you can't see the difference between the act of submitting an actual news story to Netscape/Digg/etc and deceptively shilling for a product, then there is no point in taking your views seriously because you clearly lack any capacity for rational thought. You are a blind whore. Rock on.
Oh, before I leave you squirming for an inadequate response, here's some "integrity" directly from the PayPerPost website in their instructions to bloggers:
"Tone - as determined by the advertiser, may be positive (speaking highly of something), neutral (more factual, not overly praising or harsh), or negative (critical, unfavorable, fault-finding)."
Wild, huh?
Blind Whore? LOL I'm willing to bet that "Fran" is not really "Fran" 😉
Your response is so biased that its hard to respond to. I could easily turn that around and say:
"If you cant see the difference between deceptively voting a news story or article into popularity on an authority site and posting text links and honest opinions that are sponsored... then there is no point in taking *your* views seriously"
Sorry to disappoint you, "Fran", but you didnt leave me squirming. You just made yourself look like a desperate A-Lister that is hiding behind a womans name to make a weak point.
The purpose of this post was not to argue PayPerPost, it was to argue "integrity" and reveal a hypocritical point of view.
As for your ending comment about how PPP defines the Tone that is set for each opportunity - I dont get your point about it being "wild". A blogger reviews the opportunities, chooses the ones that apply to their blog and to them personally, and posts or passes based on the criteria required.
Many advertisers select 'neutral', meaning that you have complete editorial control over the slant of your blog post - which is how it should be. The ones that are required to be 'positive' are only taken by those that actually have something positive to say about that particular site/topic/product. The 'negative' opps are so rare that I dont think I've even run across one yet.
If you knew anything at all about PPP, you'd already know that though...
Best,
Lynn Terry
Sorry LT, the tone of your response was woefully "inadequate."
Oooooooooh, look, an IP address!!!!!! Now THAT is wild. You go girl.
Toodles,
Frana-banana
- 😆 -
Nice work 🙂
Fran, you're an anonymous, gutless troll.
I find it amusing how anonymity makes people like yourself so brave. At least Lynn has the gonads to stand by her opinions by using her real name, not an alias linked to a nonexistant page.
Lynn,
The IP address is part of a block allocated to the Herndon, VA area and the abuse email address listed is abuse at rr dot com. That info, combined with your server logs should help pull back the curtain and expose the wizard.
With Netscape we paid people to:
a) find cool stories an put them in the system--any cool stories they like.
b) kill any spam in the system
c) teach people how to use social news sites (most folks are very new to this)
We did not pay them to blog or post about Netscape, and we were always 100% up front about their role in the site.
The problem with PayPerPost is that they let folks COVERTLY market products and services. Now, some of the PAyPerPost bloggers are upfront about the fact that they are paid, but many are not. Also, the advertisers on PayPerPost can tell you that they will only pay for good reviews! hello?!
So, my issue with PPP is the covert marketing. If people are up front about it I don't really care.
No one likes to be covertly marketed to--do you?
Also, in relation to digg vs. Netscape, you know that digg is based on delicious.com right? Kevin Rose has said over and over again that he copied delicious and improved upon it. We improved upon digg, reddit, and delicious--we didn't steal the idea from digg. Voting for sites was not their innovation so we couldn't have!
In fact, even delicious copied the first wave of bookmarketing sites from the 90's... they made it better by adding tags and social software to it.
best, jason
Hi Jason,
I'm curious - will you be using full disclosure on your model? Would you consider placing text in large bold letters beside each news story that was 'placed' by one of your paid digg'ers that says "one of our contractors was paid to vote for this link"?
If you did mark each of the links or articles that 'your people' placed or bookmarked to meet their quota... it would reduce the credibility of the site dramatically. Especially considering it is an "authority site"...
Most of the PPP bloggers that I have had opportunity to visit openly talk about their association with PayPerPost. While they may not disclose each individual post as sponsored, some they do - and the rest should be worked in seamlessly. Of course, I'm not the PPP Police, and neither are you...
What I post on my own blog, I have no qualms about - whether it be through PPP, an affiliate program, or other JV or 3rd party association. I'm sure you're cool with what you're doing at Netscape as well - which I have no qualms about either, outside of this silly debate.
More than anything, I am curious what your personal interests are in regards to PayPerPost. I've come to the conclusion that you are gaining something through your incessant rants about them...
Best,
Lynn Terry
beautiful response Lynn.