With the release of the new Disclosure Policy Generator this week, the ‘A-Listers’ are back on their PayPerPost Bashing rampage once again…
If you have been following the PayPerPost controversy across the blogosphere, then you already know that ‘disclosure’ was the one main issue with those that opposed the PayPerPost “paid blogging” model.
But now that PPP has encouraged their bloggers to create and post a Disclosure Policy on their blogs, the A-Listers are bashing that as well…
In a recent post, Michael Arrington discusses the issue, saying: “At PayPerPost, bloggers are offered cash to write about products. Disclosure is optional, and often the bloggers are required to only express positive comments.”
You are completely off base, Michael.
What Michael, and the others who are opposed to PayPerPost, dont seem to get is that ‘Posties’ (bloggers who are signed up with PPP) dont generally “shill products” at all. It’s actually more about text links within content areas. Most of the opportunities arent even about products - but rather they are about websites, events or other blogs. Things that bloggers are writing about anyway.
I think that if they reviewed PayPerPost thoroughly, and with an open mind, their opinions would change dramatically. However, I have a feeling that they are enjoying the compensation of ‘capitalizing on the controversy traffic’ more so than they are sincerely interested in the company… or the readers’ interest at all.
My 2c.
Tags: payperpost, michael arrington, techcrunch, controversy
5 responses so far ↓
Chris Vance // Oct 30, 2006 at 9:14 pm
The problem is less with the disclosure policy and more with the fact that visitors cannot tell when a product/service/whatever is being “pushed.”
If you say you went to McDonald’s/Burger King today, and were suprised with how many salad options they had, you’re getting the word out about that company, and getting people to think of some healthy stuff on their menu. However, visitors don’t know that McDonald’s/Burger King paid you eleventy billion dollars to write that.
You’re deceiving visitors who view your post by not disclosing that you were specifically paid to mention McDonald’s/Burger King.
If you disclose within that very post that you were paid by McDonald’s/Burger King, then you’re being more transparent, and the visitor can view your post with a more critical eye.
What have you been paid for mentioning in October?
Alice Seba // Oct 30, 2006 at 11:22 pm
I don’t agree with the opportunity for advertisers to request a positive review only. That’s the only problem I have with the Pay Per Post set up.
The opportunity should always be neutral and then the person is getting paid for their opinion and nothing else. But that’s just my humble opinion, of course.
It’s funny because many people taking issue with the disclosure use affiliate links all the time - and rarely are they disclosed. What’s the difference other than there’s no certainty of getting paid through an affiliate link?
And let’s be serious, businesses ask other people to blog/write about them. Whether it’s done as a simple favor, a favor is returned or money changes hands — it happens all the time.
Lynn Terry // Oct 31, 2006 at 7:38 am
Hi Chris,
Deception only comes in if you are being dishonest in any way in the context of your post (or article, or sales promotion, or etc etc etc).
If I eat a Crispy Chicken Salad from McDonalds at least once a week (and I do, for the record) and I happen to blog about my personal thoughts on it - paid or not - there’s nothing deceiving about that at all. If their salads are AWFUL and I rave about them anyway - that’s deception… but who would do that??
I wouldnt, and I dont know anyone that would - not for a few bucks, and not when there are plenty of other things to post about that you are more in line with.
Here’s an exampe of an opportunity through PPP: Cyclic Web Feeds. It is an IM related website (not a “product”) that offers a cool service and all of my personal comments on it were my own thoughts. Its something I would have blogged about regardless had I come across it any other way.
Paid or not wouldnt have changed my opinion, or the fact that I blogged about it when I found that site.
Lynn Terry // Oct 31, 2006 at 7:50 am
You’re right Alice. As for Positive Reviews, you are referring to the “Tone” required by the advertiser. When they set up an advertising campaign with PayPerPost, they can request that the tone be positive, negative, either/or, or neutral.
This does not in any way mean: “Since you are a ‘Postie’, you must blog about our product and you must lie about it”. It means that they are creating a positive buzz campaign, and Posties have the opportunity to do a write-up for them if it is a good match for them as writers, and for their readers.
If I cant write anything positive, I DONT. Here’s an example of a current opp that requires a Positive Tone:
I’m not in Florida, and the event doesnt match my Internet Marketing theme. So I dont take these opps. However, if it were a match, I’d have no problem doing a positive write-up about the upcoming event.
Here’s another example of a Positive Tone opp:
This IS a match for my blog, as we discuss Article Marketing both here and on my forum every week. If I review it, and my thoughts are NOT positive, I might post that review anyway and just not take it as a paid opp. If I review it and my thoughts ARE positive, I post it still… and take the opp fee.
Best,
Lynn Terry
Alice Seba // Oct 31, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Definitely. I did very few pay per posts, but did a bit since I knew people would ask me about it. I never even looked at the positive only opportunities for the reasons I stated above.
You don’t do positive ones if you don’t feel you could be positive, but I’m sure there’s plenty of Bloggers who simply see dollar signs. I think keeping the opportunities neutral offers more honesty and would prevent some of the negativity aimed at them.
Leave a Comment