<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Blogger/Disclosure Issue</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.clicknewz.com/357/blogger-disclosure-issue/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.clicknewz.com/357/blogger-disclosure-issue/</link>
	<description>Internet Marketing blog by Lynn Terry with How-to, Tips, Reviews, Case Studies &#38; Ideas to help you succeed online. Known as the Voice of Integrity in IM...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:45:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Alice Seba</title>
		<link>http://www.clicknewz.com/357/blogger-disclosure-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-2759</link>
		<dc:creator>Alice Seba</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:06:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clicknewz.com/357/blogger-disclosure-issue/#comment-2759</guid>
		<description>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&#039;t do positive ones if you don&#039;t feel you could be positive, but I&#039;m sure there&#039;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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
<p>You don&#8217;t do positive ones if you don&#8217;t feel you could be positive, but I&#8217;m sure there&#8217;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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lynn Terry</title>
		<link>http://www.clicknewz.com/357/blogger-disclosure-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-2747</link>
		<dc:creator>Lynn Terry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:50:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clicknewz.com/357/blogger-disclosure-issue/#comment-2747</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re right Alice. As for Positive Reviews, you are referring to the &quot;Tone&quot; 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: &quot;Since you are a &#039;Postie&#039;, you must blog about our product and you must lie about it&quot;. 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&#039;s an example of a current opp that requires a Positive Tone:

&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Hot Rod, Muscle Car Show Nov. 22, Daytona Beach FL&lt;/strong&gt;
Car Enthusiast and Florida Bloggers Only - Over 5,000 hot rods, muscle cars and classic cars at the Daytona Beach Turkey Run. Check out amazing cars, buy and trade at the swap meet and attend event functions. &lt;/blockquote&gt;

I&#039;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&#039;d have no problem doing a positive write-up about the upcoming event.

Here&#039;s another example of a Positive Tone opp:

&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Article Submission site review&lt;/strong&gt;
PR8 Article Submission site review. Please review our PR8 article submission site.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

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</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re right Alice. As for Positive Reviews, you are referring to the &#8220;Tone&#8221; 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.</p>
<p>This does not in any way mean: &#8220;Since you are a &#8216;Postie&#8217;, you must blog about our product and you must lie about it&#8221;. 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.</p>
<p>If I cant write anything positive, I DONT. Here&#8217;s an example of a current opp that requires a Positive Tone:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Hot Rod, Muscle Car Show Nov. 22, Daytona Beach FL</strong><br />
Car Enthusiast and Florida Bloggers Only &#8211; Over 5,000 hot rods, muscle cars and classic cars at the Daytona Beach Turkey Run. Check out amazing cars, buy and trade at the swap meet and attend event functions. </p></blockquote>
<p>I&#8217;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&#8217;d have no problem doing a positive write-up about the upcoming event.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s another example of a Positive Tone opp:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Article Submission site review</strong><br />
PR8 Article Submission site review. Please review our PR8 article submission site.</p></blockquote>
<p>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&#8230; and take the opp fee.</p>
<p>Best,<br />
Lynn Terry</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lynn Terry</title>
		<link>http://www.clicknewz.com/357/blogger-disclosure-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-2746</link>
		<dc:creator>Lynn Terry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:38:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clicknewz.com/357/blogger-disclosure-issue/#comment-2746</guid>
		<description>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&#039;s nothing deceiving about that at all. If their salads are AWFUL and I rave about them anyway - that&#039;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&#039;s an exampe of an opportunity through PPP: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.clicknewz.com/349/cyclic-web-feeds/&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Cyclic Web Feeds&lt;/a&gt;. It is an IM related website (not a &quot;product&quot;) 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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Chris,</p>
<p>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).</p>
<p>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 &#8211; paid or not &#8211; there&#8217;s nothing deceiving about that at all. If their salads are AWFUL and I rave about them anyway &#8211; that&#8217;s deception&#8230; but who would do that??</p>
<p>I wouldnt, and I dont know anyone that would &#8211; not for a few bucks, and not when there are plenty of other things to post about that you are more in line with.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s an exampe of an opportunity through PPP: <a href="http://www.clicknewz.com/349/cyclic-web-feeds/" target="_blank">Cyclic Web Feeds</a>. It is an IM related website (not a &#8220;product&#8221;) 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.</p>
<p>Paid or not wouldnt have changed my opinion, or the fact that I blogged about it when I found that site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alice Seba</title>
		<link>http://www.clicknewz.com/357/blogger-disclosure-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-2740</link>
		<dc:creator>Alice Seba</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 04:22:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clicknewz.com/357/blogger-disclosure-issue/#comment-2740</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t agree with the opportunity for advertisers to request a positive review only. That&#039;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&#039;s just my humble opinion, of course.

It&#039;s funny because many people taking issue with the disclosure use affiliate links all the time - and rarely are they disclosed. What&#039;s the difference other than there&#039;s no certainty of getting paid through an affiliate link? 

And let&#039;s be serious, businesses ask other people to blog/write about them. Whether it&#039;s done as a simple favor, a favor is returned or money changes hands --- it happens all the time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t agree with the opportunity for advertisers to request a positive review only. That&#8217;s the only problem I have with the Pay Per Post set up. </p>
<p>The opportunity should always be neutral and then the person is getting paid for their opinion and nothing else. But that&#8217;s just my humble opinion, of course.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s funny because many people taking issue with the disclosure use affiliate links all the time &#8211; and rarely are they disclosed. What&#8217;s the difference other than there&#8217;s no certainty of getting paid through an affiliate link? </p>
<p>And let&#8217;s be serious, businesses ask other people to blog/write about them. Whether it&#8217;s done as a simple favor, a favor is returned or money changes hands &#8212; it happens all the time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Vance</title>
		<link>http://www.clicknewz.com/357/blogger-disclosure-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-2737</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Vance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 02:14:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clicknewz.com/357/blogger-disclosure-issue/#comment-2737</guid>
		<description>The problem is less with the disclosure policy and more with the fact that visitors cannot tell when a product/service/whatever is being &quot;pushed.&quot;

If you say you went to McDonald&#039;s/Burger King today, and were suprised with how many salad options they had, you&#039;re getting the word out about that company, and getting people to think of some healthy stuff on their menu.  However, visitors don&#039;t know that McDonald&#039;s/Burger King paid you eleventy billion dollars to write that.

You&#039;re deceiving visitors who view your post by not disclosing that you were specifically paid to mention McDonald&#039;s/Burger King.

If you disclose within that very post that you were paid by McDonald&#039;s/Burger King, then you&#039;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?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem is less with the disclosure policy and more with the fact that visitors cannot tell when a product/service/whatever is being &#8220;pushed.&#8221;</p>
<p>If you say you went to McDonald&#8217;s/Burger King today, and were suprised with how many salad options they had, you&#8217;re getting the word out about that company, and getting people to think of some healthy stuff on their menu.  However, visitors don&#8217;t know that McDonald&#8217;s/Burger King paid you eleventy billion dollars to write that.</p>
<p>You&#8217;re deceiving visitors who view your post by not disclosing that you were specifically paid to mention McDonald&#8217;s/Burger King.</p>
<p>If you disclose within that very post that you were paid by McDonald&#8217;s/Burger King, then you&#8217;re being more transparent, and the visitor can view your post with a more critical eye.</p>
<p>What have you been paid for mentioning in October?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
