Andy Beard left this awesome comment one the post announcing the show yesterday (if you’d like to listen to the show–listen to Shel Israel really–I have the show archived here):
I caught the end of the show and then listened to the recording.
I would love to know what you guys think of
1. People thanking their advertisers with followable links
2. People frequently tell me I undercharge for the amount of time and effort I put into all my reviews, so that would make any links I supply in a review purely editorial (which is what I firmly believe) – I write my reviews partially as a kind of consultancy, but also to demonstrate that compensated reviews can be high quality, whether compensated by affiliate sales or by a direct payment.
3. Free software which is monetized by the links (many notable Open Source Projects)
4. Providing links to people who pay you a retainer as a consultant. When you get someone like Rand Fishkin mentioning a few of his clients in a blog post and deliberately (that is what it seems to me) not including a link to them, then policies on linking really need to be specifically clarified on a blog that doesn?t have a legal disclaimer
5. Links from charities where you donate
6. Other forms of donations to people who decide to give you a link backEverything about the discussion was very much “black & white” whereas in fact there are so many shades of grey that are perfectly acceptable, and actually in many ways darker than a comprehensive review written for some kind of compensation.
Does a company like Hewlett Packard or Universal Music Group really need to buy links for SEO, or is it really just for Buzz?
I told Andy in a comment that his comment was worth a post of its own, so without further ado…
Andy is bang on, these issues are not black and white. We covered this complex issue in about 20 minutes and didn’t have alternate points of view on for discussion. Can we do that? You freakin’ bet we can!
This might be a post where Jim and I don’t agree 100% (which is good), but IMHO I don’t have a problem with, and often do, thank advertisers with a link in a post and we (Jim and I) do link to clients. Part of it is SEO, but a lot of it is so you can visit their blog! Same for charities. If I support them, I link to them. Again I’m not thinking about an SEO benefit, I’m thinking about people finding the charity. This is probably why I didn’t even think about PPP posts being Google gaming bait.
I agree Andy, I think the cost to a company for a review is pretty paltry. Heck if I’m given a piece of software for free I’ll review it. A free copy doesn’t buy me or a good review, but I will take the time to give it a good shot. I don’t think a review on one of my blogs is equal, though, to one on yours Andy, so … well maybe I’m priced about right.
I also don’t mind links in free software in lieu of paying. Now, the bigger question is whether or not they work. That I don’t know.
As for large companies…no they don’t need the SEO, buzz, sure, SEO no. Frankly the big companies have the budgets and connections to get stuff in our hands.
I’m sure this post will bring up more questions than it answers, but hey that’s a good thing of course. If we need to do the next radio show on this topic again … so be it.
Update: Lots of great comments on this post (as I had hoped). Connected Internet poses more questions on this topic as well. One thread is why not go direct instead of through TLA or PPP:
I really can’t see the logic of signing up to the scheme. If an advertiser has decided based upon looking at your site that they want to buy a review, then why not just do the deal directly and keep all the money? By all means keep your site listed in the PPP directory so that you don’t miss out on any potential reviews that might come in via that route, but I really think that any advertising sales generated via your site should be done directly. If you’ve generated the sales lead directly, then why pay commission?
Technorati Tags: Social Media, Web 2.0, PPP, PayPerPost, Shel Israel, sponsored posts
You are crossing into territory that might disappoint Shel, just as Robert Scoble’s plans to speak at Postiecon disappointed him..
As an example I am of the opinion that Microsoft were fairly silly giving out 100 or so free laptops to A listers.
That has real cost unless they got them for free (which is possible)
That is 300,000 worth of laptops.
What they could have done is provided an electronic download version of Vista to 25000 PayPerPost bloggers in some way, even without any payment, or with some minimum payment just to partially cover their time in writing something, because it would never cover the time needed to actually test the product.
Cost to Microsoft?
Probably about the same and no negative feedback, because they probably also give out so many other free copies to every member of the press that they could never say anything negative about it.
PR benefit to Microsoft?
In my opinion much greater than the laptops, and it is possible they would have got as much good feedback as well, because there are actually some very technical bloggers writing for PayPerPost who have done tech support for Fortune 500 companies, work in IT with government departments worldwide etc.
So who out of Yahoo and Microsoft do you think will buy PPP this year? (or the merged entity)
In fact it would be good business for Google to buy all the paid post and paid link companies this year, and switch all to use nofollow, just to defend their algorithms, but possibly because they offer an advertising platform that isn’t blocked by Ad blockers.
The reason Yahoo or Microsoft would buy them… to put it bluntly it would p.ss Google off, and it would be very disruptive of Google’s algorithms.
Ah so much to say here, and such a small print box to say it in.
1. I was disappointed in Scoble’s (now-reversed) decision to speak at ppp’s conference because it added legitimacy and attention to an organization that does not merit it in my opinion.
2. Microsoft could not allow downloads because Vista needs to be installed on a new machine to work properly. Microsoft wanted to be reviewed by the best and most credible people it could find, and they would not have been found at PPP. It made an error of generosity which blew up in it’s face.
3. Saying thanks to your sponsor is a time honored tradition. However it has very small impact on the audience that hear or see it.
4. For me not to snarl or sneer at what any of the three of you do, all you have to do is be transparent. Let your readers decide if its a good thing based on that transparency. If they like it, you will grow and prosper. if they don’t then your endeavor with atrophy itself and die. I am not some vigilante sniffing and testing every tactic. I trust audience response to do that.
I can see this is going to take a blog post of my own. I’ll see if i can write a post between diaper changes and around nap time.
Jim,
Use a Blackberry and type one handed.