Is the real problem with PayPerPost paid inclusion?

Jason calls out on one of his favorite whipping boys, PayPerPost:

No one likes to be deceived and PayPerPost’s “disclosure policy” is a total joke. They don’t require folks to place disclosure at the top of the blog posts–which I predict the government will force them to do–but rather have folks put a badge somewhere on their page that links to some quasi-disclaimer that says that some of the posts MAY be influenced by being paid.
What a joke.
I would have no problem with PayPerPost if they forced their bloggers to disclose that their posts were paid IN THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE POST.
Of course, the PayPerLosers will never do that because they know that their advertisers are using them because their
… and Tim Draper’s point that paid advertising had the same reaction leaves out an important point: PAID INCLUSION FAILED!!!!!!!! Hello!?!? People were so pissed off at GoTo/Overture having paid search results that they were forced to move the paid inclusion into Google-style auction based ADVERTISEMENTS.
Source: LA Times busts PayPerPost for deceptive marketing (or “Is Tim Draper in favor of deceptive marketing?!?!)

First, I will disclose that I have signed up for PPP, but I have not done any reviews there (nothing really seemed like it was worth my time or effort).  Next I will also disclose that after Jim’s post, Ted Murphy left a comment and Jim and both said we’d be interested in speaking at the conference.

So now to the meat of the post…

I think Jason has something there.  I remember in the heyday of paid inclusion people felt that they couldn’t trust search results from some providers.  I also remember listening to marketing folks wanting to buy the top position in search engines.  I never supported this.  Ever.  It just seemed fundamentally wrong to game search results that way.

Given the precedent that paid inclusion failed, would even disclosure save PPP and ReviewMe?  What about product marketers who would like to have their stuff reviewed?  Isn’t the model for a marketplace of advertisers and bloggers a good thing?  Clearly disclosure has been a big issue, but not the only issue.  I think there is a place for sponsored posts and a mechanism where companies can openly request reviews and bloggers be compensated for the time they put into those reviews.  Yes, payola could become a real problem.  Frankly it would happen anyway and has been happening for years.  Websites have promoted products without disclosing if they were being compensated since the beginning, so really this isn’t new.  It’s just that “blogging” has been held up as such a “pure” communication medium, that the thought of besmirching that purity with crass commercialism raised the hackles of many, many bloggers.

Putting this into perspective, it’s way, way too early for us to cast judgement on sponsored posts/paid reviews.  I do, however, lament that too many marketers see this as a shortcut into the blogosphere.  “Yeah will just pay people to talk about our stuff, and the blogosphere will just ignite!” Yeah, not so much.  A lot of the paid reviews I’ve read are rather thin.  No analysis, no “I tried it and here’s what I thought..”, lot’s of “This seems like an interesting idea/product…”.

It’s funny, when I ask for NFR licenses for software, it’s only after I’ve tried the software, like it, and would like to be able to do more reviews.  Sometimes I’m just given a license without asking, because I tried the software and thought it was good.  No money changes hands there, but I think everyone wins.

How do professional bloggers fit into this?  I think I might have already talked that one to death, but more companies using PPP should give blogging a try.  Really, it’s not hard.  You might be surprised with the positive comments you get.  Maybe that will be the final outcome, more companies blogging.  And that’s a good thing.

Sphere It