TechCrunch today invites us to visit another pay-per-post company that was just today launched to compete with Pay Per Post, CreamAid and LoudLaunch. Mike is correct, there seems to be a recent surge or "virus" of this business model as companies continue to try to capitalize on the buzz created by the word of mouth marketing craze created in the blogosphere. This model may only be a quick fix, or a band aid for companies that really don’t understand the online experience of blogs. Blogging is not about buying bits and pieces of attention, its about participation and conversation between the company and the audience. Purchasing a post here and there is not much different than Text Link Ads or merely link purchasing for the purpose of gaining "Google Juice" as we heard from Scoble.
I must tread lightly on this subject, because we at Bloggers For Hire are paid bloggers that companies hire to sit in the pilot’s seat of their company’s blog taking the wheel of content and moderation, making sure to navigate the blogosphere without crashing into the mountain called "Mt. Transparency". I have often struggled with taking a side as to whether pay-per-post was ethical or non-ethical. My own belief is that disclosure is everything and should be the foremost of any business model that pays people to write a review or opinion of a product. This is somewhat different than our own business model at B4H, as we are under the umbrella of the company that pays our bloggers to be their representative in the blogosphere. We are a paid contractor to provide content about the company and the companies products or service. We don’t advocate our own opinions, we educate for companies. Some companies want our bloggers to be more opinionated and gain a voice that takes a stand on a principal of the company, and that is fine, as long as the blogger fits their model.Â
As I typed this I was also chatting with a client about disclosure issues and the issue of payperpost and his thoughts, and with his permission I wanted to quote him to make my point further:
…it’s only an issue when you are comparing products or recommending them." Ryan Wilson, COO, Intela.com
Is pay-per-post a "black hat" business model? Some would say that it is but they are among the purists in the blogosphere. The blogger capitalists that I speak to say that it is a great model that should be a money maker for bloggers all over and that companies should take advantage of the phenomena while they can. Other people like Mike Arrington figure differently:
"Pay-To-Shill business model is spreading like a virus." ~ Michael Arrinton
Is there a distinction about how blogs make money? Is Google Adsense a bloggers grift? Are traffic numbers and readers a number like a gold standard that can be bought and sold like cattle in a marketplace? Are links merely a currency that is exchanged by bloggers companies and search engines? All of these questions have really not been answered to everyone’s satisfaction, but I do know that some of the early adopters of these practices are walking away shaking their heads and wondering what color Jaguar they will buy. Me? I want to walk away counting those bits of money that will at least pay for that freshman year of college. I figure that with my business model I might be able to buy the books for the first semester for my oldest her first year in school. When will I need to lay out that book money? Lets just say she is 7. Perhaps I should write about those diapers we are still buying and get paid!
Tags: TechCrunch, Pay Per Post, CreamAid, LoudLaunch, Text Link Ads, Google Juice, Robert Scoble, Bloggers For Hire, B4H, Ryan Wilson, Intela, Michael Arrington
Powered by Qumana
At the end of the day I really don’t think we can thumb our noses at people who are paid to write reviews. Realistically I doubt it will become a huge business; because the bulk of people that will be interested will have less-than-popular blogs and advertisers won’t see a big ROI.
If they tell us it’s a paid post, and they’re given the freedom to be honest, then it’s up to the audience to judge the value and validity of the review. Just like we have to do with X-leaning News Television Station or X-leaning Blog or whatever.
It’s easy for very popular blog owners to say “this is a virus” but they get paid plenty to post ads on their site, which in effect shows them promoting X product or service whether they think it’s of value or not.
In the end this sort of thing self-regulates. If a blogger writes a ton of crappy reviews (paid for or not) no one is going to read them and that blogger’s reputation will be tarnished, and their blog will be useless. If a blogger writes great reviews, paid or not, then people will listen.
I like the TechCrunch model because the blogger identifies the post as an ad, and is not required to write a positive review to get paid. Any model that doesn’t require disclosure that the writer is paid is just flogging, and as the recent Wal-mart/Edelman kerkuffle showed us, it’s unethical, sleezy and ultimately, unacceptable.
I run advertising on my blog. So obviously I have no problem with bloggers making money. In fact I think bloggers who don’t want to make money are missing the boat big-time. But I believe in separation of ads and editorial before I can consider any source credible.
[...] Jim Skyped me about his recent post about the Pay-per-post model that is starting to be ratcheted up by companies like Pay Per Post, Loudcloud and Creamaid: Is pay-per-post [without disclosure] a “black hat” business model? Some would say that it is but they are among the purists in the blogosphere. The blogger capitalists that I speak to say that it is a great model that should be a money maker for bloggers all over and that companies should take advantage of the phenomena while they can. [...]
Paid enthusiast buzz agenting, aka blog whoring, is unethical, even with full disclosure and transparency.
The web is a communications and networking model based on trust, credibility, passion, authenticity.
The issues here are so simple. If you’re at a party, let’s say, and since they’re all friends, you ask the entire group if anyone knows a good dentist.
If a person raves about a dentist, you feel like you can trust his statements. But if you find out later that, though sincere and truthful, he had a two fold agenda–helping you and getting paid to hype the dentist–how would that make you feel?
Can’t we all see what is going on?
It’s the old outmoded dying model of Business As Usual, use the blogosphere as an advertising medium, exploit the blogosphere, leverage the trust that exists in the blogosphere, for greedy commercial gain.
PayPerPost is evil, unethical, and marketing suicide. WOMMA is in the same boat.
It’s not transparency or sincerity that is the main principle here. It’s hidden or blatant commercial agendas.
By the time the stupid business chumps destroy the blogosphere with such pollution, we will have moved on to better venues for candid, trustworthy, altruistic conversations.
Does a company want to promote product in the blogosphere?
Then hype your expertise, give away free samples of something, help people solve problems.
Soon, we will have to keep saying “I’m not paid in any manner to say this” whenever we compliment or criticize any product, author, music band, book, etc.
What a drag.
[...] With all the hoopla going on about companies like ReviewMe, it’s absolutely essential that you maintain the integrity of your blog and keep separate what you do for money and what you do voluntarily. TechCrunch calls pay-per-post stuff a virus, and while I think that’s harsh (and easy for an A-list blogger to say), I do think it’s important to maintain integrity and be open to what you’re doing for money (or not.) To-date I haven’t written any pay-per-post material, whatsoever. If I did, I’d tell you. [...]