Mike Arrington's best moment: making PayPerPost look like the losers they are.

Mike Arrington had his best moment to date in an interview with the smarmy PayPerPost.com, which recently raised money to create a platform which allows advertisers to covertly pay bloggers to shill for advertisers (note: you can disclose you're using the platform--no one has that i know of). It's the worst, most evil idea to hit the blogosphere to date, and that fact that venture capitalist are rewarding it is pathetic.

However, I digress... what's great about this podcast is that Mike literally *laughs* in their faces as they try to explain why their lack of integrity is somehow balanced by "free markets." Mike keeps clocking these guys in the head with the same message--don't be covert--and these idiots keep try to defend themselves. When asked if who their advertisers are they cower because--as you might expect--the slimebucket advertisers who would use a covert marketing service don't want to be outed.

For this one episode Mike Arrington gets business podcast of the year--hands down.

Note to blogosphere: any advertiser who uses this system should be outed immediatly, brought to the town square, and be put in the digital stock.

Oct 5th 2006 2:43AM
Permalink
Email this
Linking Blogs
Comments [21]

Reader Comments

(Page 1 of 1)

1. Hope you listen to Adam Curry's adcast/show before you sign with PodShow.

There are just too many people in the new media unwillingly to separate editorial and advertising.

Posted at 5:55PM on Oct 5th 2006 by Klaus

2. at first i thought this was terrible, but honestly, after listening to this, i started to see that this is actually a good idea.

theres a good servcie here, for lots of more mundane products, services and stores that cant count on press coverage.

with some discolsure, who cares?

people are being way too dramatic about this. jason, you get a lot of traffic and attention, and that works for your business model. lots of businesses dont, and this is an interesting platform to connect with potential customers.

dont underestimate the intelligence of people reading the content to form their own opinions and keep the bloggers honest.

whats the difference between this and free swag at events? or trendsetters getting free stuff from companies?

just people trying to boost exposure.

calm down.

Posted at 6:09PM on Oct 5th 2006 by bryan

3. Re: the podcast, Mike's sincerity, genuiness, and honesty are so refreashing. That's why Techcrunch is so good. He even admits to his investment mistakes (in Overture) immediatly after criticizing PayPerPost on similar issues (disclosing "Sponsorship" above SEM links).

With that said, why doesn't PayPerPost just force neutral reviews and always allow bloggers to disclose the sponsorship? Wouldn't that take care of any authenticity issues at the advertising level (regulating blogger authencity would take away individual agency)?

I still can't figure out the company's current reasoning of "markets." Forcing "This is a paid post" doesn't make a market any less free, does it? Btw, an advertiser requiring a positive review obviously underestimates the intelligence of consumers. Therefore, why does payperpost even allow such advertisers? (I know, money talks.)

Posted at 6:46PM on Oct 5th 2006 by Blake Snow

4. Is that Mike in a glamour photo shot? :)

Posted at 7:34PM on Oct 5th 2006 by Diego

5. Underestimating the intelligence of consumers? Oh my, yes... I'll have some of that. Seems like people were talking about this a couple of years ago too.

Posted at 8:30PM on Oct 5th 2006 by Victor Agreda Jr

6. I agree with Bryan, after listening to the show I think there on to something. Personally myself if I did it (and I have thought of it) I would disclose but there are plenty of people talking about things (not necessarily directly paided for) that I believe should be disclosed so whats the difference.

If they forced disclosure would you be okay with it? Is that the only problem you have? If it isn't, and assuming they forced disclosure, what would be the difference in this and say, Techmemes new advertising? Or even the one for thisnext that is on the side of this blog with a mini mention of the sponsorship at the bottom of the group of ads (why not put it up the top?)?

JMTC
Molly

Posted at 10:04PM on Oct 5th 2006 by Phillip Molly Malone

7. I'm a PayPerPostie who discloses on each post that it's advertising, and out of about 30, I've only had one who didn't like the disclosure. PayPerPost stuck up for me, and paid me for my work anyway, despite deleting my post per the advertiser's request. This morning, I was on an online meeting with Ted Murphy, and he assured me that there will be a model coming forth for bloggers who always disclose, and advertising opportunities just for us.

I know of at least two other posties who disclose. I agree that most of the posties don't disclose, but I wouldn't put nondisclosed posts on my blog. If individual bloggers aren't disclosing, that's their ethical stance, not PayPerPost's.

Posted at 1:49PM on Oct 6th 2006 by Tor

8. Many consumers are aware that clicking on a hyperlink anywhere on a website could be something that takes them to another site and potentially an advertisement.

There are a number of contextually based ad programs that turn content text into links. These are immediately recognized as links.

There are many much older advertising mechanisms in affilliate marketing where the links are hidden or disguised (look at Amazon or CJ or linkshare or name your affilliate program aggregator ad infinetum)

Affilliate ads are rarely anounced as an ad.

That said, I post with PPP on my blog. Sometimes I disclose, sometimes I do not. I always craft my own views around the subjects regardless of the requirements of the advertiser. If the requirements don't fit my views, I don't take the opportunity.

The podcast was very good, but I'd call it a draw on both sides agreeing to disagree.

Both sides are getting a lot of attention from this open disagreement. Both sides are polarizing the fringes and drumming up more business due to the polarization. TechCrunch gets some juicy news that sparks a flame under its base and PPP gets free publicity.

If I didn't know any better, I would think that the two groups were working together. Its kind of like the Bush foreign policy. Promoting instability in the Middle East, which raises oil prices and profits of the countries that the Bush administration likes the least.

If you help your enemy, does that harm your own integrity?

Posted at 3:44PM on Oct 6th 2006 by brettbum

9. Mike Arlington in my opinion, is a harsh(heartless)... what would you called it...? "Professional blogger". Remember PayPerPost is a new company and they are just testing the water. They will do what they think is best as a company. After all companies are in business to make money and they can't make money without customers. Therefore they will do what is right. At the end, in a year or two they will be on top but... where will you be?

Posted at 9:32PM on Oct 6th 2006 by Elsy

10. I am a PPP Postie and though I feel like Mr. Arlington has a right to his opinion, I have the right to think he's an opinionated jerk. It's one thing to say you don't like something, but it takes a special kind of person to try and arrange a boycott of someone else's work because you don't like one aspect of it. That kind of bullying is usually only reserved for Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. Personally I think he feels threatened. Seriously, what does it hurt him if someone else posts ads on their own site? His precious blogosphere isn't likely to cave in upon itself over it, and frankly, I'd rather see some homegrown ads than the corporate crap that precedes every video feed. Somehow I doubt Mr. Pureheart is ad free.

I disclose. Not just because I like to talk about PPP, but because I'm proud of being a Postie. And several of the advertising opportunities are for PPP itself, some of which talk about how much I earn. The people who read my blog are certainly bright enough to know which are the personal posts and which are ads. Not many people are going to post a personal blog entry on the wonders of Dish Network or some other advertiser.

As for disclosure, I'm wondering if Mr. Crabbypants walks out of the movies whenever there's a sneaky product placement shot. Or does he just get on his whine-of-the-day blog and demand a boycott of the film. Must not see many movies, or watch TV, or get on the internet.

Posted at 11:33PM on Oct 6th 2006 by Guy

11. "Note to blogosphere: any advertiser who uses this system should be outed immediatly, brought to the town square, and be put in the digital stock."

How odd that I see alot of ads on the right side of the page. wheres that stock again

Posted at 11:45PM on Oct 6th 2006 by Marcus F. Williford

12. You have to many ads on the side of the blog, get rid of them you hipocrites. No where do you call them advertisers or sponsers.

----now to respond to your post directly ---

You know I recently shared my opinion with readrs of my blog, and asked for theirs. Out of the 35+ readers that accessed my blog that day and the 100+ since, only 1 even shared their comments. Not even one aynounomous responder. One person, who was pretty nuetrual. Positive at best. Three months ago there were a lot of negative comments all over, now the tide of opinion has changed to at least nuetrual.
The temptation is there to blog about every advertiser, but if a blogger is giving an honest review, I don't see all the negative responses any more.

Posted at 4:51AM on Oct 7th 2006 by Prince of Thrift

13. I'm also a PPPer who discloses, always have. Even those who don't, it;'s obvious that they are involved with PPP as they talk about it often, even if they don't spcifically say "hey I'm getting paid for this post." And, reading them you can usually tell which ones are paid ones and which aren't.

Posted at 10:36AM on Oct 7th 2006 by Marcy

14. Aside form being slanderous and potentially financially damagin to you, this post is just flat wrong.

Mike comes off as a twit. Like you do over on Digg.

There's nothing evil about PPP; it's just a competitor to your schemes. Paying people for blogging about things of their choosing is no less ethical than paying users to "digg" items for Netscape. Well, it is less ethical. Netscape is pathetically second-rate these days.

I disclose that I'm using the platform, and most of the bloggers i've read from PPP do as well. If this is how you always speak of others, it's no wonder no one talks to you. Since PPP's own ads pay more than the rest, typically, it's almost impossible for a blogger to not advertise they use PPP. The incentives don't work that way.

Please, Jason, please try to work a little bit and not just the MSM folks their "bloggers are lazy, worhtless and unjournalistic" line so easily, okay?

Posted at 2:02AM on Oct 8th 2006 by Erich D.

15. I don't feel there is anyything wrong with getting paid to blog of your opinion. As long as its valid and their is no pressure to be biased. As long as advertisers are not discouraging bloggers that are negative in their views of a prodcut should this practicce be controlled.

Posted at 10:21AM on Oct 8th 2006 by imran

16. This coming from you, who wanted to pay the top Digg users to contribute to your new sugar daddy, Netscape? I hardly think you should be giving lessons on integrity, Jason.

As for Arrington and his ilk, they're A-list bloggers, who will also blog about how great their sponsors are. What's the difference? You guys are just upset because now people can actually make money, and your way of doing things (aka Adsense) is going down the drain.

I'm glad you used the picture of Arrington smoking a cigar, looking pompous like the fat cat that he is.

Just to let you know, I am using Pay Per Post, and I publicly disclose it on my site.

Posted at 7:08PM on Oct 9th 2006 by Chubbs

17. Your post on this actually made me snort. So, your business model is a-ok and theirs isn't? Riiiiight. To the rest of us "regular" people in the Blogosphere, one isn't any worse than the other.

I've signed up for PayPerPost long ago, and my first post about it was a post stating I had signed up and encouraging others to do it. I've only posted a few other times, and they were all neutral, not jazzed up to make the company look good, but rather my honest opinion. I picked very selectively what I would post for. All of the other people I know that are signed up for it also have blogged many times about that is what they are doing and why.

Get over yourself.

Posted at 6:51PM on Oct 16th 2006 by Christine

18. You have got to be kidding...this is a great idea...covert marketing...It is product placement. It fives bloggers the opportunity to make some money doing what they love. without readers feeling their being marketed to. when you see tom crusie hold a bud light...thats marketing and that was paid for by budwiser. point here is that this is an amazing idea and you are just to ignorant or jeoulus to admit it.

Posted at 3:08PM on Oct 23rd 2006 by Brad

19. For the second time, I write this post. My first entry was #19, but I see it was deleted after a couple of days, guess it was not jazzy enough. Still, as mentioned before, as a single parent or two children at home, I have found that PayPerPost may prove to be a very profitable avenue for me to add to my small income. I am enjoying posting about things I know about and have experienced. I am sure that just like in real life, there are going to be people that will try and sell you a load of bull. It's still up to the individual to research whatever it is that they are looking at or into and not just walk in blindly. So, like it or not, PayPerPost is here to stay, at least for now. They have my vote on an up and coming young business!!! Glad you posted your opinion and thanks for allowing me to share mine.

Posted at 10:51PM on Nov 3rd 2006 by Susan

20. PayPerPost and every whore that works for them are part of a corrupt system. A system that will be brought down sooner than you all might think...

Watch this..!

23 23 23 23 23

Posted at 12:16PM on Dec 16th 2006 by Joshua

Add your comments

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry: inappropriate or purely promotional comments may be removed. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.