I just spent an hour on other people's blogs commenting about their reactions to my PayPerPost thoughts. It hard to have the argument when folks who are getting paid by PayPerPost are doing it out of financial hardship, but I will try.
The key issue here is one of deception. PayPerPost is currently a platform for marketers to do covert and deceptive marketing. Now, you can disclose you are using the platform, but no advertiser has to date (at least according the founders who wouldn't list ONE advertiser during their interview with Mike Arrington on TalkCrunch).
The fact is no one in the world--NO ONE--wants to be covertly marketed to. Add to that the fact that PayPerPost enables people you consider your friends--or who you thought were your friends--to covertly market to you for profit. That's really evil in my book.
The fact that the investors and founders of PayPerPost will not take a stand against deceptive marketing shows what a horrible idea this is. They could easily make their process transparent. If they are so proud of what they've created (and invested in) why not list every advertiser, advertising campaign, participating blogger, and their blog posts on the PayPerPost site? I think you know the answer to that question: they would lose 99% of their advertisers. What advertiser wants to look so desperate that they have to PAY PEOPLE to COVERTLY write about them.
The best products and services in the world get written about because.. ummmm... they are the best products and services in the world. What about the average and bad products in the world you ask? Well, they either get better or they go away. No amount of marketing--covert or transparent--is gonna make people think a bad product is good.
Now, I wouldn't have half the problem--in fact I would have not problem--with PayPerPost if they did the following:
1. Made a transparent marketplace as I've described above.
2. Forced bloggers to start each PAID post with a disclaimer saying "I've been paid to write the following blog post by INSERT-ADVERTISER-NAME-HERE as part of a PayPerPost campaign. For more information on PPP and this advertiser click here."
Until PayPerPost takes a stand on deception and disclosure they, their bloggers, their investors, and their advertisers should be ostracized by the blogosphere. We should out the covert advertisers and bloggers and explain to them the mistake they are making.
I'm all for innovation in advertising and blogging, but I'm 100% against deception.
We didn't build the blogosphere to be a playground for deceptive marketers. We built the blogosphere as a place for people to share their thoughts honestly and transparently. We built it as an alternative to the shortcomings of the one-way nature of MSM (mainstream media). In fact, the currency of blogging is authenticity, and for my money the opposite of authenticity is deception.
Hold the line everyone... we're better than this and we should not give up this beautiful city that we've built just so some VCs can make a quick buck. There is NOTHING innovative about deception.
---------------
PS - Are there any lawyers out there who can speak to the legal issues around covert and deceptive marketing in other mediums?
Update 1: Peter Wright, Director of Software Development for PPP, deflects the very serious issue in a comment below. Peter: Let's have a real dialogue about this--it's important.
Update 2: PayPerPost's desperate advertisers are already being outed. PayPerPost should just end this issue and force transparency on their system. Will their system work with transparency? Well, the current advertisers--the ones who many folks think are doing it to game Google and Technorati--will run for the hills. As many folks are saying, $10 for an inbound link is $150/$250 less than SEO companies charge. PPP would have to do a LOT of hard work to make their model work transparently... however, I know exactly how to do it.
Why PayPerPost, their investors, and their advertisers should be ashamed of themselves.
Reader Comments
(Page 1 of 1)2. Awwww, no link love for me? :) And I was gentle with you, even.
I object to you saying that this is deceptive advertising as I and many others (including those who you linked to) DO disclose. Even Mike Arrington doesn't write his disclosures at the top of his posts, but he does put them in the context of the post.
I am happy to list the advertisers that I've written blog posts about and been paid for. In fact, I'm happy to THANK the advertisers on my blog. Maybe I'll even start putting stickers on my camera case with their names and URLs. I suspect the advertisers would thank me.
It's not desperate to ask for some spontaneous, uncanned feedback on a product. It's not desperate to pay for it, PROVIDED that there is no requirement that the feedback be positive.
I won't write on opportunities that require me to be positive because that indicates a lack of confidence in their product. On the other hand, I will write if they allow me the choice to be positive, negative or neutral and simply ask that I link to them. I don't view that as deceptive.
One other thing -- when I've bought the lens, I will be donating further proceeds from any PPP to charity- one of the options available to me under the PPP model. Some PPPosties are blogging for Breast Cancer. So really, calling the model and the idea evil is unfair. You should reconsider.
DnW
Posted at 4:08PM on Oct 7th 2006 by Drumsnwhistles
3. Drumsnwhistles: Yes, some folks are being upfront about disclosure. I think if you're a blogger and you don't disclose this than you are a liar, and liars get run out of town real quick in the blogosphere.
Also, I think it's great that you are giving the money to charity. If you are doing this you should have NO problem making the first sentence a warning that you're about to read a paid message (aka an advertisement).
Perhaps if people want to stick it to PPP they could signup and do tons of posts--with disclosure--and give the money to charity.
Of course, this is a Google juice scam/link farm as well in my mind. Advertisers are not doing this for traffic... they are doing it to have 1,000 blogs link into them so they can fool technorati and google.
Given that, Technorati should ban the PPP advertisers and bloggers from the index.
4. Dear Franky (above):
You prove it. I double-dog dare ya to go to my blog, read any of my PPP posts and tell me they're a lie. Prove it, buddy.
I can post photos of the backpack. I'm about to update my Addiction post to tell folks what has happened since I wrote it. I can take photos of THAT, too. I can (and did) test SingingFool.com, and in fact have gone back since and watched more -- there's a kickass David Sanborn video there that I love.
And anyone who doesn't try to hunt down and use Internet coupons is a fool. On wheels. So yeah, CouponChief was a good bet too.
Not one deceptive post in the bunch. NOT ONE LIE. You go find the lies and come back and show them to me. Until you do, what you just posted is the real lie.
DnW
Posted at 4:13PM on Oct 7th 2006 by Drumsnwhistles
5. I was going to post a long follow up to this after Jason very kindly went off on a rant on my blog too (I notice he was more polite in the comments he made to bloggers than he was to me, since I'm partly responsible for the software in question), but the comments above say it all.
One thing I will say though is that the 'disclosure' text he thinks appropriate is wrong. It implies that an advertiser required certain tone in the blog copy. *IF* disclosure comes about, then perhaps a better phrase would be "I am an ethical blogger. The views and opinions expressed in this blog are purely my own. This blog post was sponsored by PayPerPost" - since that much more accurately reflects how everything works.
Posted at 4:46PM on Oct 7th 2006 by Peter Wright
6. What is more disturbing are odd ethical interpretations. Here is a quote from a user on their forums:
"but I HAVE had competitors or unhappy customers comment on a few of my PPP entries pimping their own sites. I rejected those comments because I didn't feel it was in good taste"
And there are advertisers who apparently reject posts when they have any nofollow links (not even in the post, but the comments as well)
7. Jason, the reason advertisers don't want disclosure and PPP will never publicly list them is for SEO reasons. I think it's pretty safe to say that the only reason an advertiser uses PPP is for SEO. If the average price for getting a listing(a link) is $10, that is a steal for a paid link.
If PPP requires disclosure or publicly lists advertisers they would effectively be outing these guys to Google. They would in-turn lose all their business because no one wants to get caught buying or selling links.
I'm not saying it's right, I agree with you that is pretty shady. But it won't go away. It will probably only get worse. It seems like a lot of people could replace their incomes if they just setup a few blogs and wrote PPP posts all day.
Posted at 4:56PM on Oct 7th 2006 by Cameron Olthuis
8. No Narendra - you're completely wrong. Advertisers cannot reject blog posts. All moderation is handled by PayPerPost staff.
Posted at 4:57PM on Oct 7th 2006 by Peter Wright
9. Jason, thanks for the comment. I've yet to reply to it.. But I will.
Franky.. How can you speak for ALL of the PayPerPosters out there? How can you even say almost all PPP's are lies? You can't, because you have no proof.
I for one, go through the Opps, find the interesting ones that appeal to myself and possibly my readers, check out the requirements, service/website, and then decide whether or not I want to blog about that.
I've found quite a few interesting websites through PPP's opportunities, and I am happy that I was able to "advertise" them, and get paid for it. Win/Win.
If a reader ends up at one of my PPP via search engine, reads it, clicks through to the service and finds it useful, then great. I'm happy I was able to help the advertiser gain a consumer, as well as the consumer find the advertiser. That's the point of PPP.
If this means I am selling myself short, so be it. I'm not looking to become a millionaire or even an A-list blogger.
10. Considering the fact that you, JC, are the one who is
Posted at 5:01PM on Oct 7th 2006 by Billy The Blogging Poet
11. By the way, and seriously, Thanks for all the publicity. TO get this much coverage on a blog with a Technorati rank of 400 would normally have cost us a fortune!
You rock!
Posted at 5:02PM on Oct 7th 2006 by Peter Wright
13. People, ace it : at least 98% of the PPP posts are written just on demand without any item being effectively tested.
Peter, I thought by now you had enough free publicity on TC(Top 10).
Actually I have already written 3 times about PPP, maybe I should claim my bucks now. LMFAO. ;-)
14. Peter,
Apologies for confusing that part. I think you have a real business and could win even more momentum if you adopt Jason's ideas. A disclaimer and transparency create a dialogue.
Think about building the long term value of your company instead of short term growth. Take a lesson from Gator/Claria and don't treat numbers as the sole indicator of success. Don't be clever (e.g. Josh Stein's talk about the "free market" sorting things out), be honest and direct.
Harness the power of the blogosphere, don't leverage it.
15. Jason,
Wow, I guess my friends at Minti, Google, Vox, 30Boxes, Podtech, Netscape, Flock, Flickr, Toshiba and Wordpress will be bummed to know that I was banned from Techorati for daring to write a true post which included a paid link, since all of them got a true post with a free link but will not get the benefit of positive word-of-mouth.
I don't think PPP would feel screwed if all the proceeds paid to posters went to charity since it's one of the options we can take on each post we write. We can be paid, or we can donate.
Maybe live and let live would be nice.
Posted at 5:53PM on Oct 7th 2006 by Drumsnwhistles
16. Ho hum
What's the big deal? Where's the diff between PPP and many (if not most) affiliate deals? I post a camera review on xyz site with an affiliate link. I don't disclose that clicking on the link may earn my some moolah. I don't disclose that I'm writing this glowing review so people click on the link so I earn money. Should I be run out of town?
This is such a beat up.
Posted at 8:59PM on Oct 7th 2006 by Stuart
18. There is nothing new about paid advertising, whether it be buying/selling text links or affiliate programs or any other means.
I'm starting to wonder what Jason C's interest is in blogging about PPP so often - of course, I doubt he's going to disclose those details :P
But I'm willing to bet he's gaining something for it. Whether he's brown-nosing, getting paid or just profiting from the controversy indirectly with traffic...
Jason - your comments are completely off base. Your posts show your ignorance about PayPerPost. And your big campaign about integrity is BS in my opinion.
Posted at 10:42AM on Oct 8th 2006 by Lynn Terry
20. I had my own ad agency before I was 29; ditto one of my friends had her own PR firm. Together we did a campaign for two clients: we were responsible for 2/3 of an entire section of LOS ANGELES TIMES one day. Do you think: TIMES should have printed 'people who were paid gave us the content we're printing today'?
If so: You must be very VERY angry about nightly news. Only two --TWO reporters, of ANY/all stations, do any investigative reporting --Martha Raditz, Brian Ross, of ABCNews. All --ALL the others: take the hand-outs --of press "liason" of agencies, Pentagoons, Oval Office occupant, President of Vice, et al, and REPEAT what was written. Ergo: Your comments are black/white, naive.
Yup, I loathe blogs of/attached to mainstream newspapers, but PR is Every-where. I am Thinking about doing PPP, so I read this thread. Your comments: sound like you don't
'approve' of 'regular' advertising --but it's "OK" to put ads on HERE??? --if You have "tested" the product? Ferrari???
--'Just keep blog "pure."' --Somebody should arrest J.K. Rowling for making money off books she wrote? -Playwrites for any play put on Broadway??? Sweetie, you sound like --early-teens, NOT mid-30's.
Poppy
Posted at 1:25AM on Oct 10th 2006 by Poppy
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.
1. Jason, I have a split feeling towards PPP. Honestly, I wish the comcept were mine, because the concept economically surely is a burner, especially if Google is to punish bought links.
But there is the ethical aspect as well, ethics which aren't needed to be succesfull economically otherwise no one would buy at Walmart, Target but we'ld all still support the grocery store and not crash our own wage standard.
What bothers me most at PPP is that (almost) every single post is a lie. I can't be bothered by the blogger wanting/needing money, might delete her/his blog from my feedroll tho, but what I don't accept are the lies.
You get $3-$9 to tell a series of lies. Why lies? Has anyone ever tried any of the advertizing services/items? I once had a look at the list of opportunities and was amazed by the different items/services. But personally I could hardly review any of those because wether I got no clue in that matter, wether I need a sample to be able to judge and REVIEW.
But if I were a small ecommerce owner, having a new (small ) online shop? Approx. $2500-$3000 for a PR6... seems reasonable to me.
Posted at 4:02PM on Oct 7th 2006 by franky