Jeff Jarvis checks in on PayPerScam... it's amazing to me that PayPerScam is resorting to the "Don't let the A-listers who made it push you around" argument. That may score you some votes in the short term from bloggers who are not building a product that is good enough to get traffic and advertising, but it's a dishonest argument.
The A-listers got to where they are in terms of traffic and advertising because they had HIGH ethics and DIDN'T sell out. Telling the up and coming bloggers that there is a shortcut is just so low in my book. IF you're an up and coming blogger who wants to make a living out of this let me tell you it is NOT easy. You have to work really hard for a year or three to make a living out of blogging. There are no shortcuts. The shortcut of selling blog posts for $10 each will make it 100% certain that you will always be looked at as a) a loser and b) someone that you can't trust.
Bloggers: take the high road. Build you audience. Put up adsense. Put up AdBrite. Get big enough for Federated Media to care about you. Then hire your own sales folks, or get a job working for an established blog.
There are a million better ways to make money--you don't have to sell your soul.
Note: I've been talking to the PayPerPost folks about how to make their service NOT destroy trust in the blogosphere. Right now my position is that any post that is paid for must say so right up top. Not on the side of your blog with some icon that no one will ever see or understand. Not at the bottom of the post where someone might miss it. Not on some blog post you did seven months ago. Every post has to be clearly marked as paid for. Anything short of that falls into the deception bucket.
Jeff Jarvis breaks down the PayPerPost debate
Recent Posts
- New of the Day - August 27 2008 (8/27/2008)
- News of the day - August 26 2008 (8/26/2008)
Reader Comments
(Page 1 of 1)2. 1. Is there a difference between paying people to submit stories to Netscape and paying people to link to you?
2. How come your own disclaimer is at the bottom of your post?
I don't have a problem with the PPP model as long as the paid for relationship is disclosed as prominently as possible. I would presume that PPP doesn't mind where it's put up as long as it isn't right next to the "client's" link. This would make it easy for search engines to find it, discount it and render the whole experiment useless.
It's about the links, not the content.
Ed
3. "The shortcut of selling blog posts for $10 each will make it 100% certain that you will always be looked at as a) a loser and b) someone that you can't trust."
That's blunt, made me laugh out loud and of course, absolutely right.
As far as Ed Lee's first question, don't answer it Jason. If people still can't comprehend the absurdity of that comparison, they don't deserve a voice in this debate.
4. >> 1. Is there a difference between paying people to
>> submit stories to Netscape and paying people to link to
>> you?
Yes, there is a huge difference. The people getting paid on Netscape have not financial stake in what they are posting and we don't tell them what to post. At payperpost someone is paying you to post something about their product--an most only accept positive reviews! At Netscape we pay folks to post any news story they want.
So, that's a huge difference.
Also, at PPP you can not disclose what you're doing... that's deception.
>> 2. How come your own disclaimer is at the bottom of
>> your post?
There is no need for a disclaimer on my blog because I'm not being paid by anyone. If I write about something you can be 100% sure it's because it's how I feel--not because I'm paid.
>> I don't have a problem with the PPP model as long as
>>the paid for relationship is disclosed as prominently as
>> possible. I would presume that PPP doesn't mind where
>> it's put up as long as it isn't right next to the
>> "client's" link. This would make it easy for search
>> engines to find it, discount it and render the whole
>> experiment useless.
Then we agree! I have no problem with PPP if they are transparent about who is advertising, who's blogging it, and that each post is clearly labeled as a paid post.
>> It's about the links, not the content.
*exactyl*
PPP is being used by advertisers to drop their text link ad price from $150-250 each to $10 each. It's one big Google Adsense scam, and Google don't like to be scammed. I'm sure the advertisers at PPP will be reported to Google as paying for inbound links and if that happens it's over for PPP.
5. Jason,
Should blogs that receive gifts (wine from Hugh, for example) be held to the same disclosure or deception standards? I wrote a long post here that wouldn't fit into your comment box: http://www.entrepreneurslife.com/thoughts/entry/payperpost-and-the-corruption-of-the-blogosphere/
Be well,
Michael Cage
P.S. I love the entrepreneurial influence you bring to the Gillmor Gang.
Posted at 3:39PM on Oct 20th 2006 by Michael Cage
6. Sad to say, but money rules the world. For what else are they doing this posts? I don't find any reason
Posted at 4:05PM on Oct 20th 2006 by Anisa
7. Are you still ranting about this? Haven't you seen anything new yet? Any brands who already have made a name in blogland and started an alike service?
Dunno, but you write how busy you are, but still find time for PPP?!
Also it is said that a eprson like you doesn't make the difference between scam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scam) and splog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splog) which would be more appropriate in this case. Could this actually be considered libel?
Sorry Jason, you know that I share your opinion in this case, but you are pushing it. Actually I do have the feeling little by little you ridiculize yourself more than PPP. Much like Cuban when he went on his YouTube rant. Of course producer doesn't like platforms like YouTube.
Lobby with the people of PPP, but give us a break before readers will do the same with your feed as they did with the feed of many PPP-posters... ditch it.
8. Jason,
You've ridden the PPP controversy/traffic long-enough I would expect you to know the following is false.
You say "at PPP you can not disclose what you're doing"
That is just wrong and multiple fully-disclosing Posties commented the last couple times you rode the PPP wave. It's one thing to share outlandish opinions, but quite another to repeatedly and publicly write known-to-be-false, defamatory statements.
It makes you look little. You can do better.
9. I was happy when PPP was just a widely used internet protocol. Oh well, my niche fun in the corner of the web had to end sometime.
Posted at 11:56PM on Oct 20th 2006 by Ryan Carter
11. I'm really finding it hard to believe that anyone, yes, anyone could be ok with the Payperpost and not disclosing. Jason is right.
Feel the same way as I do, show it with a blog honor badge.
Get your badge here:
http://www.blogkits.com/bloghonor
Posted at 10:31AM on Oct 23rd 2006 by Jim Kukral
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. As a prank, I sent PayPerPost an email saying I had a $50,000 budget and wanted to their bloggers to post the following -- "Walmart is a good corporate citizen, and what is good for WalMart is good for America." Their CEO left me a vm the next day, saying they could do the job, and achieve "positive posts that will meet my PR objectives..."
Posted at 1:24PM on Oct 20th 2006 by James Bruni