Frying in the PayPerPost fire storm
Yesterday I took up an easy ten buck paid post opportunity. All I had to do was read a blog post on the TechCrunch site and then write 100 words about what I thought about it. I wasn't being paid to take a side, I was being paid to post 100 words that outlined my opinion on the matter. Sounds simple doesn't it? I think if you read the post itself, you be hard pressed to argue that I was trying to hide the fact I was being paid to post. Who would have thought that a nonsensical throwaway post could provoke so much venom?
I did get a nice little write up on the Practical Blogging website. Indeed, I was quite honoured that my story was one of the "odder" stories the author had seen.
They did raise some pertinent points:
"My first reaction to the story is that 1-this fellow doesn't know who Arrington is."
This is very true. I have no idea who this guy is.
"Being that he's a tech blogger I find it highly unlikely that he's not stumbled upon TechCrunch before."
I don't really consider myself a 'tech blogger', and up until yesterday I don't think that I'd ever visited TechCrunch before.
"More likely it just didn't impress upon him the A-list status of Mike..."
So true.
"This reminds me that while we put a great deal of stock into A-list and status, the large majority of the blogsphere do not care where we rank."
Again, so very spot on!
I did not realise that an "A-list" existed, but I guess that just means my name isn't on it.
My favourite part of the post is the final throwaway line:
"Oh, and I'm NOT getting paid to write this post, by the way."
This statement might carry a great deal more weight, had it not been posted on a page full of ads served by Google, Blog Ads, Text Link Ads and Amazon. I take the point that the author wasn't receiving payment directly for posting their think piece, but, you have to wonder, with so many ads present on the page, what was the authors motivation for writing the piece? Would they be writing at all if they weren't drawing some kind of income from all the advertising on their site?
The website itself is described as "Helping bloggers and webmasters increase their income via Adsense, Affiliate Advertising and General Blogging Help". They may not be receiving payment from PayPerPost, but if you were cynical you could argue that they are using the whole issue to generate further traffic to their site, and therefore increase their own revenue.
If the spike in traffic I received to my crusty little site yesterday is any indication, then I'm sure both the parties involved in this little controversy are rubbing their hands together.
The fact is, I can sure as hell use the money to pay some bills, so when an opportunity to make some money comes along I'll take it. I wouldn't take on an opportunity if it meant promoting or saying something I wasn't comfortable with. So that's that.
p.s
To the person that asked me "whats it like, being a twopenny whore?" I don't know, perhaps you better run off and ask your mother.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Tweet This!
I hope you don’t feel you were treated unfairly in my post. I did my best to treat you well.
I submit to you that while you were not required to give a positive review yesterday, were you to take part in PPP’s normal posts you certainly would have been required to post positively. THAT IS THE MAIN ISSUE I HAVE WITH PAYPERPOST.
Yes I think bloggers, who spend hours daily, updating their blog, should be paid. I support the professional blogger, evidenced not only from my tagline you quoted above, but by the Problogwriter’s forum I host on problogwriters.com.
I do have ads on my blog, possibly more than some would like. However, I am hard on all of those companies. Currently on the homepage are several articles critical of Google adsense, scammer affiliates, and other examples of my attempt at non-bias (or at the least transparent bias).
PayPerPost would have no problem if they 1-didn’t require a positive review and 2-required disclosure of payment.
I took part in ReviewMe, and was glad to do it. Were PPP to straighten up, I might recommend it to my readers as well.
I’m not sure where the requirement for a ‘positive review’ comes from. This may be a misconception as the majority of post oppurtunities I have taken have not required a positive (or negative) review. In any case, if a positive review was required, and I did not feel comfortable giving any such an endoresment, then I would not take up the opportunity in the first place.
I don’t have an issue with declaring that a post is paid, although generally I’d say it’s fairly obvious. eg. http://www.swollenpickles.com/2006/11/02/muscle-car-marathon/
For me, PayPerPost has been a great way to help pay the hosting bills. I’m not raking in a massive web based revenue, so every little bit helps. For “D-list” bloggers like myself, PayPerPost allows me to stay online. For that I’m grateful.
The requirement for a positive review is the fact that the company can disallow your post if they don’t like it. All posts are approved by the company before they are paid. Ted has been asked about this and he concurs. The requirement is that pieces are positive, in stark contrast to ReviewMe.
Robyn: What you are saying about positive posts is just incorrect. I don’t blame you because there is plenty of misinformation out there, but it’s still wrong. PPP bloggers can post positive, negative and everything in between — and thousands get paid for doing so every single day.
Bloggers using PPP get to choose the opps that fit their experience, opinions and style — including what tone (pro/con/neutral) they are comfortable taking. Unlike onesy-twosy offers in other sponsored review networks, PPP offers a true marketplace that allows bloggers to choose the best fit for their audience from many, many active opps (rather than saying yes/no to a single offer presented to them that may or may not fit their blog).
I’d encourage you to try the system and I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised how the power resides with the blogger — as it should.
[...] There are two big winners out of the whole disclosure issue. [...]
[...] Crunch is one blog that has taken a fairly strong stance toward paid posts, with PayPerPost copping its fair share of the flak, although to be fair, a lot of their focus was on the moral issues associated with being paid to [...]