Comments on: Frying in the PayPerPost fire storm

By: Why I’ve lost faith in Google | Swollen Pickles

Why I’ve lost faith in Google | Swollen Pickles — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 01:31:28 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Fallout from the PayPerPost Disclosure Statement announcement | Swollen Pickles

Mon, 18 Dec 2006 06:00:05 +0000

[...] There are two big winners out of the whole disclosure issue. [...]

By: VC Dan

VC Dan — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 06:21:06 +0000

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.

By: Robyn Tippins

Robyn Tippins — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:46:52 +0000

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.

By: swollenpickles

swollenpickles — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 04:18:44 +0000

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.

By: Robyn Tippins

Robyn Tippins — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:47:27 +0000

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.