PayPerPost

I'm having a bit of a moral crisis about PayPerPost?

You hear a lot about it as blogs become more popular (38% of the internet audience reads them these days). It's natural that marketers (like myself) would want to use this emerging media to promote their products and services.

I'm not really sure how I feel about this new trend. On the one hand, updating a blog takes a lot of time and effort, mostly outside your 'regular' job. It's not only the writing but also the research, staying up to date, reading other blogs, etc. It seems like for that effort, there should be some type of reward. If your endorsing a product you really believe in and your transparent about it, why not?

On the other hand, however, it seems to me that there needs to be a DMZ between what's advertising and what's editorial. I guess I feel a little bit of responsibility to be free to say what I want to say and recommend things, not because I'm being paid but because I believe in them without the influence of getting paid for them.

I don't think there is any difference between PayPerPost and the type of stunts that Jaffe Juice pulled to get a laptop and an iPhone. Compensation is compensation. I'm not saying I'm against what he did, I'm just saying it's no different than signing up for PayPerPost and soliciting advertisers who will pay for you to write positive articles about them.

I don't think you'll see any PayPerPost on ChaosScenario anytime soon. Unfortunately we're still in the 200s on the Top Marketing Blog lists. Although I'm proud of the traffic we get, it's probably not enough to get the interest of advertisers.

That's OK. I think I can speak for Cam when I say we post on this blog because we enjoy writing, learning and interacting with the people who do come to our site. It's a labor of love. (That's not to say we'd wouldn't like to pull into the Top 150, we are somewhat accomplishment oriented!) - Paul Herring

Comments

[Joseph Jaffe]

Come on Paul...there's no way the two are evenly remotely similar...and you know it.

With PPP, people are (often without disclosure) punting products and services.

With this experiment, I wasn't punting, reviewing or endorsing Real Pie Media or Custom Scoop for examples. Different for Tim Coyne, but he's way cool.

If compensation is compensation, aren't you rallying against any kind of sponsorship that isn't "traditional" i.e. no blur between church and state, live reads and/or banner advertising?

My approach has always been to take a content approach to sponsorship. Am I endorsing Real Pie Media when Kirk, Chris and myself are talking about Movie Marketing? Not at all.

At the end of the day, my little experiment was just that...an experiment. Sure I could have just hired a salesperson compensated 100% on commission who went out to Custom Scoop and secured $650 (now lower thanks to Apple :)), which then went against a live on-air read. How boring and traditional that would have been.

Surely you agree that there is a better solution out there? I'm not saying mine is the ultimate...but it's gotta be better than the status quo

[Cam Beck]

Joseph - The real beneficiary of your experiment was Apple. I presume they didn't compensate you for your endorsement of the iPhone. :)

If they had, THAT would have been closer to PPP than what you did. However, as long as you really believed in the product, I don't supposed I would have any moral objection to your endorsement, even if they did pay you.

GeekBrief.tv does this all the time with GoDaddy. They accept sponsorships from only companies who offer products or services that are meaningful to their audience and they can personally endorse themselves.

Plus, while there is transparency that the company being mentioned is a sponsor (or potential sponsor) the mention of the company is blissfully short and strangely memorable, and the endorsement is (or convincingly appears) genuine.

You can accept sponsorships from whoever you want as far as I'm concerned, with no ethical problems as long as it's clear who is paying the bills (or for the iPhone). I thought what you did worked from a self-analysis perspective. It got folks to think, as it was designed to do.

On the other hand, I thought too much energy was spent working for the real beneficiary, Apple. Your decision to go for that product instead of cash, and every discussion that was launched about the decision since, gave the iPhone some nice free publicity. Great for Apple, but for what they got, you were definitely underpaid. :)

[Paul Herring]

Actually I don't see the difference. If you read the post carefully, it talks about being transparent in both areas whether it's a guest on a show whose compensating you by giving you a product or putting a disclaimer on a blog post. It is really the same thing. You're endorsing their product by having them on your show. They paid to be on it and you're mentioning it.

I'm not necessarily against PayPerPost or what you did. Calling one 'traditional' and one 'new media' is really just a matter of opinion. Both are content driven.

Experimentation is fine. Keep it up.

[Joseph Jaffe]

Always my brother :)