Slashdot Mirror
PayPerPost VC Defends Ethics of Paid Blogging
An anonymous reader writes "PayPerPost venture capitalist and board member Dan Rua defends the ethics of paid editorials. He claims PayPerPost is 'good for the internet' and is not simply blackhat SEO. Rua states that PayPerPost has blown past its milestone of 15,500 bloggers, and is earning hundreds of thousands in monthly revenue. He describes PayPerPost's most viral product yet — ReviewMyPost — which pays people to link to paid posts. The LA Times accuses PayPerPost of paying bloggers to make up fictional testimonials. For instance, the Times reports that a law firm is using PayPerPost to pay bloggers to write that a certain birth control patch is killing and injuring young women. Rua does not deny these claims, but simply states they are the exception and not the rule. How long before the FTC follows through on their promise to enforce blogger disclosure?"
How long before the FTC follows through on their promise to enforce blogger disclosure?
/.'ers.
Is that saracasm, or is this something you actually want?
I thought anonymity on the internet was an inalienable right to most
I guess it only applies to people saying things you agree with.
I'll post this as AC, while I still can.
Recent issues with blogging, such as these PayPerPost people, the scandal over the PSP blog, and recent political considerations by congress, has made me rethink my position on blogs, and I've come to a conclusion (barring other insightful thoughts from others or further pondering):
Nothing has changed. Nothing at all.
The thing is, this isn't new. Ever since blogs started, hell, ever since anyone started reviewing products, some people were bought and paid for. Previously, it wasn't this obvious. A company would send a "demo" model to a person or publication for review, and let them keep it. The publication might then want to spin the review in a positive light, in order to keep getting more freebies or get in closer to the company.
Politicians have paid companies to make commercials, or people to spread rumors or plant thoughts. In the past, companies and individuals alike have hired people to protest, likely for things they didn't even care about, to try to get something changed in their favor. Product placements are all over; celebrities get paid all the time to wear some new fashion designer's clothes to a big event to get them press.
And not just celebrities, but regular press, too; trained reporters with oversights and editors and accountability partake in these dubious activities (no, I don't have any specific examples).
All that's happened now is that it's more straight forward and available to the common public. They've cut out the middle man and the distracting cloaks and are saying "We want people to say this, we'll pay you $X, you write Y words. Any takers?".
Whether this is good or bad is up to you. My immediate position is leaning towards good, as there will probably wind up being a list of bloggers being paid to advertise products or morals. This will make it easier for those who read blogs and don't want to deal with paid posts to filter out those who do this kind of thing. More innocent ads such as "Try new BrandX Soap!" can actually help bloggers who have a good message to get out to the public, but might not be able to afford their hosting limits. (The problem, though, is over time how do they keep the advertising from blending with the real content?)
Nothing has changed, we're just doing this on a much larger scale.
On a side note, I do enjoy this quote:
15,000 bloggers just lost a large quantity of traffic.
what we need is an impartial clearinghouse to tell us which bloggers are now paid astroturfers...
it could be to blogs like another site is for general news
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Before flaming me down, I'd appreciate if you could read my post in its entirety.
I am from India and my site targets a world audience (we offer hotel booking service for Indian hotels). Its difficult for me to judge how users from other countries are liking or disliking the site and what we are doing right or wrong.
I use this service as a sort of marketing research/Focus group and the review has helped me immensely to know what needs to be changed, to make it easier for our customers abroad.
On the net, when you get a feedback, you take it very seriously as only 1 in about 1000 users who have the thought send you the feedback. But i don't want to wait knowing that 999 users may not have liked some aspect of the site. We are small and financial resources are always scarce, so this is a good way to get feedback on our site.
I actually only ask for an honest review, and in fact encourage them to blog their criticisms.
A couple of points from what i have seen.
The group of bloggers there will most probably have at least seven degrees of separation from the average slashdotter. So you got nothing to worry about ever being mis-led by them.
They honestly mention if a particular post was paid for or not.
Most of them are not anonymous.
Though an brutally honest review of the site may have been asked for, lots of them don't give one. Their editorial reads like scripted by a marketing droid.
I feel they are really not much of a threat to the blogosphere.
You should be more worried about paid, anonymous, astroturf(er)s whose sponsors are not known and their intentions are at best of times unfathomable.
I neither own any stake nor am i in any way connected (other than having used their services) to payperpost. I also am not benefited monetarily or otherwise from this post.
And the reason i am posting this under my slashdot account with my web address is because i never do anything i feel is morally repugnant and as a result got nothing to fear.
So flame away.
PS: Do any of you know of an online service where you can hire or rent a focus group which fits a SMB's budget? I would love to get more info. Thank you.
Life is a mystery. There is no point having a mystery if you are not curious.