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?"
I'm going to put on my Andy Rooney hat and say "you ever notice that people don't make money pressing widgets anymore? In my day, we mostly made money by manufacturing. Now we make money by blogging make believe opinions on the internet."
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:
That's fine, but a "law firm paying bloggers to lie that a birth control patch is killing people" is just unconscionable smarmy stacked on top of smarmy.
People in that law firm, and their bloggers, need to go to jail.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.