PayPerPost dragging blogs down
Cory Bergman October 30th, 2006
It’s one of a handful of slimy, new services that pays bloggers to write positively about new products, and disclosure is optional. TechCrunch points out that PayPerPost just added a “disclosure policy” of sorts, but it’s displayed on a separate page and really doesn’t explain what’s going on. Blogs have a hard enough time gaining respect as it is, especially in media circles, so it’s certainly disheartening to hear companies like PayPerPost getting plenty of funding to do this.
14 Comments Add your own
1. Vinny | October 30th, 2006 at 10:29 am
On one hand I agree it’s slimy. On the other hand, I have a hard time believing it’s anything new. It’s just more obvious now.
2. VC Dan | October 30th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
It looks like Mike’s competitive FUD confused the whole announcement so you missed the point.
DisclosurePolicy.org was launched today to HELP people disclose, even including a Disclosure Policy generator to HELP create the bulk of a good DP (although blogger editing/voice is encouraged). I blogged about this at blog.disclosurepolicy.org. There are also forums and best practices so bloggers can hear various views before drafting their DP. This is obviously a move towards more transparency in the blogosphere, but then again it’s not as controversial as FUD
Given your strong feelings on the topic, check out DisclosurePolicy.org and I’d love to see you lead by example with a clearly linked Disclosure Policy on your blog.
3. Vinny | October 30th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Bull.
Shit.
Here’s how you promote disclosure:
Require (key word there, means you don’t give people options) it to be stated on every post that the review / post is a paid one.
There’s no fear / uncertainty / doubt. PPP is slimy. Creating a silly voluntary site and then recommending its use is not disclosure or transparency. For example, such disclosure appears nowhere in the list of requirements:
I wouldn’t expect it to, though, because you wouldn’t want it to appear that paid shills were pumping up products for profit.
Then you turn it around on this site, which I think is funny. They disclose their relationships and potential conflicts of interest any time they arise. They did it long before you created your little project to try to mitigate the deception PPP employs with its practices.
Please. Next time you want to lecture someone, look inward. How about pushing PPP to take a stronger stand on your own and requiring it rather than politely asking and making it voluntary?
Of course, I never expect more than sleaze from VC’s anyway, so I know that’s not an option.
4. Steve Safran | October 30th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Thank you Dan, but no. Rather than linking to a generic disclosure policy, we follow the best practices of journalism. Anyone who has read LR for any period of time knows that we disclose any potential connections or conflicts in every story. (Truth is, we often pass stories to each other, rather than risking conflict. Sometimes we won\’t write a story at all)
We are completely transparent. We don’t get paid to post, and we sure as hell don’t pay others to post. When we’re wrong, we make the correction. A disclosure policy is a red herring. Nobody reads the things. It’s CYA, and that’s all.
What is far more important is trust. You can’t get trust by a boilerplate page that comforts yourself. You get trust by building a relationship with your audience. That takes time and effort. A ”disclosure policy generator” sounds like one of those joke sites. You know - the ones that make up sentences like ”Maximize Syngergy Seachanges.” You don’t automate or generate trust.
While I strongly oppose what PayPerPost does, you have every right to do so. I object, however, to the implication that there is some purity by leadership in having a disclosure policy link.
No soap gets your hands perfectly clean.
5. Vinny | October 30th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
Oh, and just in the interest of disclosure, VC Dan has a nice investment made in PayPerPost.
Way to disclose that, Dan.
6. mr.t | October 30th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
hey, the guy posted as “VC” dan. what more do you want? i don’t need to be spoon-fed every step of the way…
and i pity the fools that do.
7. Vinny | October 30th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Oh right. You’re 100% right Mr. T. Every VC invested in Pay Per Post.
How could I be so foolish.
Oh and your TV Land show sucks.
8. Apostolos | July 31st, 2007 at 10:39 am
Nice…
9. Leontios | August 7th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Cool!
10. Giorgos | August 11th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Interesting…
11. Christodoulos | November 26th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Cool.
12. lucy | January 19th, 2008 at 5:03 am
Wow, thanks for the excellent information!
13. Koinos | February 2nd, 2008 at 1:06 am
Interesting…
14. Ioannes | February 12th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Nice!
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed