The great blog payola debate continues

by Mathew on October 13, 2006 · View Comments

Back when PayPerPost first came along, it got a huge amount of negative publicity from the blogosphere, with some bloggers calling the company outright evil for paying people to write about corporate clients (and not requiring them to disclose that fact on their blogs). At the time, I wondered whether there was any such thing as bad publicity, and whether PayPerPost would suffer for the avalanche of criticism.

As is often the case, all that the criticism did was help get the company’s name in front of a bunch of prospective clients, and attract bloggers who didn’t really care about the disclosure/payola issue. In no time, PayPerPost had raised $3-million, and now there are at least two other competitors looking to do the same thing, including ReviewMe.com and Creamaid.com (a pretty weird name for a Web 2.0 company, although I’m sure it has something to do with cream rising to the top, etc.).

As an aside, it’s interesting to see the flashes of arrogance that Mike Arrington displays in writing about these two newcomers, one of which comes from an advertiser on TechCrunch called Text Link Ads. In addition to calling blog payola a “virus,” Mike says:

Frankly, we’re not happy that one of our sponsors has launched this type of service, and we’ve notified them that we will not allow promotion of ReviewMe through TechCrunch.

That made me shake my head a little. “Will not allow” promotion of the company through TechCrunch? That’s a bit rich, especially when the parent company’s product — Text Link Ads — is just as much of a cancer on the web as PayPerPost is, albeit a more obvious one. And then Mike says this:

It’s clear that simply stating we don’t like these services isn’t going to make them go away.

I’m hoping this was a joke. How could they not close up shop after Mike and the rest of the A-list told them to stop what they were doing? The nerve of some people. Let’s face it — PayPerPost is not going away, and even if it and ReviewMe and Creamaid all go away, others will take their place. From my point of view, at least ReviewMe forces the people it hires to disclose that they are being compensated, which puts it one step closer to advertising and one step away from editorial.

There are all kinds of similar boundaries that get crossed in “traditional” journalism, from the travel section to the various “special” advertorial supplements that newspapers run, and eventually smart readers figure out whom they can trust and whom they can’t. And that’s about all we can hope for.

Share:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • http://ketcheson.net/2006/10/15/edelman-needs-to-respond-to-wal-mart-issue/ Ketcheson.net

    it in this post and (2) removing him from my blogroll. If you are annoyed with Edelman and Steve Rubel for not following their own advice, then I’d recommend doing the same. Here are some calls for action: Jaffe Deep Jive Interests PR Squared Matthew Ingram

  • http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/10/12/the-payperpost-virus-spreads/ Techcrunch » Blog Archive » The PayPerPost Virus Spreads

    [...] The great blog payola debate continues » Mathew Ingram: mathewingram.com/work [...]

  • http://www.techcrunch.com michael arrington

    Mathew – I didn’t mean to come across as arrogant. When writing something negative about a sponsor it’s hard to pick the right words and I may not have done a good job in this case. I agree with most of what you write, but I don’t see the issue with TLA’s main product at all. Maybe that’s a discussion for another time…

  • Mathew Ingram

    Thanks for the comment, Mike. I guess things sometimes come out sounding a bit different when you write them, because of the clout that TechCrunch has.

    As for Text Link Ads, I just have a personal thing about them — I hate the way that they try to mimic hyperlinks and fool people into clicking them.

    And I share your feelings about the whole payola thing — I’m just not sure that there’s a whole lot we can do about it, other than point it out when we see it and hope people eventually learn how to spot it.

  • http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/10/15/why-isnt-this-on-techmeme/ Why isn’t this on Techmeme? » Mathew Ingram: mathewingram.com/work

    [...] The great blog payola debate continues [...]

  • http://ketcheson.net/2006/10/15/edelman-needs-to-respond-to-wal-mart-issue/ Ketcheson.net :: Taking my ‘votes’ away from Edelman over Wal-Mart issue

    [...] Jaffe Deep Jive Interests PR Squared Matthew Ingram [...]

  • http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2006/12/12/ftc-tells-payperpost-to-knock-it-off/ FTC tells PayPerPost to knock it off » Mathew Ingram: mathewingram.com/work

    [...] Call this one the PayPerPost rule, after the blog payola company that pays you to write about their clients but doesn’t make you disclose your compensation (I’ve written about them here and here). As the FTC statement puts it (PDF link), the petition from Commercial Alert: Raised concerns about a specific type of amplified word-of-mouth marketing, specifically the practice of marketers paying a consumer (the “sponsored consumer”) to distribute a message to other consumers without disclosing the nature of the sponsored consumer’s relationship with the marketer. [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus

Older post:

Newer post: