Mat Ingram makes passing mention of “the Impossible Standard” in reference to Bob Scoble’s recent fooferaw with PayPerPost. Here’s the one line summary for the extremely bored: PayPerPost is having a conference and they would like Bob Scoble as their keynote speaker; also, they were going to pay him an honorarium, like any other conference, and also the Scobeleizer has decided to “disclose” his payment.
Cue the sound of crickets … now.
Fine. Since there’s a bit of silence, I’ve got a few questions for you all (all three and a half of you).
- Is any one else tired of the seemingly perpetual outrage at the idea of paid postings?
- Is anyone else vaguely amused that the blogospheric indignity of it all is only fueling MORE free marketing for Ted Murphy and his gang of posties?
- And is anyone else just a little bit angered about the delicious double standard some bloggers hold about themselves and others?
I don’t think anyone has done a better job about articulating what I mean by the latter than Seth Finklestein.
But note the language: not “classy”, “sidewalk hookers”, vs “I’m a capitalist”. It’s basically, again, they are blue-collar, we are white-collar. I think “I’m a capitalist” in this context really means: “Despite my relatively well-off status, economically I still need to convert social relationships into a commercial context” (which should be acceptable) - i.e. doing it ultimately for commercial purposes, no matter how much one may seem to to be in it for a purely social relationship. Which is of course breaking the marketing of human connections.
I wrote about it yesterday as well — but let’s face it. Its OK for A-list bloggers to monetize their blogging relationships by being paid to talk at conferences, or merely to be paid for their blogging activities as a function of their influence …
But its NOT ok for bloggers without influence, capital, notoriety, or celebrity to monetize the relationships THEY have with their readers — even with they’re disclosing it?
Bloggers who poo-poo Scoble and PayPerPost need to take a step back, stop reading about their own hype in the MSM, and take a good hard look at reality. Because its slapping you in the face.
The ideals of transparency, authenticty, and engagement are just that. Ideals. But the only bloggers who are pure enough to have the moral authority to tsk-tsk anyone are those who would NEVER take ANY money for ANY kind of blogging activity.
And I don’t know of any blogger of any substance who fits into that category.
So why are we holding bloggers up to this impossible standard, where they are supposed to be better, more rigorous, and held to a higher ethical standard than seemingly everyone else?
Its because blogging’s roots, probably much like the rest of the Internet, pre 1995, had fairly honest, altruistic roots, free of any commercial influence — like the Internet, pre 1995, because it was so small that no one bothered to try and monetize it.
The ideals of transparency and authenticty were self-evident because everyone was blogging for themselves and their friends.
And that’s the irony, isn’t it.
Transparency and authenticity (and engagement) are buzzwords precisely BECAUSE blogging has gotten so big that when other people, and more importantly businesses, try and “get it”, they need to be reminded of what honest conversation is like.
And that’s the point.
Blogging, as an entity, has gotten so big so fast that its influential. And its important and big enough that people are willing to pay bloggers for their time, their influence, and their readership. Who reaps the biggest rewards? Its early adherents. The popular. The notorious. The connected.
Who doesn’t? Those bloggers who are starting out, “sharecropping” for outfits like PayPerPost.
The very fact that Bob Scoble was crying foul at the fact that PodTech wasn’t getting links was a hilarious reminder that when you’re starting out, as many bloggers do, they are at the mercy of others. And even when you think you’ve got great content — and the connections and juice to back it up — you’re still at the mercy of others.
Bloggers need to remind themselves that, independent of how good your blog is, there very much is a class system in the blogosphere. Only the truly naive would believe otherwise.
Blogging has finally gotten big enough that companies are willing to pay cash money for our attention. And all bloggers deserve some share of that — ESPECIALLY, if they’re already disclosing the hell out of their blogs.
Sure, they won’t be the most highly regarded pieces, particularly if they do it far too regularly. Will there be questions of integrity and cries of “shill”? Unless they’re fairly big players, probably not.
But you know what? That’s their problem, and its something they’ll have to solve if they want their blog to get anywhere.
Just like whatever Bob Scoble does is his problem — and we should let him worry about what he does, and not about how it affects the rest of the blogosphere. After all, the champions of blogospheric purity can put down their swords, because here’s the thing: the blogosphere’s already changed. And it changed long before paid posting took place. It changed when the first blogger took his (or her) first payment for their first work.
And there is no guarantee that was disclosed.
February 4th, 2007 at 12:42 am | Permalink
[...] Tony Hung has a long and thoughtful post on the subject of the “impossible standard” bloggers are being held to. Technorati Tags: blogs, conflict, payperpost, Scoble | Share This [...]
February 4th, 2007 at 1:10 am | Permalink
Tony, I dig your wise words to no end (even included Deep Jive Interests on my recent Top 10 Favorite Online Media Blogs list!), but I somewhat disagree with you here.
I get where you’re coming from: A List bloggers should chill out and get off their high horses. That’s cool, no argument there. But I do think it’s important that there should be some notion of a standard that serious bloggers (who we might define as those seeking to obtain and keep a large audience of readers) seek to meet.
Therefore, if a blogger decides to sign up with PayPerPost and is very clear in disclosing this with his/her audience, I don’t have a serious issue with it. However, it’s my feeling that plenty of bloggers will be tempted to hide this affiliation, and that could have a disastrous ripple effect for all other bloggers (overall credibility, page rank, ad revenue, traffic, etc.), dragged down and discredited because of of a small number of companies and the bloggers who take cash but then are not up front with readers about why they just happened to review X product or service.
So I don’t wish an “impossible standard” on bloggers and man-oh-man do I want bloggers to succeed and make money at their craft, but I do see a standard that should be taken into account by serious bloggers.
February 4th, 2007 at 1:27 am | Permalink
Hey Eric,
Thanks for stopping by. As far as I know, PPP requires their posties to disclose their paid postings. And I’ve read somewhere that in the very near future they won’t have a choice, as a widget will do it for them.
Moreover, a recent FTC ruling in as much intimated that when you don’t disclose the nature of your relationship with a sponsor you open yourself up to a can of legal worms
http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2006/12/12/new-ftc-position-may-force-changes-for-payperpost-and-affiliate-marketers/
Having said *ALL* of that, I hear what you’re saying. My take on it is that we’re now in a “Pandora” situation where its all out of the box anyway and we’re never going to stick it back in.
… and with the box wide open, who’s to say that stuff like what you mention isn’t going to happen anyway — above and beyond PPP?
I think we’re living in a world where social content is becoming progressively more commercialized. Call me jaded (and I know I am), but with that thinking in tow, I’m now of the mind that every blogger has a bias, and we need to particularly mindful of that, regardless of whether bloggers are being paid or not.
Because you might really never know if they are.
Cheers
t
February 4th, 2007 at 1:37 am | Permalink
Yes, I absolutely agree — everyone is biased. The mainstream media is biased as hell (left, right, center, corporate, etc.) but hides behind a wall of purported objectivity, which is why the great need for new media outlets and the blogosphere exists.
So it does really come down to credibility, which is defined in part as disclosure of bias. My concerns absolutely go above and beyond PPP — if they force their writers to post disclosures I applaud them but as you say that box-o-Pandora can’t be closed once opened. It’s the stream of copycat services (such as SponsoredReviews that I’m really concerned about.
You state very well that “social content is becoming progressively more commercialized.” It’s the product of a maturing blogosphere that companies are willing to put money in the pockets of bloggers to yak about whatever. So in that sense it’s a “good problem,” and one that is certainly interesting to hash over and pick and pontificate about.
February 4th, 2007 at 3:16 am | Permalink
[...] Dear A-List posted in Rants | Get [...]
February 4th, 2007 at 4:05 am | Permalink
You totally misunderstand my original objection to PayPerPost.
They didn’t require disclosure!
They still don’t, really. They require disclosure on your blog, but not on the post.
To me that still doesn’t make sense.
Disclosing on each post is best. If they forced that then I wouldn’t have much problem at all with PayPerPost.
Oh, it’d be best if they also required using “nofollow” on links to PayPerPost advertisers too, cause that way PayPerPost can’t be used to game Google, but if they did that then I expect very few advertisers would use PayPerPost.
I don’t have a problem at all with people making money with their blog. I’ve never spoken out against people putting Google ads or Amazon affiliate links on their blog, for instance, and have indeed been quite supportive of those approaches.
February 4th, 2007 at 8:08 am | Permalink
I feel like I want to find every single article everyone wrote about finally the democratizatin of media. As I wrote on Mathew’s blog, the issue here isn’t about the individual posts, it’s the fact that someone can BUY an entire network of people to manipulate the value of a speficic piece of media (again this is about the collective affect on search results not just about individual posts). Sure it’s just about people trying to eek out a living but to spin a old Fran Leibowitz quote:
‘Democracy might have defeated communism, but capatalism defeated them both’
February 4th, 2007 at 10:51 am | Permalink
Same goes for advertising. If an unknown blog had as many ads as a huge blog like Mashable (just an example) most people would disregard it as a splog.
For me, it’s simple: you can do whatever you want as long as you’re honest about it.
February 4th, 2007 at 1:03 pm | Permalink
[...] Along with this was a very thoughtful post on Deep Jive Interests where Tony wrote: But its NOT ok for bloggers without influence, capital, notoriety, or celebrity to monetize the relationships THEY have with their readers — even with they’re disclosing it? [...]
February 4th, 2007 at 10:59 pm | Permalink
you mean Robert right ? ;) not Bob ;)
February 5th, 2007 at 4:56 am | Permalink
I love reading TechCrunch but they’ve got so many big sponsors and Mike’s an investor in so many startups that it sort of makes it look a bit hypocritical from a small-timer’s cynical perspective. I’ll be posting my own commentary on this.
BTW Tony, you might want to replace that social bookmarks plugin you’re using with Gregarious (seeing how your Digg button is broke):
http://dev.lipidity.com/feature/gregarious-2
You can avoid those errors by enabling “Use CURL to make sure the URL is correct” or something like that. Just a friendly suggestion.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:05 am | Permalink
[...] Deep Jive Interests » Bloggers Need To Get Over Themselves And “The Impossible Standard” [...]
February 5th, 2007 at 9:06 am | Permalink
What’s the big deal? Why is there a double standard? If an A-list blogger can monetize their work why not the rest of the bloggers? The MSM monetizes their work.
The only ‘review’ outfit (that I know of) that does not review based on free stuff is Consumer Reports.
The simple fact is that when you post a positive review about something you got for free more free stuff will come your way, same with pay per post.
I blog about things that interest me. If I was going to write a positive review about a product on my blog anyways why not get paid to boot? It’s not that the transaction was started by the payer, it was started by the blogger trying to monetize their blog.
Or, is that the core difference? Is it ‘OK’ if you write an article and then you get paid rather then being paid to write an article?
February 6th, 2007 at 8:03 pm | Permalink
HMTKSteve (I’m going to have to ask you what the HMTK stands for one day, Steve) — I actually agree. The double standard is that many A-listers vehemently oppose PayPerPost, not acknowledging that for some bloggers it is a decent source of revenue for them, and not acknowledging that at the end of the day — its their blog, and its up to them to deal with integrity issues.
Cheers
t
February 6th, 2007 at 8:12 pm | Permalink
Robert
Actually, I *didn’t* misunderstand your original intentions of PayPerPost. They were like everyone else’s. And furthermore, yes, I understand about the no-follow issue … blogged about it some time ago, in November actually.
http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2006/11/23/using-reviewme-to-boost-your-google-juice-matt-cutts-says-think-again/
I think *you* might have misunderstood *my* post.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with you going to the Conference. I understand they’re not asking you to speak on their behalf — just speak about something at the PPP Con.
I just took exception to some of the usual outrage at PPP that was in fact directed at you — and tried to put it into the context as a whole.
Everyone has a right to make some coin (I think you said that you’re a “capitalist”). A-listers make theirs one way. Z-listers make theirs another way. It makes no point to whine about the commercialization of the blogosphere as it refers to content, because it makes you (the royal you, not you, Robert Scoble) look elitest — and its happened already.
Everyone needs to get over it, is all.
Thanks for stopping by, though. ;)
Cheers
t @ dji
February 6th, 2007 at 8:16 pm | Permalink
Baron,
Thanks for the heads up on the plugin. Seems to be working now, but the whole bloody thing breaks on MSIE anyway. Its on my list of things to do with this blog.
As for Mike and his vested interests with TC, I blogged about them over here:
http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2006/11/01/mr-arrington-discloses-bloggings-heart-of-darkness/
… he actually seems to agree. ;)
Cheers
t @ dji
February 6th, 2007 at 8:21 pm | Permalink
Leigh,
No question that the power of PPP and Reviewme is the marketplace it creates, and the ease to which opinion can be changed — particularly through SERPs.
And its worrisome, particularly when one uses their imagination to think about how such a power could be abused.
On the other hand, I think that with the rise in blogging’s popularity, such a mechanism to create a marketplace for individuals posts to be bought and sold en masse was coming anyway.
What I think is a question worth asking is not — “its bad, I hope it goes away”, but rather “its bad, what kind of natural checks and balances can we introduce?”
I don’t have an answer to the latter question, but perhaps its one that’s worth asking.
Cheers
Tony.
February 6th, 2007 at 8:21 pm | Permalink
Frantic — I like simple sentiments as well. ;)
t
February 6th, 2007 at 10:54 pm | Permalink
What I think is a question worth asking is not — “its bad, I hope it goes away”, but rather “its bad, what kind of natural checks and balances can we introduce?”
Definitely worth asking, but here is my reply - if it’s bad why shouldn’t it just go away? Why should there be natural checks and balances? Why shouldn’t bad shit just go away?
I think everyone is so distracted and annoyed that there is some “A” list (which all the readers created in the first place) that they are missing the forest for the trees here. I swear at this point, I just want to just say to Tom at PPP
“Stop hurting America!”
Which, for the record, would be far more powerful if I were actually American (which i am not) and if my name was John Stewart (which it isn’t).
February 7th, 2007 at 12:18 am | Permalink
Leigh,
Nice thoughts, but shaking your fist at a phenomena that isn’t likely effective and it isn’t going to solve much — particularly when so many other bloggers are taking PPP up on their offer.
That’s why the checks and balances, because its not going to go away … so let’s find a way to deal with it and manage it in the most ethically sound way as possible.
If its possible. ;)
t
February 7th, 2007 at 8:10 am | Permalink
Hum….I am going to think about this Tony. Having worked as an environmental planner and for the World Wide Life Fund back in the day, I would suggest that you are right about fist shaking but not necessarily right that with pressure in the right places that it won’t go away (I have participated in at least a two multi-million dollar backed things that ‘weren’t going away’ that came and went…..)
As I always say, follow the money…..
February 7th, 2007 at 8:35 am | Permalink
Perhaps I am missing the issue here but, why is it so important to the “A” listers that PPP not exist?
Is it a fincial issue where a company will choose to spend their money to get on 100 blogs rather than give the “A” lister the full the money to be on one blog?
Is it an issue where the “A” listers feel that what the “Z” listers do somehow dillutes or or hurts what they do?
Is it just an issue of disclosure?
If I write a tech product review based on something I was given as a review copy is that bad? Is it only bad if I don’t disclose I got the item for free? What if I write a review and follow it up with an afilliate sales link, does that taint my article?
I hate to say it but, the “A” list bloggers appear to be doing the same thing the MSM did when blogging began to become popular. These “A” listers may be saying one thing but I have to wonder if there are being driven by fear and greed rather than the altruistic reasons they are citing.
I blog for two reasons:
1) I enjoy it
2) I don’t want to work a day job
That’s it. Number one is easy, number two is harder to attain. In fact I am no where near number two as my current income from blogging is less than what I make in a day at my “day” job.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:20 pm | Permalink
I’m with Leigh - what kind of checks and balances can we introduce. I think that PayPerPost and other services are fine. And I’d like to keep the playing field as level as possible, even knowing that’s an impossible standard itself.
Being one of those ‘up-and-coming’ bloggers, I’d like every opportunity I can get to grow my blog and become more known. And I do so throught the sweat of actually working to produce good content. My traffic, readership, comments and feeds are all increasing so I know I’m adding value to the blogosphere. And I’ll continue to learn, change and grow to better refine my niche and meet my readers with engaging commentary.
But I don’t feel like I should be penalized just because I got a late start.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:35 pm | Permalink
Dawud — I don’t think anyone should be penalized for a late start either, and just to clarify, I think Leigh was questioning why checks and balances were necessary if PPP is “bad”. Good luck with healthywebdesign though … and keep up the good work.
Leigh — PPP has already made an about-face with disclosure, requiring it in some form (but, according to Bob Scoble, not in its best form) what with the FTC issuing an opinion in December about deceptive disclosure practices. I’ve said it before — its going to be around for awhile for no other reason that some bloggers are happy to take their money. As I said, checks and balances are probably best … but I’m not sure how that can be created at the moment.
Cheers
tony.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:42 pm | Permalink
Tony,
I agree. That check in the mail that helps keep my bank balance in the black is best :)
February 8th, 2007 at 6:48 pm | Permalink
Tony - way off the topic, but you mentioned, “HMTKSteve (I’m going to have to ask you what the HMTK stands for one day, Steve)” and it made me wonder.
I just assumed that HMTK was something along the lines of “His Majesty The King.” A tongue-in-cheek over-the-top kind of name.
I went to Steve’s site, rummaged around and saw that it stands for HackMaster Toolkit.
February 8th, 2007 at 7:11 pm | Permalink
That would be correct. HMTK is Steve’s ‘No Frills’ HackMaster Toolkit. It’s a piece of software I used to develop… until my license ran out and I decided not to renew.
March 4th, 2007 at 11:30 pm | Permalink
A nicely articulated rant! Yes, I’m tired of hearing about how outrageous the PPP concept is, and although I have reservations about the whole mess of Pay Per Post I agree that there is more enough hypocrisy to go around.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:40 am | Permalink
I will say “ethical blogging and advertising” will be the only way of the future of blog ads. Google Ads are not intrusive and just are there for readers to read, nothing intrusive but when bloggers are asking those to pay to view their writings, to me are not true bloggers. There are many ways to make money blogging but it must be combined with the proper business sense of integrity. Check out my blog written in About Us on my webpage..”Who’s Who in Whoville”