Mike Arrington, as always, seems to have the early scoop on the paid postings wars: PayPerPost is going to introduce a widget that bloggers can put on their blogs so that they can announce it is available for paid postings, where PayPerPost will act as an intermediary and only take a 10% cut of the deal.

As Mike Arrington rightly says, this is a change in how PayPerPost kind of does things: whereas Advertisers would set their price per post and have bloggers come to *them*, bloggers can now set their own price, and have advertisers come to them.

This sort of takes aim at ReviewMe, which tries to create a market of bloggers that advertisers can choose from — but undercuts ReviewMe, as it only takes a 10%, as opposed to a 50%, share of the profits.

I say “sort of”, because we don’t yet know if PayPerPost will actually create a searchable database/ marketplace of bloggers much like ReviewMe has.

So — what will this all mean?

Well, Allen from CenterNetworks wonders why someone shouldn’t eliminate the middleman (PayPerPost) altogether and just sell posts on his or her own, all the while wondering when an advertorial company will surface.

Mike Arrington gives away his usual sentiments by titling his post “How Much Is Your Soul Worth”, because PPP doesn’t require you to do a post-level disclosure and it does allow advertisers to demand that its posts be positive.

Personally, I think there are two things that are worth remembering:

1. Paid Postings Are An SEO Tool: From a search engine optimization (SEO) point of view, Pay Per Post and ReviewMe must be absolute solid gold. Sure, when you think PPP you might be thinking of it as a tool in terms of “traffic” or “buzz” — which are all true to an extent. But thought of another way, these kinds of services are allowing advertisers to pay for inbound links that exist in an organic context — the kind of context that Google LOVES. Begging for links has gone the way of the Do Do.

Paid postings allow advertisers to pay blogs for inbound links to improve their SERPs. If you want proof that this is *exactly* how PPP views itself, look no further than the video explaining PPP’s widget. About half way through the video, it explains how advertisers may pay for a post, and it can specify *exactly* what URL that the blogger should use AND the anchor text.

The *only* reason why this is here is so that advertisers can get exactly what they want: higher SERPs (and pagerank) for a given keyword. Google may or may not have an official policy on this, and it may change in the future, but for people with pockets, this must be a legitimate strategy that is kind of awesome in a Machiavellian way.

2. Disclosure Doesn’t Matter — Paid Postings Will Always Be A Little Evil: So, paid postings are a SERP tool, right? Well, even the most mercenary SEO specialist would get a little antsy if *every* single post from a given blogger was negative or critical. Or, they might be a little less antsy if some posts were a little more positive. Or — they might be elated if they found bloggers who were generally positive all the time. In fact, they might get a good reputation for doing so, right?

And therein is a real-life ethical dilemma for bloggers that has NOTHING to do with disclosure. While you can write all the “balanced” reviews or posts that you want (its the “right” thing to do, right?), its actually in no blogger’s interest to write honestly critical reviews *all* the time. And by critical I don’t mean “I’m going to slam the hell out of this advertiser”.

Let’s put it another way: if a blogger were to accept every single offer that comes on his table, there’s be there fair share of crapulent ones. And you’d have to say “these do smell like crap — verily, they *are* crap”. Well, if bloggers *did* that sort of thing, then they would be compromising their future ability to get paid to do sponsored posts in the future.

In fact, its in their best interests to write posts that give the appearance of being balanced (therefore appeasing their audience, PPP, and the advertiser) — but overall being positive.

It *isn’t* their best interests to write honestly critical posts because it endangers future profits.

From an ethical point of view (if ethics bother you — and I acknowledge that for some, it might not as much) it doesn’t really matter if there is in-post disclosure, or there is disclosure at all, because there is a more insidious factor at work that affects the content of your post — the potential for future work.

Bottom line: Paid postings are here to stay. I’ve said this more than once, and I’ll bang the drum until the cows come home. And the reason for this is that there is a demand on both sides that is predicated by how powerful blogs are both as a tool to start and perpetuate traffic / buzz, but also how important they are from an SEO point of view.

There are advertisers who are happy to pay for it — and more importantly, there are certain bloggers who are happy to be paid *to do it*.

There is an ethical price to pay and it goes beyond disclosing whether a post is paid or not. But, as I’ve also said, some bloggers may not have the luxury of debating those ethics all the time as well.

Want to know the difference between a blogger and a journalist? Shower them with gifts and see what happens.

No, seriously — great article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, that as far as I can see, got no coverage in the corners of the blogosphere that I usually frequent. It covers how big business (in this case, big media) acknowledges the influence and power of blogging and bloggers in informing professiona media outlets, and sometimes, the public at large. But more importantly, its an article which discusses in some depth how some companies are trying to win the affectations of bloggers by showering them with gifts and freebies, in hopes to a) get some coverage and b) get favourable coverage.

The Payola Debate Isn’t New

The issue around payola / blogola isn’t a new one, and has been hotly debated for a few months since PayPerPost and its many breathren have appeared.

On one side, you have bloggers who try and stand by their principles and suggest that the most important part of their blog isn’t for sale — their opinion. On the other hand, you have other bloggers who find that there isn’t an ethical quandry, and are happy to monetize their blogs any way they can.

The WSJ article, I think, highlights the dilemma of the latter kind of bloggers and what it means to be a blogger in general.

Blogging is an independent activity, where your actions are governed by your own sense of morals, ethics, and values. Unlike reporters or journalists you don’t report to anyone, and no one proof reads your material. You’re not beholden to any set of standards except those that you set yourself, and those that the blogging community that you’re part of also expects of you. It is also informed by many other kinds of factors, such as the kind of environment you live in — online and off — and other ‘mundane’ things, such as your own financial situation.

When blogging was a niche phenomenon, all of this was quaint, but of no real importance.

Now that blogging (by some) has been recognized to be a force amongst PR folk and media players, the conundrum is one where you have some bloggers who own influential blogs online, but live humble, modest, and unassuming lives off-line. These same bloggers are being targeted by multi-national firms who are literally swimming in cash.

Can anyone say “shooting fish in a barrel?”

When Big Media Does Payola, Do Bloggers Stand a Chance?

Of course it would be the easiest, smartest, and most cost-effective strategy to target bloggers. Public relations folk of all stripes must be salivating at the prospect.

Compared to journalists who have years of training — and more importantly, exposure — regarding double dealings, attempts to influence their opinion, and perhaps are used to working in an enviroment where there are controls on how they *could* be influenced, there are no such restrictions on bloggers.

And I don’t think that there ever could be.

The WSJ goes onto describe how the producers of the show “The New Adventures of Old Christine” feted a number of mommy bloggers by flying them out to the show, giving them freebies, and got a chance to meet Julia Louis-Dreyfuss. Now, it just happens to be that this particular show has actually received some critical acclaim.

But what happened if it was a dud?

I’m not singling out Mommy-bloggers now.

Could *any* blogger of average and modest means, who has never been to a movie set in their entire lives, *ever* right an unbiased review of what happened? How could their opinions of the show NOT change, and for the better?

If Microsoft decided to fly me and my family out to Seattle for a weekend to tell me how great Vista was, and got me to try out a bunch of products, coupled with a photo op with Bill himself — would that affect *me*?

I’ll be honest — I don’t see how it couldn’t.

So what now? What does the future hold? If the influence of bloggers and the opinions and news and what not doesn’t change, will we see a return to a payola system whereby the media — in this case, bloggers — are now be in the back-pocket of companies big and small, in return for freebies, invitations, and the cachet of being “in” with the industry?

I don’t know.

The better question, as I have posed in some of my older posts, is what about the checks — what about the balances?

The Single Factor That Stops Blogola … Is Pretty Ineffective

If bloggers find themselves in these positions where they can’t but help but find themselves under the svengali-like influence of Free Stuff and Insider Access, what could possibly make them do a double check?

Some of them will have an internal barometer, and will continue to blog true to their heartrs anyway. Or, not take companies up on their offers. I anticipate these bloggers to be shunned at large by public relations folk.

The rest? It will largely depend on the response and reactions of their own peers, and most importantly, their own readers. If their own readers don’t know, or if they know, but don’t care, that their favourite blogger was feted at a huge party for that product opening, and — suprise, suprise, you see a favourable review the next day for adult diapers on a tech blog, then, much to the chagrin of some idealist a-list bloggers, nothing will happen.

If the blogger’s community of readership deems it “ok” then things will carry on.

The kicker with this? Unless the percieved transgressions are particularly large, or, unless the site itself is large, I don’t think “community reaction” for any given blog will be large enough to cause *any* kind of change.

Is that a little jaded of me?

I don’t think so.

While its a bit of a stretch, you can look to any number of medium sized blogs that, for example, do paid reviews. Their audience *knows* that the review is paid for — and in some cases, at rent-money levels. While some or most of them are thorough, you can’t help but wonder how much influence the fact that its been paid changes the opinion, though. Not only because of the literal aspect of money changing hands (and the law of reciprocity — its Cialdini, read it), but because for many of these bloggers their ability to get *future* review me type gigs is dependent on writing good reviews now.

Has the audience for *any* of those blogs changed? Have they all left en masse? Declared that getting something in exchange for writing about that something is a terrible violation of blogging’s ethics?

For the large part, the answer is a resounding “no”.

I won’t single out any blogs, but its easy to check them out. Review-Me is a good example because you can look through a marketplace of blogs who are selling their opinions posts.

1. Go to Review-Me.com
2. Search through the Marketplace for blogs
3. Sort or filter according to the highest payout per post
4. Check out the first ten blogs or so, and plug their URL’s into Alexa.

What you’ll find is that none of them have suffered any relative change in their traffic.

Now, granted, their is some self-selection here. Clearly the ones which are *successful* at this, that is, whose audience doesn’t already mind, will continue being in the market place.

But having said that, I cannot recall a single example where someone *had* tried, and it *did* result in a huge change in their readership.

So — long post, but here’s the take home message.

The Time Is Now for Companies To Exploit Bloggers

Blogging’s influence has outstripped many blogger’s own ability to withstand the influence of companies, whether it be free things, swag, access or what have you. This will make it easier for companies to buy opinion, and in fact, such a marketplace, you could argue, is in its infancy *already*. The *fact* that many bloggers have signed up for such a marketplace, is, I think, indicative of the fact that their own financial situations are not a “mundane” issue at all. Furthermore, and the most important factor which might act as a check and balance, has, so far, been a non-issue.

Its a pretty pessimistic view on things, but also, I think, a realistic view on things, and one geared for the short term. Who knows how things will be in 1, 5, or 10 year’s time? By that time, blogging as a form of media will mature — as will the commensurate experience of the bloggers themselves.

By that time will reader’s expectations have changed? Will the expectations of bloggers change? Will the expectations of their peer group have changed?

Perhaps.

And perhaps these kinds of shennanigans won’t be tolerated. Or, pehaps they’ll be de rigeur.

But in the short term, I think this is a phenomena that will continue to grow unabated and largely unfettered. Some bloggers will stand out and take a stand. Many of them, I suspect are in financially independent position to do so, or, perhaps, are industry professionals *already* where the allure of industry access holds no attraction.

But for the rest … well, if I was a Public Relations professional I’d be dancing a little jig while I could.

Update: Looks like a few others *have* weighed on the issue:

• Jeff Jarvis via BuzzMachine covered it with his own perspective as he started Entertainment Weekly
• The guy who heads who used to head up Lulu’s communication department gives his own take on things (its a good thing)
• Gawker also mentions how it has “some” sort of policy towards this kind of thing

In spite of the somewhat universal derision that PayPerPost gets in some blogging circles, it continues to expand and grow in its own way; earlier yesterday, there was news leaked to TechCrunch that it was acquiring Zoodooka, a blog-to-email service with about 10 000 subscribers.  Look for PayPerPost to cross market its services to those 10 000 subscribers, and as Mike also chimes in, look for PayPerPost to perhaps set up different pay scales for blogs that use the blog-to-email service.

While there’s no question that paying for posts does generate buzz, its also important to remember that using a service like pay per post is also an expedient way of purchasing links.  With a blog-to-email service, not only would advertisers have the ability to buy targeted links on a blog, but they’ll also get the chance to branch out into email marketing (in a fashion) in a two-for-one type of deal.  That is, advertisers who sign up with bloggers who are using Zoodooka will get the post “pushed” to those bloggers subscribers by email — in addition to the usual post that resides on their post.

For all those bloggers who are in the habit of doing so, you can pooh-pooh the paid posting movement all you like, but it definitely fills a niche: for bloggers who don’t mind ceding control of their posts if advertisers pay for it, and for advertisers who are looking to purchase buzz and links in wholesale fashion.  Furthermore, with purchases like Zoodooka, it looks like its not going away either.  Furthermore, rumour has it that Zodooka isn’t going to be PayPerPost’s only acquisition.  There has been some skuttlebut, for example, that it is looking to purchase Dogpile.

Every time I read news about Pay Per Post I feel a little more ambivalent about them. A recent press release on their efforts to enlist College students to as paid word-of-mouth bloggers makes me only more so.

On one hand, I am all for small bloggers trying to earn a tiny sliver of the blogging pie; for the amount of work it takes to create content, even for the more modestly successful bloggers, it is a poor return on effort. On the other hand, a recent piece by the LA Times highlights some real ethical woes that its founders, its VC, and even its bloggers try to side step. Disclosure is mandated, but it can be hidden in such a way that it makes it difficult for unsophisticated readers to pick up. Furthermore, PPP doesn’t enforce a policy which necessitates its bloggers to flag which posts are specifically paid for.

In light of this, I find PayPerPost’s attempts at mining college students as its next generation of Posties is at once both disgusting and somewhat evil.
(more…)