TechCrunch article says Controversial PayPerPost Raises $3 million.
So whatâ€™s up with PayPerPost blog advertising that seems to be generating so much controversy?
I believe that it all boils down to how people think this will affect blogs and blogging. Blogs have always been about personal and frank opinion. The problem is that if you are paid by PayPerPost for a posting a review and the advertiser has mandated a positive review, then your review might not be very frank and you may be tempted to be positive about the product.
Sure enough, this is not the best thing to happen to the blogsphere, but is PayPerPost the evil responsible? I don’t think so. At the end of the day, the author of the post is squarely responsible for the contents of the post, how can PayPerPost be held responsible if the author has decided to sell his soul for about $5 (that seems to be the average earning per post).
While an advertiser can specify that he wants a positive review, the blogger is under no compulsion to take up that opportunity unless he feels that its a product or service that deserves a positive review. And anyway, it looks like there are lots of opportunities that do no require a positive review. I leave you to figure out who is responsible for taking up an opportunity that is mandated as positive review, and then providing a post that is a lie.
But could PayPerPost have done something that would have made it better? Yes, mandating every post be marked as an advertisement would have been a worthwhile option. But even if its not mandated by PayPerPost, bloggers should ideally disclose the same in the interest of transparency.
Disclaimer: This post relates to a PayPerPost Opportunity.
Posted under: Thoughts , Blogging
Tagged with: advertisement, opinion, PayPerPost, transparency