PayPerPost is a Florida start-up that lets bloggers get paid for writing about products and other companies.
It has just got $3 million in funding from Silicon Valley venture firm Draper Fisher Jurveston and others.
People have said this is a controversial company, because regular readers can get duped if bloggers don’t disclose they are getting paid.
Others have said that the real intent of the service is to help the advertisers paying for the blog posts to boost search result rankings for their companies (the more bloggers writing about their company, the more incoming links the company is likely to get, and thus the higher it will go in results).
We talked with Josh Stein, venture capitalist with DFJ, who led the deal, and he’s steadfast in his belief that the company is doing a “good, valuable” service. He concedes it’s controversial: “Like many things, if you look at the most cynical interpretation of it, you could see how it could be a source for bad.”
But he said that some companies feel so much pressure to get more users — no matter how many users they may already have — that they’ll want to generate publicity for their new products. And they should have the right to pay someone to write about them. Bloggers, Stein said, have to decide what sort of disclosures they want to make with their readers about this, and whether it fits with their ethics. But the market should decide that, not PayPerPost. “The blogger knows better than we do what their social contract is with their reader base.”
The ethics question arose today in the Blogosphere, when it emerged that public relations firm was writing a fake blog on behalf of Wal-Mart (UDPATE: Although see comments below about dispute on this):
In case you missed the story, a blog ostensibly authored by a couple traveling across America in their RV and spending nights parked in WalMart parking lots turned out to be a fake blog, the brainchild of WalMart’s PR counselors at Edelman. While fake blogs (and other fake social media) are nothing new, it’s dismaying to see it emerge from Edelman, which has some of the smarter new-media people on its staff (Phil Gomes, Michael Wiley, Steve Rubel and more), and which touts itself as the PR firm that truly gets social media. This is the third time (as Todd Defren noted in his post) that Edelman has botched the whole social media thing on WalMart’s behalf…
DFJ’s Stein said PayPerPost is about to release some tools that give bloggers a variety of disclosure policies to put on their blogs if they use PayPerPost. These can be badges on their blog that say the blogger is paid for some posts, but doesn’t disclose which ones, or it can say the blogger discloses when any post is paid for, and so on.
PayPerPost launched three months ago, and Stein says the response has been “dramatic.” Even before the publicity emerged this month after DFJ invested, the company had made $100,000 in revenue. Every day, ten or fifteen new advertisers arrive at the site, looking for more bloggers to pay, he said.
Notably, what got Stein excited about PayPerPost, he said, is his recollection of his own scorn for search engine Overture, when it launched. That site was for paid results only, and he remembered thinking all the same thoughts that PayPerPost is getting criticized for: “I thought it was the sleaziest, dumbest idea I’d ever heard of.” Of course, Overture went on to become a popular company, when Google borrowed many of its aspects, and the model was refined. “I told myself, ‘I’m not going to make the same mistake again,’” he said.
Techcrunch first wrote about the company here.
Below is an example of a PayPerPost listing:
18 Comments
-
Kempton said:
So infomercial has hit the blogs! Will they be ethically required/forced to put up a “PayPerPost” logo right next to their posts so that we know they are paid to say nice things ?
Yeah, right, “good, valuable†service! I suppose smoking help you loose weight too. Ice on the sidewalk will help you practice your balancing skill. Ice on the road will also make you a better driver.
Sorry for being nasty.
-
John Dowdell said:
For what it’s worth, most of those charging “fake blogs” from WalMart seem to be in error — in ironic error, in fact.
Caches of the initial post, and the initial BusinessWeek story itself, do note that the relationship with the WalMart PR group was disclosed on the page. The blog author’s closing post says that they initiated the idea, and while seeking permissions were offered subsidies, and I’ve seen no reasonable reason to believe this account is incorrect.
Surprisingly, the blogger pile-on over the weekend may have actually _made_ the case for PayPerPost — we in the blogosphere told each other false & misleading stories when social effects were involved, and no money changed hands. Cash is just one type of bribe we humans take.
Those who insist that all others must divulge all their varied influences are not pursuing a sustainable path, I believe. We cannot believe everything we read. The onus is on us, the readers, to be skeptical of what we’re told.
-
John Dowdell said:
Sorry, I left out the piece of evidence which snapped my understanding of this event… on Sept 29 Working Families for WalMart issued a press release describing their funding of the weblog. Yahoo News still have a copy up:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20060929/pl_usnw/working_families_for_wal_mart_launches__wal_marting_across_america__rv_tour301_xml“LAS VEGAS, Sept. 29 /U.S. Newswire/ — Working Families for Wal-Mart, a national organization with more than 150,000 volunteer members dedicated to getting the truth out about Wal- Mart’s positive contributions to working families, today launched an RV tour, “Wal-Marting Across America”…”
Seeing this press release in the public record made me realize that many of the things we bloggers were telling each other were simply not correct. We didn’t disclose that we hadn’t read the source materials — we didn’t disclose that we were merely echoing what “a trusted source” had told us to think.
In lieu of full disclosure, we need skepticism.
-
C. M. Peters said:
The link is broken for PayPayPost I believe.
-
Nick Dynice said:
PayPerPost encourages meritocracy in products and services. It lets companies continue to offer products that are not remarkable enough generate real word of mouth. It lets them be lazy and continue to a “business as usual” business model without having to accept the power that real word of mouth has to offer. Do I think it is a good opportunity for PayPerPost? Yes. Just like spamming e-mail has an ROI. So, PayPerPost encourages bad behavior all around. The blogosphere’s “word of mouth on steroids†was to be the great savior of mediocre products and services.
You indicate that there is no requirement for disclosure per post. Google Ads are different in that you know it is an ad. As a user, you give credibility to Google and the advertiser for their disclosure. This is a subtle different in PayPerPost and Googles business models, but it makes all the difference. Google would be “evil†if they did not. If PayPerPost wanted to adopt Google’s “do no evil†mantra, they would require full disclosure.
-
Matt Marshall said:
Thanks, fixed the link.
-
Frederic said:
I wrote a bit on PayPerPost on my blog a few days back. I added a long list of PPP blogs on there to get some of them out of the woodwork and indeed, if you look at the blogs and the comments I got, most people do not disclose their affiliation. Judging from their comments, there is absolutely no understanding (at least among the vocal PPP users) of the ethical implications of their actions in the PPP crowd (they call themselves ‘Posties’ - I guess to look cute).
Also, I find the demographic of PPP users pretty interesting. These are not big names, these are work-at-home mothers, ex-US Army soldiers trying to pay for their divorce etc. I somehow consider them to be on par with those people who fall for work-at-home scams - just a bit more technology savvy.
-
Jeff H said:
Agreed with the comments above, imagine if Nike was releasing a new shoe when the internet wasn’t around. Would a newspaper allow Nike to write and publish whatever type of review they wanted? Probably not, because it would have been unethical, this is same basic premise we are seeing here. Expect in this situation it’s much easier for one person to compromise their ethics than a group of people, even more so a company with a board of directors. I would encourage bloggers to proclaim authentic reviews by adding a badge on their site that represents honest posting.
The last thing we need is larger blur between propaganda and media. Fox News already is doing enough of this.
-
Jeff H said:
Comments above refers to Nick’s comment
-
Jeremy Pepper said:
@John D
I wrote on the Walmart issue from a PR angle, and you bring up some good points on bloggers not digging further into the stories to get the real, or full, story - something I brought up in my post as well, and which is rampant in the blogosphere.But, I just read the press release - twice - and no where is it disclosed that the bloggers were paid, that the travel was paid for (gas, etc.), nor that Wal-Mart itself is the biggest funder of Working Families for Wal-Mart.
That info is all gleaned from the first BusinessWeek story - http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2006/db20061009_579137.htm .
In full disclosure, yes, I am in PR at a competing firm. But, for full disclosure, it should also be noted that where you work is also repped by Edelman.
-
George Nimeh said:
To John Dowdell:
You are mistaken and continue to post false information.
Why do you continue to post false information about the WFWM press release here (and on your own blog a few days ago) when you *know* that the press release was issued 2 days AFTER the publication of the Business week story exposing Wal-Mart’s fraud?
If I didn’t know better, I’d begin to wonder. You thinking about leaving San Jose for Bentonville?
~G~
-
John Dowdell said:
Well, I might be a fake person, but if I am, then I assure you I do not know it…. ;-)
For a timeline, my understanding is that the weblog launched on Sept 27, the WalMart group issued a press release on Sept 29, and I still see the BusinessWeek article with a publication date of Oct 8:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2006/db20061009_579137.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusivesI understand that publication dates are not always exact, but that’s the actual evidence I see… if you know how I might be seeing it incorrectly then that would help my understanding, thanks.
Then I’m looking at this site, and its disclosure, and wondering how skeptical to be… what do you make of this?
http://www.thewritingonthewal.net/ -
Matt Marshall said:
I think Business Week dates are always a week later than the date that the actual publication appears.
-
John Dowdell said:
Hi Matt, true, BusinessWeek might be giving inaccurate dating information on their article… if they actually went online on Oct 1 then they would have followed the disclosing press release, and if George’s assertion that the article was “published two days before the press release” held true, then Pallavi would have managed to get the blog into BusinessWeek on Sept 27, its first day, which would be quite interesting in itself.
Either way, the claim “they did not disclose” does not hold up.
I’ve noticed quite a bit of vitriol on this issue, and it’s looking more and more like it’s we in the blogosphere who were overly credulous, rather than some apocryphal RV owner who was led astray. What do you think…?
-
John said:
What is the difference between a blogger giving his opinion on something [paid or not] or Nike taking out a full page ad in a newspaper and the type reads ‘best shoe ever’ or ‘bringing basketball to new heights’? isn’t it all opinion anyways?? I don’t see the harm in the website, disclosure or not. I think its a great idea for a advertiser or blogger. Finally something that is helping on both ends. Maybe I am just “like all the others” online, but thats what I think about it. [this comment was not influenced in anyway other than by my own thoughts]
-
Teldelojerb said:
The adynamic car lease prices magician seriously polar its hind on chrysler afresh since relentless consumers necktie shifted to phs affluent cars with real mileage.
http://www.erobees.biz/antique-car-auction/map.html All she firmly do is ask, and i’ll car lease it to her. -
Retro Cars said:
One of these days I have to go to the Barrett Jackson auction. It’s not far from my house, and I love the cars I see on TV. I always wondered how much I would have gotten for my old convertible if I sold it through them.
-
Regina Thomas said:
I have seen a lot of inaccurate writing by those who are claim to be professional writers. Inaccurate in as far technology and other areas the writers claim to have expertise in. And no, I did not think it part of a disinformation campaign. Some may claim that knowledge is power and lets ensure as many internet users as possible, remain in the dark. No, I thought it poor research– by someone with a journalism degree.
Now “bloggers” [non-professional or non-degreed writers whichever the case may be] are writing for advertisers– something professional writers have been doing for awhile- and they are crying foul?
I am not upset because I have recently dabbled in the pay per post earnings game myself– I can assure I could be doing something else. I am a little amazed at this old post because it seems full of hypocrisy.
Regina Thomas
QiSoftware
5 Trackbacks
12:50 pm
VentureBeat on PayPerPost | The Last Podcast said:
[...] As the PayPerPost bashing continues, Matt Marshall at VentureBeat chimes in. Nothing juicy here, but some good information. [...]
9:43 am
Do You Have What It Takes to Earn $250? » Names@Work » Blog Archive said:
[...] Now, with a cheery ignorance that the lies, deceit, and corruption “business model” may have been tried in other “sectors”, Silicon Valley hopefuls PayPerPost and ReviewMe are gleefully touting their mechanized influence-buying machines, backed by their institutional minders Makem, Paye, and Fast. [...]
11:19 am
VentureBeat » West Coast vs. East Coast — West is drubbing East, in modesty too said:
[...] The start-up that filmed itself during the boom era of 2000, Govworks.com (the company of Kaleil Tuzman’s, pictured top, which became the documentary Startup.com) was based in New York City. And this year’s self-absorbed company, PayPerPost, is based in Florida (we wrote about PayPerPost here). It has launched Rockstartup to video-chronicle its journey. It has the obligatory episode of the founder Ted Murphy in the car, before and after meeting with venture capitalists (click on image above for video). Of course, Murphy comes back after the meeting, boasting he’s raised $3 million in three meetings, and is going to make his partner so rich. Both PayPerPost and Govworks raised money from Silicon Valley VCs (Govworks raised $60M, including from Mayfield, PayPerPost from DFJ), so valley VCs are partly responsible for this sort of excess too. What do you think? Will PayPerPost bomb, like Govworks did? Techcrunch also takes note. [...]
2:56 pm
PayPerPost - the influence of paid reviews at charisma:18 said:
[...] There’s no shortage of opinion on the topic of bloggers getting paid to post reviews. I won’t add another view on whether or not the system breaches some kind of blogging code of ethics. ‘Cause I really don’t care. [...]
1:57 pm
Jaysinism.com » Blog Archive » Say NO to PayPerPost!! said:
[...] PayPerPost tests your ethics [...]