Why I won’t use PayPerPost (and if I do, I will disclose)
Last night I gave away a $1,200 Sonos music system in a random raffle at Gnomedex (hundreds of people witnessed that, and Richard MacManus was the winner). Why? Because I got it for free from the company because I’m an “A list” blogger. I’m not the only one who got one for free. It’s great marketing. Get people who will talk about your product to try out your product, right?
Well, I never really gave them a review until today. Why? Because I felt sleazy about it. Even if I disclosed it I figured that you’d still be wondering in your head whether I was saying they rock just because I got a free one or because I really felt that way.
In fact, if I knew that other bloggers got a free one that would change MY perception of what they wrote. I wouldn’t know how to process that conflict of interest as a reader. I might be so disturbed that I’d unsubscribe because I wouldn’t find them trustworthy anymore. Or credible.
After all, I read blogs and forums to try to learn the TRUTH about products, companies, movements, and ideas. Advertising rarely brings truth. And taking a $1,200 Sonos system is a lot closer to advertising than blogging or journalism.
It’s why the best newspapers have rules against taking free stuff. I remember when I had lunch with Dan Gillmor back when he worked at the San Jose Mercury News. He always had to pay for lunch, even, to remove any conflicts of interest that might appear.
Todd Bishop, of the Seattle PI, paid for a ticket to Gnomedex I learned from Chris Pirillo. That made me believe what he wrote even more than if the paper hadn’t invested $500 and signed up just like every other attendee.
So, what TechCrunch writes about PayPerPost (a new company that got a lot of blog attention over the past few days) rings very true with me. Taking payments for writing stuff on my blog, even if I disclose it, makes me very uncomfortable.
It’s why I try not to accept free stuff anymore and if I do get free stuff I give it away.
Now, I’m not opposed to doing advertising. I’m joining a company where that’s the main business model. And, I just left one where, really, my entire show was paid for by Microsoft.
But, all I really have at the end of the day is my credibility. I’m going to fight to protect that. So, here’s some rules I’m going to live by.
1) If I ever run advertising I will disclose that. Even if inside a post. For instance, if I had kept the Sonos, that would have been getting compensated for writing something. So, everytime I said “the Sonos rocks” I would also put “disclosure, I received a free one which I consider compensation for writing about it.”
2) I will try to keep my advertising and editorial separate and easily identifyable. For instance, if I did do a PayPerPost post, I would start the post “this is a paid advertisement” and I would only post an advertisement in that post and would keep it separate from posts where I was actually giving you my real, uncompensated, position.
3) Disclosure is ALWAYS needed when you take advertising. At least to keep your credibility. Elliott Back of PayPerPost doesn’t agree. Well, if I find out someone is getting compensated for what they are writing and doesn’t disclose that it will earn an immediate unsubscribe from me and will probably get a post questioning everything that blogger wrote.
Why is disclosure so important? Because I, as a reader, need to know about potential conflicts of interest.
Oh, and about the Sonos? It rocks. It’s a wonderful system. Everyone who visited my house recently fell in love with it (Buzz was begging me to give it to him, for instance). And, I can say that now with a clear head and without you wondering if I said that cause I had been compensated or not.
How about we start a blog where we can “out” bloggers who accept free stuff without disclosing that?
Speaking of which, a Nokia phone just arrived here. I’m going to try that out for a few months and then give it away or send it back before I write my thoughts about it. Will other bloggers who got that same phone make the same committment to their readers?
Does credibility matter in the blogosphere?
Full disclosure: I’ve received in the past a Lenovo Thinkpad (which I’m still using, for a few months I passed it around the office, but I’ll give that away at a future conference or send it back to Lenovo cause I think it was considered a press loan, not a gift). I also have a couple of Nokia phones (gotta send them back cause they are considered a loan, not a gift). I’ve also received an OQO (which I lost on my trip to Philadelphia, really bummed me out too cause it was a beautiful machine and I bet I’m gonna have to come up with the money for that soon since that was considered a loan, not a gift as well). A variety of books (I gave many of them away to coworkers at Microsoft). Oh, and I was a member of Sprint’s Ambassador program (they loaned us a cell phone, which Patrick left in a rental car, sigh).
Update 2: I’m sorry. Elliott is not an employee of PayPerPost. His blog made it sound like he was and I made a mistake there.
Powered By 
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:29 am
Aren’t free “review samples” fairly common practice? I guess the difference would be they if get returned. Say Sonos sent you the system with the expectation that you would send it back after you put it through it’s paces for review?
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:33 am
Brad: the best news organizations ALWAYS return the free samples. And, Consumer Reports goes even further and won’t accept them OR advertising. It’s why my dad always believes what he reads in Consumer Reports.
If I sent back the Sonos or other things, that would be good. Any post then wouldn’t be considered compensated.
But, I’m hearing more and more about bloggers who are taking free stuff, or getting compensated for what they post, without disclosing that to their readers and that’s disturbing.
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:49 am
I’d love free stuff to review / write about with full disclosure. Shame companies don’t hand those out to “C list” bloggers.
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:56 am
Long: actually, the good companies are including lesser-known bloggers in their freebie campaigns too.
July 2nd, 2006 at 8:04 am
Which Nokia phone did you got? Any chance it being S60? :) Looking forward for your comments!
July 2nd, 2006 at 8:09 am
Jukka: it’s the N91. Has a hard drive in it.
July 2nd, 2006 at 8:14 am
Good question, Brad. Was it a loaner or a gift?
As to Scoble’s question: Of course credibility matters. A policy of disclosure is completely in line with that. Hold fast.
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, magazine publishers used to talk about the Chinese Wall between advertising and editorial.
If the readers couldn’t trust the editorial, they wouldn’t come for the advertising. That was the theory. But the wall was rarely impermeable.
Now that blogging has collapsed the function of publisher and author to a single individual, there is no wall other than the authenticity and integrity of the blogger.
Discerning readers will sniff that out soon enough.
July 2nd, 2006 at 8:21 am
PodTech could learn a thing or two: “advertising and editorial separate and easily identifyable.”
Lately, it’s been extremely difficult to determine what’s original content and what’s an advertisement. PodTech has seemingly become a mouthpiece for its advertisers and the once original content has suffered.
July 2nd, 2006 at 8:24 am
Had the N91 for a couple of months myself. It’s a great phone, think you’ll enjoy using it Scoble.
July 2nd, 2006 at 9:06 am
Fwiw once you’ve established the practise, you could comment on the stuff and then provide an audit trail of the raffles, auctions for charity etc of the items you’ve been sent and reviewed. If you wait until the item has actually been returned your review is that much out of date.
July 2nd, 2006 at 10:20 am
The answer is simple - keep something similar to a blogroll about every product you receive for free. Return everything considered a loan, since they’re trying to get free publicity for nothing, and auction them off for charity. You could then review them if they suit your fancy.
If you need the “free stuff” badly, then just start putting ads on your blog and using the proceeds to purchase the items. You’d at least make a few thousand per month. Just bid in your own auctions, and if you win, you keep it. That’s real credibility, because you put your money where your mouth (keyboard?) is.
July 2nd, 2006 at 10:34 am
Credibility rocks
Well done Robert
July 2nd, 2006 at 10:35 am
Dips: agree :) Shameless plug: just wrote some comments about N92 (the one with DVB-H) in my blog (see link).
July 2nd, 2006 at 11:10 am
Raj: I totally agree. PodTech needs to make that MUCH clearer. And, if I’m ever asked to break this contract with you I’ll quit. I’d rather keep my credibility intact, even if that means taking a vow of poverty.
The audience, by the way, is way too connected and way too smart for anyone to fool them for long. The sleazy ones will get picked out and the advertisers on sleazy bloggers will get bad PR.
July 2nd, 2006 at 12:15 pm
It could be said that Sonos compensated you handsomely for your glowing review. Let us not forget, you donated their product on a stage in front of 500 elite bloggers who, on aggregate, wield considerable power. Your compensation was in blogger currency: praise and goodwill. Had your donation been anonymous–or better still, had you returned Sonos’ product unopened–the ethics of your review would be clearer.
July 2nd, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Wow, deja vu from a few months ago. I won’t dig up the post, but we’ve heard all this from you before.
Robert, don’t take this harshly, but to be completely honest, you’ve lost more credibility by blindly promoting a plethora of Microsoft products in your time there than if you simply gave a few free products a good review. It’s understandable, as how could you possibly be familiar with all the Microsoft products you talk about and each of their competitors? You can’t, but that makes you an informed, low credibility blogger on each one.
You know, thousands do just fine reviewing free products every day. I’ve received hundreds of free games and DVDs to review. But you know what? They’re all on a level playing field. And the funny thing is, I tend to rank the things I purchase with my hard earned cash better than the free stuff. That’s because I get sent things in the full range of garbage to greatness, but I only purchase quality. The main conflict of interest I had when I started was that I didn’t like to have to give low review scores and then speak to the PR people about it. You got over that pretty quickly though.
The main difference between what I do and what you do is that I’m reviewing things every day as a second job. You are a blogger who just happens to get sent free stuff. If anything, I’d rather not have these preachy posts and disclaimers all the time. Just don’t talk about products you get sent at all if you aren’t able to keep your objectivity.
July 2nd, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Free stuff doesn’t make you a liar. If it does it’s easy to spot. Companies have paid massive amounts of money to fly me to fantastic destinations to show me their latest products and not once has that entered my mind when giving my opinion. Readers can sense a mile away the delicate whiff of bullshit and you’d be betraying their trust to try it on with them. Not only that you’d be lying to yourself.
A good editor will be able to tell whether a product is actually as good as it’s been described. Your credibility lays in your ability to genuinely understand and review a product with the reader in mind not whether you’ve got one tucked away in the desk drawer somewhere. I think you should go easier on yourself and keep a few of the freebies. Though next time you’re giving away the really good stuff let me know and I’ll clear a space.
July 2nd, 2006 at 4:09 pm
[...] PayPerPost is a service currently in beta trying to connect advertisers with bloggers seeking for revenue from their blogging-activities. advertisers offer ‘opportunities’ to bloggers, defining the requirements a blog-post has to meet in order to get paid for it (f.e. linking to a product-website, reviewing a product or writing about personal experiences with a product or service). while PayPerPost promises to review oppportunities and ban offers which would “require bloggers to be dishonest”, popular bloggers have already expressed their antipathy for the service (read Robert Scoble or TechCrunch). PayPerPost is currenlty only available to US-bloggers. [...]
July 2nd, 2006 at 6:07 pm
[...] Edit: Clint has let us know Scoble has answered [...]
July 2nd, 2006 at 6:27 pm
[...] “Why? Because I got it for free from the company because I’m an “A list” blogger.” July 2nd [...]
July 2nd, 2006 at 6:29 pm
[...] “Why? Because I got it for free from the company because I’m an “A list” blogger.” July 2nd [...]
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:09 pm
[...] Scoble notes that he won’t use PayPerPost (or if he does he’ll disclose) and goes on to talk about the blogger/journalist payola that has become so common in the industry (free phones, A/V equipment, computers, etc.). I think Shel Israel (Scoble’s Naked Conversations co-author) goes over the top in wishing that PayPerPost fail without seeing the results of the new service. Still, there is a lot of interest and debate surrounding the service. TechCrunch reviewed PayPerPost but notes that the site “does not accept payment for posts”. The buzz abounds. [...]
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Pay Per Post will die a whimpering pathetic death.
Let’s play Pay For Post!
Send money! Send Product! Send Hookers!
Of Course I will Blog for Money! I did Before, I’ll try it again. But before you jamb my comments waving money to gush about Your Unique Product, let me lay out the rules of engagement.
Send Money!
I do enough shit for love.
Send product!
I will not comment on stuff I have not tried or used. No, You will not get it back as I will road test it to the point of failure.
You do not have editorial control over my posting. You are taking a chance, But it is a relatively cheap chance. Remember New Coke?
You may correct my punctuation, grammar, and we will talk about my use of profanity, but you have no more editorial control, especially if what I write is a resounding bitchslapping of some dog of a product that you think will appeal to millions.
Send Hookers!
This one is non-negotiable. Send the Money in the Product, and have it Delivered by a Hooker. It is a well known fact that men are more pliable after a gut wrenching orgasm. (You will have to fine tune this one for other orientations)
This is a WIN-WIN!.
You will get product testimonials, at a far cheaper rate than a PR Firm will give you, much more honest, (which if you have the brains god gave a gerbil, you would contact us directly, rather using yet another third person enabler, who has shoved the stick of metrics so far up your ass, that you think this is a good idea) and last but not least, we will finally elevate women who prefer to swap money for sex, into a more respected place in society.
Before you reject this idea, think about how much money you are currently shoving down the ratholes of Advertising Agencies and PR Firms.
http://theheadlemur.typepad.com/ravinglunacy/2006/06/pay_per_post_se.html
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:19 pm
How does it make you sleezy to take payment for writting about something you believe in?
Oh crap that’s what you did all year at Microsoft last year. You were getting paid to talk about Microsoft. It’s called a job. What’s the difference. I’m sick of “A-List” Hypocrisy and monkey business. Get off your freaking high horse.
Just another case of hypocrisy coming from all these “a-list purists”
Unsubscribed. This is a crock of bs. Goodbye Scoble. Respect lost.
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:31 pm
[...] But he goes off into calling certain bloggers and video bloggers “sleezy” — which is essentially a crock of bs. That makes him sleezy for working for Microsoft last year. Sorry but you were essentially pitching a product over there. [...]
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:51 pm
I appreciate your credibility. How you have earned credibility though has more to do with your disclosing where you stand than feeling like everyone else needs to live by the same standards you hold yourself to.
For example, I wouldn’t be comfortable with hanging onto the Nokia for a few months. But I don’t have a problem with you doing so, since you’ve made it clear what you’re comfortable with. (I will appreciate it if you remind us it was provided to you when you write your thoughts after a few months though!)
I think Ryan Mahoski brings up an interesting point. Payment isn’t always in the form of cash or tangible goods. In fact, recognition is often perceived as even more valuable in the blogsphere… especially from the perspective of folks that aren’t A-listers.
July 2nd, 2006 at 8:50 pm
David, I answered your post here: http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/07/02/scobles-a-hypocrite-pr-blogger-says/
July 2nd, 2006 at 8:53 pm
>How does it make you sleezy to take payment for writting about something you believe in?
Because as a reader I don’t know if you’re doing it for the love or if you’re doing it for the money. I especially will think you’re sleazy if you don’t disclose that. And my conflicts have always been disclosed so that you can apply that lens there.
July 2nd, 2006 at 9:51 pm
@28. Gimme a f***king break! You wrote a book to get paid, right? Certainly you didn’t do it for charity. Otherwise you would have dropped it from the sky rather than put it on Amazon. Should we now not read your book because you wrote it and got paid for it? You didn’t blatantly state that but one would have to be naive to think otherwise. Should you tell us if people that invite you to a conference to speak comped you your room and possibly your travel before your speak? I mean, you credibilty my be at risk. People who write columns do it for money. I could give a shit if a blogger is getting paid for their writing. All that should be important is what they have to say. Do you really think this will turn the blogosphere into Pravda? Are you really that distrustful of people?
July 2nd, 2006 at 10:41 pm
[...] It appears that TechCrunch and Scoble aren’t to happy with the business model at PayPerPost.com, a new way to advertise on blogs and such. From their site, [...]
July 2nd, 2006 at 11:10 pm
#29: Dmad, it’s obvious you have never thought about conflict of interest. The publisher that paid for my book wasn’t paying me to take a specific stance like “PayPerPost” will.
A columnist is paid to write, yes, but newspapers don’t let advertisers tell columnists what to write.
July 2nd, 2006 at 11:40 pm
Just a note that I wasn’t the single winner - I was in a syndicate of about 8 of us who added our raffle tickets together. So somehow the 8 (or 9?) of us will have to split the Sonos :-) I love the product though.
July 2nd, 2006 at 11:44 pm
‘A columnist is paid to write, yes, but newspapers don’t let advertisers tell columnists what to write.’
True but if someone from the advertising department rings an editor and says there’s ad money in a column about how colour laser printers are da bomb then you bet your ass that before long there’d a column about it and there’d be advertising in that very same issue from said company.
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:17 am
PayPerPost has inspired me to start my new blog: BloggerForSale.com.
July 3rd, 2006 at 4:16 am
Robert: “A columnist is paid to write, yes, but newspapers don’t let advertisers tell columnists what to write.”
Not true. It’s not so black and white, but that behavior is more common than it should be. And it isn’t advertisers doing all the offering. I’ve heard stories of magazine editors saying “If you pay for a back page ad, we’ll score your product higher.” It’s sad but true. Good companies like Ziff Davis (1up.com, EGM, etc.) keep their advertising/PR people completely separate from their editors and I think that helps.
July 3rd, 2006 at 5:04 am
I agree with you Robert on complete disclosure of any “gifts” you receive because of who you are and that you write (and well from my viewpoint). I have written a column for a User Group magazine for over 20 Years and I always let people know whether I received the software/hardware as a gift or I paid for it. Normally I did contribute the product as a raffle prize at meetings. This way I felt much better and could be objective in my comments on a product.
Good luck at your new company and I look forward to more blogs from you.
July 3rd, 2006 at 10:52 am
[...] Of course, Scoble hits it on the head as well - After all, I read blogs and forums to try to learn the TRUTH about products, companies, movements, and ideas. Advertising rarely brings truth. I guess this sort of thing was inevitable especially when you consider how far Hugh MacLeod hit one out of the park with Stormhoek. I suspect that this pay to blog tactic will not gain much traction as the bloggers that would participate in such a scheme dont have the kind of currency to deliver a decent ROI to the advertisers. [...]
July 3rd, 2006 at 1:11 pm
[...] Quick Update: Scoble whom everyone acknowledges as one of the premier bloggers on the planet, has a post on the PayPerPost fiasco. His reflections echo what the blogosphere is saying, but if you like to hear it from the man himself, check out the post. [...]
July 3rd, 2006 at 2:36 pm
[...] But Robert made this post yesterday about disclosure in relation to payperpost that Richard Brownell, Chris Brennan and David Krug make some extremely interesting points that people should consider in the comments of Robert’s post. I think Robert is not recognizing that creating buzz is in itself advertising whether you keep the product or not – so either you should take what is given to you and be discreet about it or return the items as they arrive if you care about potential ethics issues. [...]
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:56 pm
But yet you will blindly accept Al Gore’s theory on global warming without questioning who is behind the funding of the research and what the motives of those funding that research are. Brilliant!
July 3rd, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Dmad: good point, but irrelevant. The fact that you know who funded his research demonstrates that he disclosed it.
July 3rd, 2006 at 10:13 pm
If disclosure is all that matters, then PayForPost needs to definitely change their name. Then, you can post full disclosure about the company that “sponsored” the post and still disguise the fact that the post was actually paid for.
Is this right, wrong, ethical or just economics?
July 4th, 2006 at 7:11 am
[...] I hadn’t heard of PayPerPost before reading Robert Scoble’s stance on it earlier today. The gist is that a blog author signs up with the service and then browses for “topics” of interest. These are topics that were hand chosen by paying advertisers. The author write an article on the subject and if PayPerPost approves it, she publishes it and gets paid. [...]
July 4th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Companies give you free stuff, you play with it, you give it away, and you blog about it. You feel OK because you make full disclosure, and you don’t keep the free stuff. PayPerPost gives me money when I blog about something one of their advertisers will pay for. I feel OK because I make full disclosure, and I won’t write crap just to get paid. And I’m not going to keep the prize, either. I’ll most likely spend it within days, if not hours, of receiving it. As long as both of us maintain our honesty and integrity, I don’t see a problem.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Another one to send to the PR folks. :)
I wish all tech reviewers had a link to their bio - that included how long they’d used the platform/software and which competitor products they used.
Business reporters should have to disclose stock/mutual fund positions in anything that they write about (pan a company, better tell me you own stock in a competitor).
Some political reporters don’t vote for just that reason.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
The practice of “reviewing” until you give it away is ridiculous. I gave away my laptop now …I’m reviewing a new laptop…whew, rough life. Guess what? You are in the top .0001% of bloggers out there that get a laptop much less anything else. Most bloggers are happy to earn enough for a cheese burger from AdSense. It’s easy to give things away when they will surely be replaced by the next item you are “reviewing”.
You make yourself feel better by giving things away, but you are no better than anyone else who accepts products or cash. You are simply rent-to-write.
The only reason you can even consider doing something like this is the fact that you don’t need the money or the product. It’s like celebrities getting $10k gift bags at award shows. Give the stuff to the people who need it least. They do the same thing, take a couple photos then give the product to mom because you just got another to replace it.
If you were to give the same offer to honestly review and keep a $1200 product the overwhelming majority of the blogosphere would do it. Hell, send me a Sonos. I will review it, I will be honest in my review and I won’t have a problem at all sleeping at night.
I find it honorable that you give your products away, however you have to acknowledge that there is a huge difference between you and the rest of the world.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
—
#29: Dmad, it’s obvious you have never thought about conflict of interest. The publisher that paid for my book wasn’t paying me to take a specific stance like “PayPerPost” will.
—
What gave you the impression that we are making bloggers take a specific stance. Bloggers choose what they want to write about Robert. Maybe if it was called “Microsoft PayPerPost” you would have actually used the system before you bashed it.
July 5th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
[...] Why I won’t use PayPerPost (and if I do, I will disclose) [...]
July 11th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
yguihalrog
jlpzhsqlmk bzfadyo bpqkssjsog
July 21st, 2006 at 1:03 am
Swingers sex
Then He slapped my ass and ordered me under the desk. It was then that I knew that this time it was going to push even my whorish limits on performing as His sex slave.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:33 pm
jbhffg
gdfsgv fsdaf fafdsafas
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:28 pm
[...] Scoble wasn’t a total PayPerPost hater, he was just wary of what it would do it the content of the blogosphere. “Elitists” (as PayPerPost puts it) such as himself are paid to blog, but it’s pretty obvious through Scoble’s posts that he isn’t going to praise Microsoft/PodTech at every turn (and his son is a total Apple freak). [...]
August 12th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Pay Per Post is blogwhoring, like artificial Word of Mouth buzz agents, a paid enthusiast activity.
To accept money to blog about products you actually don’t use or like, etc.
August 13th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
[...] Robert Scoble is a pretty famous blogger. He is a former employee of MS and I’m not sure why he is so famous but it is what it is. The Scobeliezer, won’t use the service, I think. Although the title of his post against PayPerPost.com sort of leaves that point open to some speculation: Why I won’t use PayPerPost (and if I do, I will disclose). Anyway, PayPerPost.com apparently didn’t like the negative attention from either Scoble or Techcrunch and they are willing to pay to prove that point. I Get Paid to Blog [...]
August 25th, 2006 at 7:05 am
[...] The biggest problem bloggers have with PayPerPost is its disclosure policy, something that was also highlighted in the BusinessWeek article. That’s also something Robert Scoble has a problem with. The bloggers who signed up last month are getting paid now (a post must be up for 30 days before PayPerPost will send payment), so there are more positive opinions out there now, but the controversy remains. [...]
August 25th, 2006 at 7:33 am
[...] PayPerPost is making waves. Nobody bloggers like myself love them, A-listers like Arrington hate them (but I totally understand and agree with his POV– read on). It’s just the next form of advertisement, big deal. We’ve got ads on everything from radio to TV to the Internet already, and now ads are showing up in blogs. I personally feel strongly about keeping users informed that you were compensated for a post, because otherwise, as Scoble put it, content on the blogosphere will die. Maybe some sort of universal flag that this post is an ad (as a hidden meta/RSS tag, etc.)? Sites like pheedo.com already put ads in RSS feeds for you (although it is extremely obvious). I notify my users via a text disclaimer in my RSS feed and a colored background and category on my site. I think PayPerPost is doing a tremendous job of keeping content neutral, by recommending advertisers ask for neutral opinions, but the few advertisers who require that their posts aren’t marked as “paid” are bad. They shouldn’t be allowed to ask that, IMHO. Just some thoughts. A post-mortem on the CGM class warfare surrounding the launch of PayPerPost’s platform allowing mainstream bloggers/podcasters/MySpacers/YouTubers to connect with advertisers and get paid for their work. [...]
September 5th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
[...] Company founder Ted Murphy, went to the same elementry school as Marshall Kirkpatrick, Rafe Needleman, and Robert Scoble. At recess and lunch time they all played basketball. [...]
September 6th, 2006 at 10:50 am
I take the swag, I always list full disclosure that I was using a free sample. I even keep a page that lists all of the stuff I’ve received for free and links to the reviews.
I don’t have the same moral qualms about it that you do. If I don’t like something then I’m going to say it. On my reviews for my free Nokia phone I give lists of the people I think should be fired because of poor design decisions.
My rule of thumb is that all a “free sample” guarantees is a mention, and that’s if I end up using it.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
[...] Just dugg [digged?] this article and I think it does a good job of rebutting a lot of the knee-jerk reactions regarding PayPerPost. It’s easy for Scoble or TechCrunch to scoff at the idea of getting paid to speak your mind, because they can rest on the laurels of their traffic and ad revenue. But what about all the people that are diligently browsing the web every day? They have opinions, too, and maybe now they can spend part of their day blogging for dollars. Think about it this way: who wouldn’t want to make money blogging? [...]
September 16th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
[...] I think it is funny to listen to Robert Scoble put down PayPerPost, but then in the same breath have to explain how he is going to give away all the free stuff he has ever received for blogging. I Get Paid to Blog, too. Filed under: Aesthetic and Economic | Tags: PayPerPost, photoshop. [...]
September 19th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
porn
pdzem urmbhine txokjucba
October 26th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
bdsm
bdsm bdsm bdsm bdsm bdsm bdsm bdsm bdsm bdsm bdsm fqtlzcwo
December 15th, 2006 at 9:43 am
[...] Why I won’t use Pay-per-post [...]
December 17th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
“…whether I was saying they rock just because I got a free one or because I really felt that way.”
You don’t even need to say they rock. Say that they are the worst thing you saw. What counts is a mention. Negative -11 and positive 11 are the same [11].
May 7th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
[...] A thought on pay-per-post So a while back when the company Pay Per Post (PPP) entered the market, I signed up. PPP pays bloggers for reviewing products and posting about them. I even did a post and made five bucks. There was a lot of chatter on the blogs and even A-lister Scoble chimed in saying he wouldn’t ever get involved in PPP. [...]