Arguement for paid posting
I’ve recently held a bit of discussion with some people over the fact that I did a paid post here earlier this week. I don’t think that it’s as big of a deal as everyone makes it out to be, while others are taking a stance of non-participation by censoring people like myself that do make money with paid posts.
As stated in the post in question, all paid posts on this or any other blog that I run will be clearly marked as a paid post. The content of the post will not be regulated by the entity paying for the post and will be my honest opinion of the product or website. In fact, to take it further, I see no difference between my doing a paid post every once in a while and having affiliate links in a unpaid-for post. In many cases, affiliate links are not marked in any way. Further, I see little difference between a paid post and regular advertisements like adsense, Text-Link-Ads, and others. I’m still being paid to put up content in both cases. And in both cases the advertisement is clearly marked.
What are your opinions of this? Do you use services like PayPerPost or ReviewME? Have you found that people censor your blogs because of it? Or that people are more negative towards you and your blog because of it? Let me know. I’d like to hear what the consensus is among the personal finance realm.
Technorati Tags: payperpost, reviewme, paid posts, personal finance, advertisement
Like this post? Subscribe by RSS
Or if you prefer, Subscribe by Email
Related Posts:
Flexo said,
Wrote on December 13, 2006 @ 8:38 pm
Personally, I think it’s fine if it is cearly marked as being paid for, but I would think bloggers (especially new ones) should build credibility first rather than chance losing it for the thought of getting a few quick extra bucks. Some programs don’t *let* bloggers say the post was paid for, and I’m not a fan of that at all.
Either way, paid postings are much different than advertisements that are clearly in an advertisement section of the layout. There’s a much bigger difference: how and why the blogger gets paid. I could write any content, but as long as visitors keep coming and a few click on ads, AdSense will pay no matter what I write. In order to get paid by pay-per-post programs, you have to write about a certain product or service. You may think you’re writing honestly, but who really knows for sure? (I mean *I* trust you, but will new readers who are just popping by and looking for some new blogs to read? Will random visitors from AdSense, or will they care?)
With the increase in “fake” blogs written by corporate marketing consultants, I’d rather err on the side of trust when possible…
The FTC just released an “opinion” of non-disclosed “advertorials…” and PayPerPost (and similar programs) look like they could be a prime target if the opinion becomes acted upon.
thatedeguy said,
Wrote on December 13, 2006 @ 9:36 pm
I’m not sure which programs don’t let bloggers say the post was paid for. PayPerPost doesn’t require it but they don’t forbid it either. ReviewME, the service that I’ve been using does require that I disclose in a very obvious way which posts are paid for.
As far as the honesty bit goes, I can write on certain topics and influence the ads that appear in adsense.
Certain ads pay better than others. So if I were to right on topics that have higher paying ads, isn’t that the same thing as writing a post that I’ve been paid for? Especially if I have the expectation of higher revenue by writing the ad?
I’ve read the FTC opinion and services like ReviewME shouldn’t have an issue with is since all it really requires is clear disclosure. ReviewME requires that. If services like PayPerPost wish to avoid scrutiny by the FTC, they’ll have to start requiring their users to disclose the posts that are paid for.
Overall, these services aren’t going away. We need to learn how to ethically use them and get along with them.