Undisclosed Paid Blogging: Evil or Not

[John Scott]

I'm on the fence.

[Aviva]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I'm on the fence.

Sounds uncomfortable. Try a chair.

Seriously, the issue is not a moral issue and to frame it as one is looking at things incorrectly.

It's really a market issue. Let the market decide.

If you don't think it's right, you don't need to do it. People shouldn't force their beliefs on other bloggers.

The law doesn't require that product placement in a movie or televion show be disclosed. There's no need to require that product placement in a blog be disclosed.

[John Scott]

The law doesn't require that product placement in a movie or televion show be disclosed. There's no need to require that product placement in a blog be disclosed.

Very good point.

I was just reading a post by Jason "Holier Than Thou" Calacanis.

Originally Posted by His Holiness

Nice!

As I predicted Google is going to DEVALUE blogs that participate in PayPerPost. Matt Cutts says this in a comment:

* "Google wants to do a good job of detecting paid links. Paid links that affect search engines (whether paid text links or a paid review) can cause a site to lose trust in Google."

This is not shocking because Google already tries to figure out the difference between editorial and the clearly-labeled paid links on websites. What did you think they would do with covert marketing!?!?!? Covert marketing from folks like PayPerPost is really evil, and Google don't like the evil. Frankly, no one likes to be deceived--do you?

Game over.

Thank you Google for helping hold the line against the forces of evil that want to ruin our beautiful city.

The sanctimonious bastard does have a point, though. Is it deceptive? I don't know. It's hard to say.

For example, if somebody blogs about a web host and says they are awesome, when in fact the blogger had never used the web host, that would be deceptive, no?

[Aviva]

Google does not define what's good and evil. MFA comes to mind...

As well, Google itself has tutorials on how to blend ads so that they look more like content. Kinda like product placement, eh?

Originally Posted by John Scott

For example, if somebody blogs about a web host and says they are awesome, when in fact the blogger had never used the web host, that would be deceptive, no?

As an aside, your comment would apply to 99% of all "host review" websites out there and isn't limited to blogging.

In answer to your question, it really depends on what the blogger says about the web host. I don't host with v7inc, but I can tell you that it was voted best web host in 2003, that it has testimonials from prominent people like seobook, and that in the various webmaster forums it gets good reviews, so that it would well be worth trying.

That's a positive review without having tried the service out, and I don't think I'm being deceptive.

[John Scott]

You're very insightful today. So much for my Canadians Suck theory.

[waffles]

If you work in American Eagle you're paid to say that they're better than Holister.

If you work at McDonald's you're payed to say they're better than Burger King.

And in both cases you don't have to tell someone you're being paid.

Granted, you'll most likely be in the uniform when you do that so it's not hard to guess.

Here's the thing though, if I'm getting paid to blog about something that I actually like, why should I have to say that I'm getting paid? Sure, the fact that I'm being paid might have been what turned me onto trying the thing in the first place, but if I can give an honest review about it there's no reason to tell everyone I'm getting money for it.

[ewomack]

For online product reviews, I really want to know if the author was paid to write the review or if money gets funnelled into the site. Because that fact will help me determine how seriously to take the review. The same goes for political ads. I want to know who paid for them. Online, not disclosing payment, and having visitors find out later, could seriously damage a reviewer's credibility. The law aside, readers have no way to determine if someone wrote an "honest" review or not. But getting paid to review something and not disclosing that fact could dissolve trust in the "honesty" of a site's reviews regardless of how the author actually felt while writing them. A law might make sense since it would help increase consumer awareness and protection against payola type review practices, which likely flourish anyway.

[RobS]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Very good point.

I was just reading a post by Jason "Holier Than Thou" Calacanis.



The sanctimonious bastard does have a point, though. Is it deceptive? I don't know. It's hard to say.

For example, if somebody blogs about a web host and says they are awesome, when in fact the blogger had never used the web host, that would be deceptive, no?

I agree he is a s...ous bas....d lol.. but I digress..

WTF has it gotta do with ANYONE if I earn from some post on my blog.... like the blog read it, thanks.. if not.. fair play.. thanks for coming by.. hope to improve so more DO like it.. if I get a reward for an HONEST review.. then so what?
They obviously LIKED MY review enough to say..hey WTHeck.. worth checking out to me!!
If I give value in all other NON paying post as well for free... wheres the problem?

The readers decide this stuff out.. no one else!

Its bollox!

If i ONLY blogged and did it full time.. why would anyone begrudge me feeding myself doing it?
Are people THAT stupid to think everyone would for free..and NO promotion of things?

As has been said.. its rife elsewhere..other medias etc.

We ALL know what the situation is.. you never hear someone say..
"hey you rekon the TV chnnel get paid for putting those shite ads on?"

Do you??

Its all bollox.. another stupid idea by a daft and in a way patronising branch of a government!..

[Dustin07]

I think paid posting is great. In my opinion it's a little less annoying than the radio-DJ-Pimp thing I've used as an example 100 times this week.


While I do think those links might be better off devalued for SEO purposes, I don't know how Google could possibly do it without devaluing other blogs that don't receive PPP comp.

For example, if somebody blogs about a web host and says they are awesome, when in fact the blogger had never used the web host, that would be deceptive, no?

I don't have to own a Ferrari to say it's awesome.

[Julie]

I don't think undisclosed paid blogging is evil, as long as you remain honest. If the money starts to sway your opinion or encourages you to say something you don't honestly believe, then that is when it is evil.

Personally though, I do some paid blogging, and I don't disclose the status of such posts when I do them. I will only do a paid post for something I believe in or have tried out myself anyways, and when I do write a paid post, I don't lie about the product, service, website, etc. I don't do it through PayPerPost or ReviewMe or anything...just side deals..so no one requires me to do anything.

[Nick]

The Internet is evil.

[cheryl]

Hi there, this is a very interesting topic. I work for Blogsvertise, one of the paid-blogging sites, and I see many, many paid posts every day. I can tell you that for about 98% of them, it is very clear from the way they are written that they are sponsored ads, even without a disclosure. Most bloggers don't write any personal info about their experiences with the product or website. And they are always allowed to identify their posts as sponsored posts or post something negative or neutral rather than positive.

[John Scott]

Welcome to v7n, Cheryl

[avantis]

I agree with Julie. As long as you remain honest about a product that you really know and have experience with, it's ok to undisclose it.

I haven't written any such reviews either independently or with PayPerPost/ReviewMe, but according to what I've read, PayPerPost and ReviewMe don't require the reviewers to say 'only good things' in the blog entry..

[richrf]

I believe it is how you present your blog. If you present it as an unbiased source of information, then you should somehow build a wall of seperation between advertising and editorial. If it is a personal blog, then anything is O.K. and people can take what you say for what it is worth.

This issue actually is far more critical in other areas of our economy - e.g. financial brokers, where more and more the line is being crossed as regulations are being removed or unenforced. It is pretty bad. I think that blogs are relatively benign compared to these issues.

Rich

[cldnails]

I agree, it's not a moral issue and if people take it as such, they are too easily influenced. I take marketing such as this as a way to get me in the door, not force me to buy a product, use a service...etc... If John Scott said that Construction Paper was a great product for toilet paper, I may check it out, but I'm not going to consider it right. So if XYZ paid John to say so, I'm not going to be upset when he didn't disclose it and my ass hurts.

It's no different than other online affiliation. I may hide my affiliate link in a blog post when I am suggesting a customer use a hosting service I've never used before, simply because they have a good commission payout. Is that morally wrong? I don't think so, but hey, it's just me.

[Utexas]

Originally Posted by Nick

The Internet is evil.

Ultimately, that boils down to people are evil.