"Blog Payola" Draws Adverse Reaction
By: Mathew Ingram
Looks like round three (or is it round four?) of the blog payola debate is upon us, something I expected we would see more of in 2007.
Over at The Blog Herald, my friend Tony I Never Sleep Hung has the 411 on a new PayPerPost-style blog review service called SponsoredReviews, which is reportedly about to launch in beta.
Tony has the details, and Mike Arrington at TechCrunch brings the outrage, in a post that says the blog payola virus is spreading. In a response in the comments, someone says that services like PayPerPost fill a need, and Mike responds that drug dealers fill a need too. The bottom line, he says, is that such services mean misled readers, search engine pollution and credibility questions around the entire blogosphere. All for a few dollars a post.
SponsoredReviews, like PayPerPost, appears to require disclosure - although its not clear yet whether that will be a general, site-wide disclosure like the one PPP allows, or whether compensation will have to be disclosed on each and every sponsored post, which is the way I think it should be done.
SponsoredReviews is also trying to carve out a variation on the model by allowing bloggers to set their own rates, with a bidding system determining the eventual payola level. And the service says that it will have a rating system, although its not clear what that will consist of.
Ive got a great idea: How about instead of requiring disclosure, SponsoredReviews requires bloggers to post the details of the entire monetary transaction that led to the post in a small box next to the post " complete with all the various bids and the final price that was paid for the review. Transparency is good.
View All Articles by Mathew Ingram
About the Author:
Mathew Ingram is a technology writer and blogger for the Globe and Mail, a national newspaper based in Toronto, and also writes about the Web and media at www.mathewingram.com/work and www.mathewingram.com/media.
is an iEntry, Inc. ® publication
All Rights Reserved.