Do You Have What It Takes to Earn $250?
November 12th, 2006Word For The Day: Proxenetism
A few days ago, I watched the Republican Party lose the U.S. Senate, in large part because people were disgusted with Montana’s Conrad Burns’ and Ohio’s Mike DeWine’s cosy relationship with influence peddler Jack Abramoff.
Americans got sick of it (finally).
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.
In these schemes, a blogger is paid a pittance ($10 — or even more!) to tout a product. Companies sign up as Johns, and the bloggers can pick who they want to put out for.
In their race to the bottom, ReviewMe is claiming the, ahem, high ground by requiring that bloggers disclose they are being paid.
A raft of bloggers have written “Hey Look At Me I’m A Whore” posts, along with limp justifications about why it’s OK because they admit it. Some are being paid a lot, some just a little, but however much they’re being paid….
- Publishing 2.0 (
$250$125) - Make You Go Hmm ($125)
- Paul Stamatiou (
$120$125) - Martin Breton ($60)
- Am I Famous Now (Yes, finally — $30!)
- Ad Moolah ($30)
- Texturbation ($20)
- Cameron Olthius (undisclosed, and possibly the saddest)
On the other side of the coin, my respect for Mike Arrington continues to grow. He pulls no punches in his recent podcast interview with PayPerPost and their silver-tongued VC lawyer, who does most of the talking. Mike at least understands that his reputation is worth a bit more than $20, or even $250.
Finally, with cheerful devil-take-the-hindmost chutzpah, Raving Lunacy announces with pride that he’ll do anything for money (”I’ve done enough work for love”) and shouts, “SEND HOOKERS!”
Tags: PayPerPost, ReviewMe, Talkcrunch, Michael Arrington, Publishing 2.0, Scott Karp, Raving Lunacy, Paul Stamatiou, Makes You Go Hmm, Martin Breton, Am I Famous Now, Ad Moolah, Texturbation, Cameron Olthius, pathetic
Aside from saying we are whores, you have failed to tell us why it is wrong to be paid for work we do.
You say we sold our reputation. I fail to see how.
Please, enlighten us.
Money doesn’t grow on trees. You know.
brem | November 12th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Hi Bram -
Hmmm. Let me quote from the Society of Professional Journalists, Code of Ethics:
“Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.
Journalists should:
—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.”
That seems to cover it. The entire code of ethics is worth a read.
Reputations don’t grow on trees either. Price Waterhouse Coopers has a piece on the Market Value of Reputation, and the University of Michigan did a study on the value of reputation on eBay.
Antony | November 12th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Then how do you call those publicity articles we see on our newspapers today? They are ads, but they sure look like genuine articles, yet, they don’t have a “paid advertisement” disclaimer. Same goes for infomercials on TV.
Also, I am not a journalist, nor claim to be. I don’t see how writing a paid review can lead to conflict of interest. Sure, you are paid to review a product, but you don’t have to provide a positive review. Plus, the disclaimer, if anything is a big sign saying: “don’t read this article, this is just to pay for the bread and butter” :)
You can’t expect bloggers to be more catholic than the Pope, can you?
brem | November 12th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
“I don’t see how writing a paid review can lead to conflict of interest.”
Whoo boy! Ya got a live one here!
TooSexyForMyMac | November 12th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Brem (sorry for misspelling your name before) -
I think you will find that this is money that’s just not worth it.
In my opinion (backed up to some extent by the studies I referenced earlier), your reputation as an unbiased source is worth money, and more. Even though you put up a disclaimer, now people know that you’ll shill for a buck, and that’s just not going to help your ratings.
The danger is not that they won’t read the paid article, it’s that they’ll stop reading the blog at all. Disclaimer or not, people just aren’t going to trust you as much.
Antony | November 12th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
I’m one of those who wrote a “Look at Me I’m a Whore” post. I’d just like to say a few things about my posting, although I don’t feel it needs to be justified.
1) My blog is about monetizing web sites. I try out different advertising models and networks to get first hand knowledge of them. Joining ReviewMe was a natural fit for my blog.
2) I have never claimed to be a journalist, so I don’t feel a journalists code of ethics applies.
3) Making money of blog posts is pretty standard practice - people expect it. Even bloggers in your own blog roll do it: Darren Rowse of Problogger regularly has affiliate links in his posts; Brian Clark from Copyblogger has Amazon affiliate links in his recommended books post. I’m sure others do to, I’m just not familiar with them.
All you would have had to do to make your $30 or $150 or whatever is stuck a “Paid for by Reviewme” line at the top of this entry. You obviously have your reasons for not doing so, most likely because you never intended for this blog to be a direct money maker and need it to be a professional corporate blog. Some bloggers, believe it or not, do wish to make money directly from their blogs.
Toivo Lainevool | November 12th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Antony: time will tell. I personally don’t plan on losing my reputation over money. I just think you’re generalizing and passing judgement too quickly.
brem | November 12th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Great post.. just a quick fix though. I received $125 for my post, not $120. And also if you go to the reviewme catalog page for Publishing 2.0 you will see that they also receive $125. (Bloggers get half of the amount on that page, for example, my catalog page on ReviewMe also shows $250).
Paul Stamatiou | November 12th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Toivo -
Thanks for your considered reply. I wouldn’t take the money, though not for the reasons you think. For one thing, I think that PayPerPost and ReviewMe cheapen the whole blogosphere, and give credence to fuddy duddies like Nicholas Lemann, who wrote in the New Yorker recently how bloggers just weren’t up to snuff compared to “real” journalists.
For another, I think the risks are just too enormous. As Warren Buffett said, “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.”
I agree that affiliate links aren’t exactly confidence-inspiring. They degrade confidence and trust. And clearly there’s a difference between paid promotion on a blog like yours and, say, Consumer Reports.
Maybe there isn’t a difference between a PayPerPost and a hidden affiliate link.
I wonder what other people think….
Antony | November 12th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Paul - thanks for the correction. Now fixed.
Antony | November 12th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Brem, you’re right, I do generalize. People have different reasons for crossing the line, but taken all together the whole blogosphere gets cheapened, and that can’t be something anyone is happy about.
Arrington calls it a “virus”. Is this something we just have to wait out, like a case of the flu?
Antony | November 12th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
“Paul - thanks for the correction. Now fixed.”
Still wrongly shows $250 for Publishing 2.0 here.
TDavid | November 12th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
First off all, I’m not professional journalist so that code of honor means jack-shit to me. Second, I’m not the saddest but I’m close, you could find out if you spent a little time looking on ReviewMe. Third, I personally know the guys behind ReviewMe and would’ve written about them regardless of whether I was paid or not. The amount I’m getting is squat.
Overall I like the business model though. It’s not for everyone but this definitely opens up another very realistic stream of revenue for bloggers. I could of swore 6 months ago the blogosphere was trying to figure out if and how bloggers could ever make a living. While this is the last ReviewMe post I’ll write on my personal blog I’ve considered starting a new blog just for the purpose of writing reviews, if I can do a few posts per day at $100 I won’t complain.
Cameron Olthuis | November 12th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Still wrongly shows $250 for Publishing 2.0 here.
Ooops. Right you are. Fixed that one too
Antony | November 12th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
I’ve considered starting a new blog just for the purpose of writing reviews, if I can do a few posts per day at $100 I won’t complain.
Sure, and I’ll bet you’re not the only one. If that happens, I don’t see how long ReviewMe can last. Supporting splogs indefinitely can’t be sustainable business model…
Antony | November 12th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Anthony said: “Maybe there isn’t a difference between a PayPerPost and a hidden affiliate link.”
I think that a hidden affiliate link is on the level of a PayPerPost links - the reader is not aware that there is incentive going on. Affiliate links and paid posting with full disclosure are definitely a level above that.
Anthony also said:
“For one thing, I think that PayPerPost and ReviewMe cheapen the whole blogosphere”
Good point, but this is like saying the National Enquirer cheapens newspapers. Bloggers are no different than main stream media when it comes to reputation. Readers will always trust some sources more than others. Who is more reliable the Wall Street Journal or the National Enquirer? There will be blogs that readers trust and ones they don’t. It’s up to the author(s) of a blog to build up that trust.
My personal view is that my paid posting about ReviewMe didn’t cost me any reputation points with my audience. It’s something I would have written about anyway, and I was very upfront with the disclosure. Again it’s up to each blogger to decide if this model works for them. And, more importantly, it’s up to the readers to decide which blogs to read and trust.
Thanks for the excellent discussion so far. I’ll think I’ll have to do a whole blog post on this.
Toivo Lainevool | November 12th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Ha! I guess now I can finally launch iminternetfamous.com (yes it’s mine, just like the pr0n version of it)!
Actually your entry and especially the shout out to the people who have posted how much they get for their entry is a good act of attention whoring. Especially since many blogs that are listed have reviewed many times services.
I think I have written around 140 asides about services/products on my personal blog. So why not take a buck for doing so at the same time.
My personal and more critical take (also non paid) on ReviewMe can be found here.
But thanks for the shout out, off to launch the new domain! :P
franky | November 12th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Hey Franky — maybe you and the other guys should band together and get a better price by all reviewing the same thing at the same time! You know, collective bargaining…
Instead of blog network, it’s a review network.
You might even get them to pay you NOT to review products; just let them know ahead of time that a bad review might be coming out.
Name: ProtectionNET. Slogan: “Review Me? Hell No — We’ll Review YOU (unless you pay)”
;)
Antony | November 12th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
LOL. Actually in an almost forgotten past I used to review (freetime/personal) blogs unrequested and tear them apart. ;)
[sic in advance already] I had already spotted ReviewMe weeks before and would have posted about them anyway. My readers at AIFN are mainly personal diary bloggers who have hyped PPP. Personally grabbing $30 to do the same SEO I always do and point those 10 readers I have at a new service surely was worth the 6 inbound links my entry got me.
Now that is what I call effective SEO : get money and inbound links. ;)
Having read that much buzz/fuzz/fluff/whatever about PPP & ReviewMe (and all the other platforms ready to launch in the next days) I have wondered : what if a company offers the same and give say 25% of the fee to a charity.
Still unethical, but how would ethical blogland react in that case.
Also many bloggers tearing ReviewMe apart seem to forget that TLA needs a backup platform if Google’s algorithm will ignore affiliate links in a near future. ;)
franky | November 12th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
I am not sure it is fair to criticize the blogging community for this new service, as they are simply taking advantage of a legitimate income stream. If you are against the pay-per-review platform, then you should target your blame at the product manufacturers. After all, the service would not exist if there were no products to review.
I don’t see much difference between this service and a paid link placement. I’d say it is likely most manufacturers are looking for quality link penetration as opposed to quality reviews.
Geoff | November 19th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Geoff, your point about link penetration is right on. The reason the johns don’t care whether the reviews are good or bad is because they’re just buying links to up their search engine rankings.
It’s just another silly cat and mouse game with Google, though. Google’s all about being relevant — they at least recognize the value of a reputation, so if these services gain any traction, Google will penalize them, and everyone will be off to try the next trick.
The people who should watch out are those investing in PayPerPost and ReviewMe (at least with any long-term hopes), because I just don’t see this model lasting that long.
Antony | November 20th, 2006 at 1:37 am