A Conversation With Pay Per Post
November 8th, 2006 by tom
Walking around the Ad Tech New York exhibit hall on Monday, I noticed that PayPerPost had a booth set up. Tuesday during the day, I had some time in between sessions and meetings, so I headed over to their booth to see if someone would talk to me on the record. I identified myself to the person manning the booth and told her I’d like to get an on-the-record chat about how PayPerPost works for my blog. She agreed, so I asked her a series of questions.
I asked for and received permission to record the conversation on a little digital recorder I bought at Radio Shack that morning. Here’s a link to an MP3 of the file. I’m printing a transcript of the conversation below (with most of the umms, ahhs and y’knows removed).
Really, I wanted to know how PayPerPost was served up to marketers, so I got the elevator pitch and some answers to a few of my questions. I still think the company’s practices are harmful to the blogosphere, but listen to the audio or read the transcript to make up your own mind.
One quick note: I asked some of the questions that I thought a typical agency person or advertiser might ask about their model. To an extent, I knew most of the answers before they came out of the rep’s mouth. But I did want to hear how they serve this thing up in the context of a trade show where there are thousands of potential advertisers and agency partners milling about. So forgive me if the questions are rudimentary.
Me: All right. So, like I mentioned, I’m Tom Hespos. Sometimes I’m a marketing blogger, sometimes I’m a business journalist and I run an agency as well. I wanted to see if I could get -uhm- well, your name first…
PPP: Okay, I’m Britt Gustafson. I’m a communications specialist for Pay Per Post.
Me: Okay. And I wanted to get the sort of like the brief elevator pitch on what it is that you guys do, because anything that has anything to do with monetizing the blogosphere is obviously something that we want to know about, so, uh…
PPP: Well, basically, what Pay Per Post is is the world’s first consumer generated advertising network, so what we do is we connect the advertisers with consumers who are eager to develop online content about a product or service of interest to them, in exchange for payment or other considerations. So, the advertisement that a blogger creates is living on their own personal blog. It’s viewed by other people just surfing the net, indexed for SEO and syndicated via RSS.
Me: Okay, so this is like an incentive program then for I guess mainstream advertisers to get into the blogosphere?
PPP: Yeah, absolutely. We have all different types of advertisers that maybe could be somebody doing packaging, it could be a kid’s clothing line or some type of new technology, you know, could be a vacuum or something of some sort. So it’s very broad, the type of advertisers that we have. We also have publishers as well. And basically, what they do is they create opportunities online and our network of bloggers log in to their own login, user name, password, and they see the latest opportunities to blog about. So they take the opportunity, they write about it on their blog, basically following the guidelines of the advertiser. But ultimately it’s in their own words. It’s their own thoughts, their own feelings. Could be positive, could be negative, could be neutral. Once they’ve created that advertisement, they link back to Pay Per Post. We have an internal review process where we review it and make sure that it’s up to par as far as what the advertiser wants. And once that’s done, we pay them through PayPal and take a percentage.
Me: Okay. Who would be some of the advertisers or marketers who would participate in something like this with you guys?
PPP: We’ve been in business for four months, so we’re gaining a lot more advertisers. Right now, two of the largest ones are PGA Golf and we have SpeedTV, are the ones that are larger.
Me: Well you know, we all hear about how the blogosphere is organized into heirarchies. Are there any sort of A-List or B-List players that are working with you guys on the blogging side?
PPP: Well, right now, it’s kind of open to everybody across the board. As we grow, eventually, you know that’s something tha we’re interested in, we’re thinking about definitely. But right now, we offer opportunities for everybody. So, you know, it’s open.
Me: So, you mentioned before about the advertisers…if they sort of put their position up…in terms of oppportunities to write about it then. What if a blogger writes something that’s negative when the advertiser wants positive?PPP: Well that’s something that we monitor. So basically, when a blogger takes an opportunity, they send us back a link from their site saying, “Okay. This is what I wrote about.” And then we have reviewers who take that original opportunity from the advertiser and measure it up against what was written on the blog. So we make sure that everything’s right in it, it’s not [inaudible]…We have rights, then we reject it because maybe you didn’t put the right URL, or maybe you didn’t put the right keywords in. We don’t monitor as far as what they say. We make sure the criteria is as per what the advertiser wants. And once that’s approved, then we only pay them through PayPal 30 days out.
Me: Thirty days out…Okay. So…let’s just make this up for a hypothetical advertiser. If I’m a Procter & Gamble or something, and I want somebody to write something about my shampoo and I want them to talk about three product attributes, let’s say. Do the bloggers get paid if they don’t comply with those three things that P&G wants them to write about?PPP: Well, it basically…I hear what you’re saying. A lot of people do that, but then you’re kind of blocking the blogger from expressing a lot more about the product sometimes, but…if that’s a key element that you need to say this, this and that and that’s something that we do with you and make sure that you’re not missing out on that, because that’s a key element that they want out there to create a buzz about – that it’s a new product, you know, extra shine or thickness or what have you…That that’s something that, definitely, that they need to have somehow incorporated…
Me: …in order to get paid?
PPP: Exactly.
Me: Okay. I’ve heard a little bit about the notion of transparency in the blogosphere. How do you think, from your perspective, this affects transparency in the blogosphere? Is this full disclosure?PPP: At this point, we just recently launched disclosurepolicy.org. That’s a site where…all… We’re trying to have bloggers adopt that on their own site saying “yes” and disclosing the fact they’re being paid for blogging. So this is something that the bloggers are doing, and they have no problem doing it because, you know, it’s sort of like, they’re worried about other things other than Pay Per Post. They’re writing about their own personal vibes and thoughts and feelings about everything. So that’s something that they’re not having a problem really at all balancing it out that way.
Me: Okay. How about just in terms of general blogger credibility? I hear Jeff Jarvis and other folks like that talking all the time about ‘We really have to watch out for things that erode blogger credibility.’ Is this something that you think is going to, long term, be good for the blogosphere? Bad for the blogosphere? In terms of the credibility. I mean, I can imagine that somebody would find somebody in the Pay Per Post program and say, “Well, hey, this person’s being paid, so maybe it’s not necessarily their own opinion. Maybe it’s the opinion of the advertiser.” How do you guys deal with that?
PPP: My personal thought on it…either you’re blogging or you’re not, and if you are blogging…like, I have a blog and I never used it…for Pay Per Post, but I think bloggers that are very active, the ones that I’ve gone through and read…It’s a part of them. So I think it’s their own individual way to express themselves, so I don’t know if…I don’t think that’s going to change. And that’s something we ask our bloggers not to do more than three posts a day, that they do separate it with their own personal entries. We want to keep realness alive with their blogs. These people are more than happy to. Like I’ve gone to a lot of our bloggers’ websites and I’m like, “I can’t even see the ad.” They’re talking about this, that and what have you, you know, so… They’re very active.
Me: In terms of the campaigns that you guys have run for advertisers, is there like a concrete example or something you could talk about specific to one of the campaigns you’ve already run.
PPP: A good example was Speed TV, actually. They deal with NASCAR and all that. Racing. They were having a hard time…uhm, not a hard time, but we thought of this opportunity to create four different types of opportunities to increase their rankings. So that’s what we did. One was probably one of the TV shows. I don’t know specifically what four opportunities were created. All I know is that we created four different opportunities. They were ranking like 130 and all of a sudden within a week they were ranked number five…
Me: So you’re talking about search engine results then…right?
PPP: Exactly.
Me: So because blogs enjoy favorable treatment from the search engines organically, this is something that an advertiser would be interested in for that reason?PPP: Oh, yeah, absolutely. You’re creating…an opportunity to attract people who know something about your product or business or service. And they’re writing about it and then linking it back to your site but they already have a little network of all their friends. So everybody’s going to be reading that as well so there’s [inaudible] in SEO for their sites.
Me: Anything else you want to add?
PPP: No, ultimately…we’ve been around for a couple months. It’s been quite interesting. We’ve been able to get a lot of great advertisers, a lot of great interest in what we’re doing and ultimately we’re just trying to prove it and make it work for everybody. So far it’s been working out really well.
LoundLaunch Maybe PayPerPost Done Right…
LoudLaunch.com is a forthcoming platform that will allow advertisers to fund the development of blogs on certain topics. At first blush it appears to be very similar to PayPerPost, which has had its share of controversy. Tom Hespos grilled them…
Great interview Tom. When I was doing diligence prior to my investment in PayPerPost, I researched the value for bloggers, marketers and audiences.
Bloggers got a rich database of ideas to pull from (as a fellow blogger, you know that ideas are not always spontaneous, but come from surfing around rich idea-spots), a chance to cover their blogging cost/efforts, and a great Postie community that shares blogger best practices. Interviews suggested the modest income has literally changed people’s lives — reminding me of the eBay ProSeller cottage industry.
Marketers got a marketing mix ROI from branding, direct marketing and SEO — much like the mix companies gain when Arrington or Scoble post about them in exchange for being an advertiser, free passes, free products etc.. Marketers also gained customer feedback from product reviews. A value I haven’t seen discussed much is that with PPP, marketers got a platform for managing their consumer generated media efforts — can you imagine managing 1,000 one-off blogger relationships to require disclosure in accordance with your corporate practices without something like PayPerPost? That marketing mix ROI is larger than any other platform I’ve found.
Audiences got more content, more diverse content, and, over time, higher quality content as the Posties learn from each other and raise their game. The existence of a PPP rating system (similar to eBay’s buyer/seller feedback) also provides an incentive for bloggers to raise the quality of their work. Ultimately, as blogging has a sustainable revenue model, more opinions, perspectives and knowledge will join the global conversation — and that will be a huge win for all of us.
I found it a win-win-win for all constituents; thus, we invested last month. I understand that AdTech was a very successful show for the company — the company is a bit overwhelmed by the interest. As that brings more marketers engaging customers the right ways, it will bring more value to bloggers and audiences — resulting in a virtuous cycle for all.
Thanks for taking the time and sharing your interview…
VC Dan:
I understand how PPP looks good from a business perspective. It does deliver value to two of the three constituencies you mention. But there are major problems associated with the model and its impact on the blogosphere, advertisers and blog readers.
First the blogosphere. As you undoubtedly know, blogs already struggle with respect to their credibility. Readers are only now becoming comfortable with the notion of trusting blogs for information and ideas. What we don’t need right now is something that calls credibility into question. Right now, according to the interview and according to things I’ve read on the PPP site, while disclosure of biases is recommended, it’s not required. Thus, it’s easy to see how credibility can be called into question, particularly when a blogger fails to disclose they’re being paid to write a positive review of a product or service. What PPP is doing can have a very pronounced and negative impact on the credibility of the blogosphere as a whole, since for all anyone knows, ANY blogger could be a part of the program and could fail to disclose it.
Then there’s the advertiser. There’s a school of thought, of which I am a particularly vocal member, that subscribes to the notion that advertisers and marketers need to speak directly to the market in order to make effective use of blogs, social networking and online community in their marketing plans. In other words, marketing programs in this realm should be decidedly bottom up, not top down like the rest of the marketing world. The PPP solution is a top down execution. In a world where we want marketers to come down from their ivory towers and communicate directly with the market instead of keeping customers at arm’s length, PPP is providing a program that lets them put less effort into addressing blogs and social media, while continuing to distance themselves from their customers. I’d argue that does an extreme disservice to advertisers and marketers.
And then there are blog readers, who already are quite suspect of what they read on blogs. How will they trust bloggers, especially after PPP gets more traction and covert participants are outed by their readers? Can you imagine what will happen in the next election cycle when candidates, political parties and cause marketers start using PPP to purchase influence? PPP could very easily become the platform by which disinformation is spread. I wouldn’t pooh-pooh the notion that it’s being used to present advertising information as honest opinion in the realm of product and service marketing, either. The last bastion of honest information comes from the wisdom of crowds – we can always turn to one another for accurate information and intelligence because we can’t turn to the marketers. The PPP proposition pollutes that. To me, that’s a shame.
While I appreciate your comments, I believe this will turn out to be a bad investment for you. I will recommend to my clients that they NOT work with PPP, to the point that I would sever a relationship with a client if they insisted on working with PPP. That’s how passionately I believe the things I’ve outlined above.
Tom — As your former editor, this is a GREAT interview. Well done! (And I’m not just saying that because it was… well, nicely grilled!)
I can’t help but appreciate PPP because it’s a big idea. I didn’t know how big until I read the Nascar example above. Advertisers will see this as an efficient way to buy Google juice, and will likely compare its ROI to SEM, not any other social media efforts. Which insulates them (the advertisers) from some of the transparency concerns you cite, in their minds anyway.
But ultimately all PPP does is game the system. And the system won’t stand being gamed. If PPP does take off, I’d expect the relative authority of blogs in general – relative to Search especially – to take a hit. Maybe that’s a good thing – search is arguably too blogger-friendly right now. But it’s possible that initiatives like this could be regarded by the engines as a form of black hat SEO.
Maybe next time you can interview someone from Google about it. Better yet – I’ll make a panel at the next OMMA that you can moderate with PPP, LoudLaunch, Google and Jeff Jarvis. That’d be fun!
As a blogger and blog reader, I’d agree that PPP pollutes the credibility of the “blogosphere,” though I would argue we have many sub spheres at this point. I understand that some bloggers participating in this “practice” (read: “scheme”) alert their readers ahead of time with a “PPP” designation at the head of the post – meaning, “Skip this post, it’s paid-for BS.”
I like the notion presented by Mike, above: perhaps the engines will regard this practice as Black Hat.
Here’s
my take on PPP.
[...] There have been a lot of conversations recently about the pay per post model. While I certainly understand the concerns raised. Specifically, the first entrant into the space Pay Per Post has two conditions that I don’t like: [...]
[...] Speaking of Jaffe, he played my PayPerPost interview from Ad Tech in its entirety on Across The Sound this week, making PayPerPost his “loser of the week.” Funny. [...]
[...] A controvérsia em torno do serviço Pay Per Cost continua a fluir e parece que dificilmente terá fim nos próximos tempos. Em resumo, o serviço permite a empresas contratar bloggers que por um dado valor escrevam posts acerca de produtos ou serviços dessa empresa com o intuito de elevar o buzz em seu redor. Tom Hespos levou a cabo uma entrevista com uma responsável da empresa que pode ser lida ou ouvida aqui e que será certamente útil para perceber qual a orientação do serviço. Já muita gente se pronunciou acerca do assunto, como sejam Jeff Jarvis ou Jason Calacanis, pelo que me limitarei a deixar aqui a minha opinião. [...]
Tom: Good response. It looks like we have a glass half-full, half-empty discussion. There are benefits to all three constituents if the platform is used properly. There are drawbacks for all three constituents if the platform is abused. eBay’s marketplace has the same dynamics (e.g. all sellers can be hurt by abusive outliers) and PPP needs to work as eBay does towards encouraging quality and discouraging abuse.
To make sure we are talking about the same platform, I would share that your clients can use the PPP platform as a compliment to every bottom’s up approach you recommend — even prompting more bottom’s up feedback than they could accomplish one-off. I would also share that marketers can use this platform in accordance with disclosure policies as transparent as you can imagine/demand. In fact, the platform can help enforce disclosure in accordance with corporate, agency or association/WOMMA requirements easier than policing multiple one-off blog deals.
As with all half-full/half-empty discussions, I may not be able to make you see what I see. However, I will continue to help marketers (your clients or otherwise) understand that the quality and transparency of their PPP marketplace usage rests firmly in their hands.
VC Dan:
I don’t think you should try to cast PPP in a favorable light until they’re prepared to take some steps to improve their model. This isn’t even close to a half empty/half full discussion. In fact, it’s got very strong parallels to a conversation I had with people from BzzAgent about allowing stealth marketing situations to occur.
The blogosphere was founded on transparency as a core principle. Period. If you don’t have transparency, you damage credibility – not only for yourself, but for the bloggers around you.
To make this platform even remotely compatible with best practices and the core values of the blogosphere, PPP would have to insist upon full disclosure. To me, that would mean that each and every paid post carry the PPP logo, along with language to the effect of “This post is paid for by the marketer being discussed in the post. Thus, readers should understand that any opinions expressed here about the marketers product may be tainted by the fact that they’re paying for this.”
I suspect PPP would be resistant to doing this, as it would be detrimental to their effectiveness. But really, I don’t see any other way for PPP to become transparent.
Pay Per Digg…
First there was PayPerPost. Then ReviewMe.
Just this morning Jim Kukral blogged on ReveNews about Agloco, which “pays you to surf.”
Now, we have Pay Per Digg.
See why we need to kill links to help affiliate marketing survive as a brand?
N…
[...] A controvérsia em torno do serviço Pay Per Cost continua a fluir e parece que dificilmente terá fim nos próximos tempos. Em resumo, o serviço permite a empresas contratar bloggers que por um dado valor escrevam posts acerca de produtos ou serviços dessa empresa com o intuito de elevar o buzz em seu redor. Tom Hespos levou a cabo uma entrevista com uma responsável da empresa que pode ser lida ou ouvida aqui e que será certamente útil para perceber qual a orientação do serviço. Já muita gente se pronunciou acerca do assunto, como sejam Jeff Jarvis ou Jason Calacanis, pelo que me limitarei a deixar aqui a minha opinião. [...]
[...] Blog Archive – A Conversation With Pay Per Post [...]