I hadn’t really given much thought to the OTHER cause celebre of the past few weeks, pay per post, because I was so embroiled in the fandango of the large chain store and the big PR agency (I’m going for three posts in a row without using their names. No promises after that.) It had a faint odor of "not quite right" but I couldn’t put my finger exactly on why.
It came up in another context last weekend and in part due to comments from Jeneane Sessum, I decided to take a closer look. Here’s my take:
The arguments being made by some of the big A-list bloggers (Calcanis, Arrington) seem a little weird, given their reliance on advertising/sponsor support. Provided the pay per post blog entries clearly state that the post was a work for hire, I don’t see anything terribly wrong with the model. It really isn’t that different from freelance writing. You have to disclose your interests, including whether you are being compensated in any way for your words, but assuming that’s done, what’s the harm? Readers can make up their own minds.
One of the best things about the ‘net is the wisdom of crowds.
However, I think it would be very difficult to make a living under their model, given the prices being paid for this freelance work (can you spell sweatshop?), so I am a wee bit interested in following the money. Who is making the serious money here? I’m betting it is not the bloggers.
My other concern is that I would not want to see companies replace blogger relations efforts with pay per post. Pay per post is an article about your company. Blogger engagement begets viral marketing. We shouldn’t confuse the two.
There is a real, tangible and long term benefit from active engagement with bloggers who care about what the company cares about, whether it be issues, products or both, and this cannot be replaced by pay per post. I’d hate to see companies take this shortcut, thinking they were going viral.
And ending up just sick.