Positive Comments: 24
Negative Comments: 23
Irrelevant Comments: 20
Clearly the landslide “this is evil vote” that Techcrunch expects is not there. Michael Arrington’s problems with the service stem from two clauses in the ToS:
There does not appear to be any requirement that the payment for coverage be disclosed. There is a requirement that PayPerPost.com must approve your post before you are paid. Wow.
Neither of these cause ethical blogging issues. If you use PayPerPost to supplement your blogging income by writing stories for it that you would have written anyway, or that are true to your actual opinions, disclosure is not needed, because you are not blogging differently because of the money. And, of course, Pay Per Post needs to keep an eye out for spam, or shoddy submissions. So, where’s the problem here?
A commenter on digg writes:
maybe I’m just new to this medium but it seems to me that a lot of these negative reactions are coming from Bloggers who feel threatened. Bloggers who are probably already getting paid to write via sponsors/advertisers. If that is not the case, then good for you.
For most bloggers, this is a good things. For bloggers whose earnings depend on relationships with various advertisers, it’s a bad thing. Big blogs–like big magazines–probably sit closely with the subjects they write on in a behind the scenes agreement. Now, small blogs can automatically tap into that revenue flow. Is it impossible that Techcrunch might feel threatened? Other blogs will be earning $105 for writing their own Pay Per Post reviews.
|This entry was posted on Saturday, July 1st, 2006 at 12:59 pm and is tagged with michael arrington, irrelevant comments, revenue flow, pay per post, digg, negative comments, rebuttal, landslide, rags, clauses, bloggers, disclosure, tos, advertisers, earnings, submissions, relationships, spam, magazines, blogs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback.|