DISQUS

Anuvinder Singh · 3 years ago

Like your 'Cool Hand Luke' approach to this....

Mathew Ingram · 3 years ago

Thanks, Anuvinder -- it's funny you should mention that. I've often thought of myself as Paul Newman-esque :-)

Rob Hyndman · 3 years ago

Personally, I prefer legerdemain.

:)

Mathew Ingram · 3 years ago

Also a good one, with a nice foreign flavour -- but not enough "i"s.

Ian Delaney · 3 years ago

I actually like the idea of such a code, though I dearly wish it hadn't come from payperpost. It's really an issue the W3C or another such body should take up. Someone who might actually act on infringements.

(I thought we'd seen the last of autoplay music on websites some time ago, Mathew. What's next, animated gifs?)

Mathew Ingram · 3 years ago

Ah -- I wondered who would be the first to notice my new widget :-) You win the prize, Ian. And the prize is that I plan to remove said widget. I wish there was a way to stop it from auto-playing when the page loads, but for the life of me I can't find one. I guess I'll leave the mp3 widget game to Fred Wilson.

Ian Delaney · 3 years ago

Hurray. The future of the internet is safe. ;)

DrumsNWhistles · 3 years ago

Thank you for your measured approach to the topic. I know I was harsh, but Arrington's condemnation of an honest effort to start a conversation around the issue of disclosure and transparency seems to contradict what so many (including him) said just 2 weeks ago during the original round of PPP-hating. This particular post of his seems to send the message that the only good PPP is a dead PPP.

I'd like to think there's some measure of reasonable thought out there on the Internet, and your post tells me there is.

DnW

DnW

Mathew Ingram · 3 years ago

Thanks, er... Drums. Glad to hear someone thinks I'm reasonable. :-)

Steven · 3 years ago

I like how you're looking at this, you're not just dismissing it because you've been critical of PPP in the past. I'm a blogger at PPP that's welcomed the DisclosurePolicy as I don't feel I want to keep my non-regular readers in the dark. Maybe someone else should host the DisclosrePolicy or there should be some other form of standards but at least PPP is taking initiative and letting people know they're not just "shills". I have mentionned PPP many many times so the regulars of my blog know I've had some posts sponsored but I don't write up things that I wouldn't use or recommend to others so I have no problem no disclosing which post is sponsored or not.

Btw I'm from Montreal and wished I got to read the Globe and Mail more frequently, by far one of the better newspapers in Canada.

-Steve

Mathew Ingram · 3 years ago

Thanks, Steve -- and not just for the compliments about the Globe. I guess the bottom line is that I think any progress towards more disclosure from blogs, including TechCrunch, is a positive thing, regardless of who starts the ball rolling.

Matt Keegan · 3 years ago

I am wondering why the uproar over PPP? Isn't the blogosphere supposed to be relatively rules free? I haven't seen any negative repercussions with using PPP across my three blogs, but if I did I am not sure I would change my policy.

Mathew Ingram · 3 years ago

Do you disclose the fact that PayPerPost is compensating you for writing, Matt?

Matt Keegan · 3 years ago

No, I haven't until today. I mentioned on two of my blogs today about PPP, with one of them explaining to my readers what I have been doing. Mind you, this is after 37 adverts were placed by me across three blogs.

I did 2 or 3 blatant posts and then decide that these weren't for me. Since then I have concentrated on positive or neutral postings, but I always visit these sites first before deciding whether to proceed. Then, I take information gleaned from the sites and craft my post accordingly.

Mathew Ingram · 3 years ago

But don't you feel that readers should be told right in the post that you're being compensated for that there's an advertising relationship? Don't you think you're misleading your readers?

Matt Keegan · 3 years ago

No, I don't feel that I must tell them that I am being compensated. Usually I write from the point of view that "here is a site worth exploring" or here is a "product you may want." If I don't use the product, I don't pretend that I am. As far as misleading anyone, I don't believe that I have.

Ed Lee · 3 years ago

I really think that disclosure is vital if you're using, or thinking about using PPP. However a quick line at the start or end of the post "this post was sponsored by XXX" would be enough (iin my eyes).

The thing about PPP is that it doesn't sell reviews, it sells links. The reviews (positive, negative or neutral) are a (sometimes) beneficial side effect.

Ed

Ed

Mathew Ingram · 3 years ago

That's a good point, Ed. It's all about the links -- and I think that's why what Matt is doing is inherently misleading, regardless of whether the post is positive or not.