Mathew's comments - Latest Comments in PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

Eric Rice — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:11:56 -0000

Go tell this story to a broke-ass myspacer.

I want to hear what poor people have to say.

I don't want to hear what the crazy uncles have to say. I love the crazy uncles. They need to go out for a pipe and let the kids have a breather.

And I'm thinking that the conversation might be different.

Cuz we are certainly scared of our crazy uncles. They give us wedgies and noogies and make us feel embarassed.

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

Leigh — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 11:48:38 -0000

Have you seen the Paul Kedrosky note on the payperpost "model" and climate change?

http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2007/02/02/ta...

I hope Jeff and Jason will take heart at the irony of the naming of your post. The witch-hunt in fact was created and financially backed by one of the biggest lobby groups in medieval times, the Catholic Church.

Manufacturing consent is a dangerous business. Today it's about product X but tomorrow it could be about things that dramatically impact our lives. Disclosure is one thing, but in our digitally connected search world, it isn't the individual posts with their disclosure claim on them that is the issue. It's the fact that because these blog posts link to whatever the story is, current search engine technology will put that piece of media at the top of the results page.

While I get what you are saying Mathew about the tone of their concern, in the world where I consistently hear that “business is just business” I will take moralistic to immoral any day of the week.

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

Shane Coffey — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 00:01:28 -0000

Here is my view, outside of the blogosphere no one knows Jason Calacanis. Pretty much the entire internet could give a rats ass about him and his opinions. He built weblogs inc with 10 ads on each one his blog. Seems a little hypocritcal to critisize people for making money and you have been a google whore for the better part of two years or more. Let me just say Jason that Wordpress, Blogger, and Adsense have done more for the blogosphere then you could ever hope to do. So what you had a couple of blogs, got lucky, made some millions. So what gives you the right to tell my mom or my dogs mom that they don't have a right to make money. I have to say I remember the same thing being said about adsense when it was first introduced. Now adsense is everywhere, the truth is that someone besides an "A-lister" thought of something and beat you to it.

You're biggest concern was disclosure, and now payperpost requires that their bloggers disclose that the post is paid for. Please stop trying to be the morality police on the internet, its annoying and your arrogance is astounding.

If I misspelled any words, oh freakin well, move on with your life.

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

Seth Finkelstein — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 01:13:09 -0000

It's all about disintermediation - of the current A-listers! They don't like that.

You know what the blog evangelists would say if they were in favor of this, hailing it as a marvelous disintermediation of the old monolithic priesthood of the high barrier to entry media payoffs, compared to the hip new democratized PEOPLE-POWERED PAYOLA.

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

Steven Hodson — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:49:03 -0000

An interesting side note you might be interested in. Mashable! just posted an announcement from PPP about a new service to rolled out Monsy

http://mashable.com/2007/02/01/payperpost-video...

-----------------------------------------------------
On the upside, PPP is also launching a disclosure unit on Monday, which will mean a “sponsored by” message and an advertiser logo appears at the bottom of paid-for posts. The lack of disclosure was one of the more dubious aspects of PPP, so this should fix some of those issues.
-------------------------------------------------------

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:51:40 -0000

Thanks, Karoli. And thanks for mentioning that disclosure will now have to appear in the actual post. That will help dispel at least one of Jason's criticisms of the service.

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

Karoli — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:08:24 -0000

Resounding applause, Mathew! As a point of clarification, posts will be rejected which don't have disclosure inside the post. it's no longer acceptable simply to have the general disclosure link on the blog. If you look at the last couple that I've done, the disclosure is right at the top of the post.

Now I reviewed RockStartUp (the reality show) back when they launched the first three episodes with full disclosure there, too -- mainly that I wasn't a huge fan of reality shows at all and this one was no exception. However, there are lots of folks enjoying it, and it's not any worse than some of the other crap on the web.

I've been debating all day whether to blog about this myself, but I think what I'll do is link to yours and Jeneane's post as more reasonable. It is exactly what you say -- it just causes otherwise reasonable people to get a bit...passionate, and in this case, I'd say the term bullying applies.

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

Steven Hodson — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:04:46 -0000

Jason it is all well and good to lambase PPP as the newest demon of the blogosphere and while I do not like their specific business model you and people like Mr. Arrington slam any and all pay for review model.

Just because you have more money in the bank that I will see for a lifetime and Mr. Arrington lives the high life of confrences and hobnobbing many thanks to his advertising model not all bloggers are so lucky but they still have bills to pay as they attempt to make a career in this profession.

As any profession that depends on income derived from advertising you are going to have those who will willingly hand over their ethics for any amount of money (just look at any of the AdSense farm blogs); however to lump those of us who don't and wouldn't think of not disclosing and conflicts is insulting.

so rather than argue this from your unretractible position why not be constructive and help draft a set of guidelines for bloggers who wish to go this route to follow. Wouldn't that prove to be more beneficial to the whole blogosphere than all your mealy mouth (like did you realy need to use the word "slime" - talk about demeaning) rantings against a company that deserves to earn a living the same way you do.

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 20:52:22 -0000

You are more than welcome for the nod, Jeneane -- and please drop by and say fucking any time you like :-)

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

jeneane — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 20:38:25 -0000

Not just chops, I have MUSIC TOO! ;-)

Jason, I was blogging before at least two out of the three of the voices in that video debate on PPP. I was there when the blogworld was special. And I've watched the punditry of the pompous journaljism-obsessed "pros" do a lot more damage to what once made blogging special than pay per post has.

Rule number one about guys who run around to speak at conference after conference: It's expensive and they're not doing it as a philanthropic act. It seems pretty two-faced for jeff -- mr. sidebar-and-RSS-feed-made-of-ads guy -- to sit there on that panel and imply that mothers who write for PPP are being duped while he's building his own brand by harping on the company at a fucking (can I say fucking here?) conference he's using to make himself a more valuable advertising comodity! Give me a break.

If the real issue is around what PPP is doing to search -- which serves ads inside of the more tame advertising model Jeff makes money in -- then he should say so.

I'm not saying Murphy's clean or PPP is clean. It's just another way for bloggers to make some money in a medium where 'real' voices are in short supply.

And, on a less ranty note, thanks Matthew for the nod.

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

webomatica — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 20:18:19 -0000

If PayPerPost is a bad business model, bloggers won't sign up for it and the comapny goes under. The rules haven't changed. If bloggers do sign up for it, then there are happy users and there must have been a market for it.

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

Rob Hyndman — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:03:16 -0000

Which was why I used it, VC Dan. :)

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

Jason — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:52:26 -0000

From my understanding you have to have a disclosure policy, but you don't have to have it at the top of the post.

Everyone knows that 95-99.999% of folks will never see the a disclosure icon or policy on the right hand side of the page.

Disclosure should occur in the first sentence of the post and if it doesn't than it's deception because the majority of folks will not know.

This is why advertorials are clearly labeled on the top and bottom of pages in magazines.

So, until PayPerPost has full disclosure they are on my axis of evil list.

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

Jim Kukral — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:43:14 -0000

I'm with you on this Mathew.

Jason, I'm not sure I agree that the deception is truly there anymore, is it?

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:31:29 -0000

I understand the emotion, Jason -- I know from experience that it's never fun to watch something you have put a lot of work into change in ways that you don't like. And I have nothing against you or Jeff or Scott saying that you don't like it, and listing all the reasons why -- many of which I think are valid.

I just have a problem with the overheated tone of some of the rhetoric, which I think detracts from (and arguably does harm to) your argument. If anything, it seems to be causing people to dismiss you and Jeff and others as elitist A-listers who don't give a rat's ass about the little guy, etc.

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

VC Dan — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:27:58 -0000

yep, you called it Mathew.

Interesting to see Rob's use of "elitism" here, something Scott and I were discussing over at BlogHerald

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

Jason — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:15:20 -0000

what you're hearing is that many folks put years into building the blogosphere and its credibility, and now these folks are faced with a slime coming into the city and taking a piss in the middle of the town square.

blogs are supposed to be about honesty and transparency and payperpost is STILL about deception. You don't have to disclose on every post (you can bury it with an icon on the side of your page), and they still allows folks to be forced into writing only positive reviews. the whole thing is just icky for folks who came to blogging to get away from the bought and paid for media players.

That's why you hear such a vocal response to payperpost.

as for the reality show... it's just sad and odd. these guys have done nothing and they are documenting themselves as if they were the google or youtube founders--hello!?!?!?

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:52:41 -0000

No worries, Steven. And I would agree, Rob. Good post by Jeneane.

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

Rob Hyndman — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:44:47 -0000

Actually, just read Jeneane Sessum on this - she's got some chops on this issue.

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

Rob Hyndman — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:30:04 -0000

There is a bullying, sanctimonious tone to Jeff's post and some of the other writing on this today that is troubling. A snobbish elitism that just does not compute. I really, really get by now that certain bloggers want us to know they would never take cash for posts. Great, super. But I also really get that most of us have well enough defined bull-cookie detectors to know when we're being shilled, and that we don't really need a Web 2.0 moral purity squad to do it for us.

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

Steven Hodson — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:28:28 -0000

I need more coffee .. I meant Mathew:) oopps sorry

Re: PayPerPost: a Web 2.0 witch-hunt

Steven Hodson — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:27:34 -0000

Thank you for the link Michael and while I personall don't like the PayPerPost method of ding business I did try and be fair in my points on both sides.