Skip to main content

PayPerPost censors bloggers

Reading a recent thread by a mom blogger on the PayPerPost message board has revealed a shocking revelation: PayPerPost will not let it's employees, or "Posties" as they're called, write about anything they don't purchase. Full disclosure: This was brought to my attention because a colleague worked on a recent campaign and was emailed by a blogger whose post was yanked by PayPerPost due to "violating the terms of service".

You might remember my other takes on PPP: paying for blog posts isn't word of mouth marketing and they're unethical. But I digress...

The explanation from a PayPerPost censor, errr "reviewer", cited their terms of service:

A sponsored post is any post for which you received something (cash, goods or services) in exchange for writing the post.

To clarify, we don't send out products in exchange for a review. Bloggers are asked if they're interested, we deliver the product if so and if they choose to write then so be it. There are never strings attached, unlike what PPP does.

There's also another thread here where bloggers are complaining about "reviewers" from PayPerPost censoring posts for similar reasons. As someone who wrote the WOMMA Blogger Relations Ethics Code, I have to say that I am completely dumbfounded with PayPerPost censoring bloggers.

The real kicker is that PPP says that, instead of disclosing if they've received a product, PPP bloggers should purposely not tell readers that they received a product for free from a firm. So, essentially, bloggers should flat out lie about disclosure in order to help the paid postings "blend in".

In the era of transparency, authenticity and credibility, PayPerPost is clearly not interested in participating in the aforementioned values but instead asking bloggers to destroy their credibility through nondisclosure and controlling their content.


Tonja said…
Our agency and clients are getting bombarded by companies who say they'll get us on sites, create fake sites, comments, etc. Some are using PPP. Ugh.
Melanie Seasons said…
Oh, PPP, how you are the bane of my existence.

Dave, I'm worried that as the blogosphere becomes over saturated with product reviews (whether paid, sponsored, or opt in), the idea and uniqueness of online outreach will eventually become so cheapened that readers will eventually learn to ignore reviews just as much as they do ads. I know that we're all trying our best to get ahead of the game. That's the only way to stay on top.

That said, if a blog reader can't tell the difference between a PPP or spam or a legitimate operation or if a blogger doesn't disclose where they got said product, it ends up making us look bad too.
David Binkowski said…
Let them take it out of the ad budget if they're going to pay for it. ;)

Product reviews will never go away, because people will always look for advice before spending disposable income. The issue is going to be, as you're implying, the reader's questioning of the integrity of the reviewer -- especially as the general public becomes more savvy and starts to ignore the ads, err, reviews.

Popular posts from this blog

How to Rick Roll Someone

I've noticed a lot of traffic to my blog from a post I did on Rick Roll. In particular, people are looking for how to do it. So, without further adieu, here's a quick 1, 2, 3 on "How to Rick Roll Someone."

Pick your target. This should be someone not suspecting a peculiar link, email or heads up. Works great if you're the guy/girl in the office known for sending YouTube links via IM
Grab the URL. The YouTube video is probably the easiest to snag, because the URL isn't a dead giveaway. Sites that truncate URLs like SnipURL and TinyURL are handy if you want to send folks to
Pick your delivery method and send! IM, email, blog (wink!), what-have-you.

Please, feel free to get creative. Our programmers used a "Can someone test this site?" email to the office to Rick Roll the entire staff. Or better yet - send the URL along to unsuspecting family members as "Our newest family pictures!".

Another fun way is via conference or phon…

My first Facebook spam!

Well, that didn't take long. I was spammed twice today via my Facebook profile by someone named Andrea Rowe, saying that she likes my profile picture (flattery is my weak spot) and wanted to chat. She's promoting a site through one of the TinyURL-esque sites and let me know that her username is "foxy_hotty". Here's her follow up message:

hi there David, how's it going? i wanted to chat with you, but they don't have that here, whatever. if you'd like to, you can check out my other profile at my username's foxy_hotty. we can chat there, just dont mind the bad pics, lol. soooo, ya, see you i hope.

Yes, I edited the SnipURL ending because I refuse to give spammers free promotion or even worse, the click through. For those unaware, sites like SnipURL and TinyURL allow you to send truncated versions of URLs, which is particularly handy when you're posting URLs to your blog (formatting) or SMS-based tools like Jaiku and Twitte…

Fake Facebook Likes and Twitter Followers -- And the Implications for Brands

This post originally appeared on the Large Media blog.

There's been a lot of talk about Twitter followers lately, including both presidential candidates, celebrities, musicians and the like utilizing services to game their numbers. Specifically, a lot of the "Top 10" have been found to have a substantial amount of fake followers, in some case to the point where 70% of their following is either bots or inactive profiles. Most articles and infographics on the subject are telling, however with a little digging you can find out that there are also social media "experts" utilizing the service to give the appearance of bloated numbers. Intrigued, and given our rare propensity to tweet as an agency, we wanted to see what the fuss was about.

So we gave it a try.


In August we saw some ads on a third party Twitter "profile checker" site  saying they can send a thousand followers your way for $9. The process is pretty simple: select how many followers yo…