Very interesting.

I should work up a hack to fix that…

I don’t like the idea, I don’t like the trend it could set. If it’s successful, obviously there will be other such services popping out of the woodworks. And we’ll see blog content being shaped and directed by money-tainted hands:

“You provide the topic, our network of bloggers create the stories and post them on their individual blogs.”

So an advertiser wants more of a certain topic or product in the blogosphere, all he has to do is put up a good enough incentive. Bloggers who would otherwise have posted about their day, or an interesting news piece, philosophical dissertations, whatever - will be unable to pass up the chance to make a quick buck and write about whatever product or widget will get him or her the most return.

Obviously there will be bloggers with ethics, like your ground rules suggest. But can anyone honestly expect that to apply to the blogosphere in general? When applied to the masses, and when the end being sought is money, ethics go out the window.

And of course, it’s highly subjective, as even PayPerPost admits: every post has to be approved before you get paid. But where’s the line that separates an approved post from a denied post? How can we expect PayPerPost, or anyone for that matter, to be able to tell a genuine product review from mindless but intelligent-sounding, regurgitated drabble? How can such a system as they’re proposing possibly last?

Plus, when there’s absolutely no incentive to review, those who do are the ones who feel strongly enough about the product, one way or another, to go through the trouble of putting up a response or evaluation. When people are getting paid to review or opine, clearly content is not the first thing on their mind. This reduces the quality of the content, first of all, to such a degree as to render blogs, on the whole, informationally useless. BusinessWeek said it quite well with ‘polluting the blogosphere’ - who will go to the blogs for information at all when they have to sift through so much crap? And who’s to say that the paid bloggers won’t aspire to conform to the ‘approved’ standard, whatever they may feel that to be, in order to get approved and therefore paid? Writing for the sake of approval by a specific organization or corporate advertising machine sounds, well, like the apocalypse, the doom, bastardization, and perversion of all that is good on the internet.

And finally, as TechCrunch noted, PayPerPost proudly slaps on that “As seen in BusinessWeek” sticker somewhat disingenuously. BusinessWeek in no way featured them as a shining, promising new business model; their story, titled Polluting the Blogosphere, was almost a grave warning:

Recently The Wall Street Journal reported that advertiser-produced video segments have shown up on local news shows. My colleague Eamon Javers unmasked pundits whose op-ed page pieces touted initiatives from corporations that paid them. An undisclosed PayPerPost placement on a little-seen blog isn’t the most egregious thing out there, but it’s far from honest. Media may be more transparent, but the line between authentic editorial and paid placement is still often smeared…

I’ve only been looking at this question for the past twenty minutes or so, so I’m not an expert or whatever, but my initial vibes tell me this could be a horrible, horrible thing to happen to the blogging world.

As for ‘uncategorized’…hm, I’ve never had that problem, I don’t know what you mean…

First: almost all of the “opportunities” do not require a positive review. Supposedly the review process only checks that required links/tracking images/word count are in place in the case of these neutral opportunities.

Second: although blogs were originally created as “online diaries” of sorts, they’ve since strayed from that. The most popular blogs are news sites, and I wonder if PayPerPost thinks it’s targeting that brand of blog more.

That being said, I think the service will have the most draw to personal bloggers, like me, for instance.

I also do agree that it has the potential to do horrible things to the credibility of the net, but if its main appeal is to personal bloggers, then that’s less of an issue. Sponsored posts will stick out like sore thumbs, and they’re more likely to retain the trust of their small group of dedicated readers.

I guess when all’s said and done I’m kind of on the fence here. My open source–driven freedom-loving morals contradict my desire for easy cash, which is unfortunate. Right now my call is to wait: that $100 opportunity was a rare thing; the second highest bounty is $10, and almost all of the bounties were posted by Ted Murphy to get the ball rolling. I say wait and see where the bounties seem to stabalize.

I do think it would be ideal if disclosure were required, though.

I like your idea of having the post at the bottom say This post sponsored by PayforPost. That’s cool you got in when he offered the $100. Today he added Howard Stern to the list. I can see Howard interested in this sort of thing.

I don’t think this will kill the blogosphere. Markets have a way of working themselves out regardless of what people try.

Blogging for money isn’t new; you have corporate shills, countless blogs that mirror each other’s content (with or without attribution), blogs that are loaded with advertisements are quite common.

Disclosure is always nice, since it presents some insight as to the objectivity of said author. Although, only setting topics is entirely fine; as long as there’s no rejection of content on the grounds of conforming with a pre-defined notion or agenda, being paid to write is fine with me.