Paid Blogging Is A Lose-Lose Situation
Bloggers have been fired up all week due to a bit of controversy over the idea of paid blogging, a situation where a company pays a blogger cash directly for coverage. I would like to discuss why the idea of having a company directly pay someone cash to blog about them is a situation where nearly everyone loses.
Why businesses lose
- Businesses that pay bloggers directly to blog about them miss the point of the medium completely and appear that way to the public. They might as well buy ad space and support a blogger and not participate in something that actually harms everyone.
- People are going to ridicule you for your efforts, even if you are being transparent and the bloggers themselves disclose the situation. They will see that you aren’t creative enough or have a good enough product to warrant coverage on your own, thus you have to pay for it.
- Bloggers are happy to write on companies from a natural angle if you use pull strategies instead of push.
- More than 80% of bloggers are already writing on products and brands, according to the 2008 Technorati state of the blogosphere. Much of this is organic, but much of this is also a byproduct of great marketing/PR efforts. In other words, be remarkable and have great marketing and you’ll be talked about.
- Blogging is really a big conversation, so if you’re paying cash directly for placements, what you are doing is in effect paying people to talk about you. It is highly telling about a brand if they need to pay people for coverage.
- This is not the same as advertising or advertorial writing because you are paying the editorial person to write about you. With advertorials the company is drafting the content themselves. By paying an editorial writer to write a fluff piece, it actually cheapens both their message and yours.
- The whole idea of paying people to blog, talk, or write about a company is inherently flawed from step one – if it was actually effective at spreading messages the whole PR industry would not even exist as the idea would have been applied to traditional media years ago. Think about it.
- When the blogosphere talks about you again naturally, it is never taken as seriously moving forward by those who know you pay for placements. Companies that don’t pay for placements and are talked about naturally will inherently be viewed on a higher level.
- You’re paying exuberant fees to an intermediary company for what is essentially turning a writer into a shill.
Why bloggers lose
- Instant loss of credibility. Even if readers claim they are fine with it, in their mind your blog’s brand is weakened. You can’t run paid placements, even with transparency in the same area as natural content, that isn’t how media works. Clear separation of ads and editorial are vital for trust.
- You don’t see people like Seth Godin, Maki, Aaron Wall, Steve Rubel, Ariana Huffington, Mike Masnick or other ultra-respected/trusted bloggers taking cash for posts. There is a reason for that – they know better than to risk their credibility for a few bucks.
- Google discourages paid links and if part of the deal with a company paying you to post is to link to that company, you are actually breaching Google’s webmaster guidelines (unless you are careful to use no-follow links).
- Readers have infinite choice in the blogosphere - is it really worth a few bucks for a post here and there to turn a percentage of them off? The answer is always no, it is far too much work to gain readers to do something that jeopardizes months, perhaps years of hard work building subscribers.
- Even if you are being transparent and letting people know that a company paid you to write the post, it still positions the blog author as weak and quick to sell out.
- It cheapens the blogosphere on a whole just as it is gaining respect and maturing as a platform.
- What if a new reader finds this post as their first read at your blog? They may instantly be turned off.
Why readers lose
- The strong, impassioned editorial voice of the writer is destroyed by cash-for-posts and replaced by an awkward and influenced voice that is painful to read.
- Reviewing products is a completely different animal than taking cash for writing something up. Readers are more than happy to check out products that are reviewed by bloggers. When someone receives a product for review, a blogger is free to write on it however he/she wants and it is still viewed as editorial (otherwise, not a single technology/gadget magazine could even exist). But if cash is directly given up front for a post on something, no matter what is written, it is viewed by the reader as influenced by money. The reader simply cannot take it seriously.
Why marketers and PR people lose
- If you are in marketing, PR or even advertising, this type of service can actually circumvent your hard work of building a brand and be an instant-credibility killer on all fronts. There is not much to gain and far more to lose when you have worked hard for years building a brand that is viewed positively by the world.
- This type of effort almost feels like a “last ditch” effort of a failing company or model that no one wants to pay attention to. It is unsustainable and there is no possible way to build upon this over time other than throwing more money at people and becoming known as a company that needs pay-for-play in editorial space.
Jeremiah Owyang added two more reasons in the comments that are worthwhile:
- Bloggers could be biased to write positive reviews, or not receive sponsorship again.
- Allen Stern suggested that if reviews are glowing, and audience then finds out if the product is not, not only is the bloggers reputation hurt, but the company’s is.
Conclusion
The only winner as I see it in this situation is the company or service brokering these deals between companies and bloggers. And if I were a company and I wanted to pay someone directly to get ink, why even bother going through a third party? Most high profile bloggers put their contact information public, seems like you could easily identify people in your niche and go after them yourself. Not that companies should pursue this action anyway, as outlined above there are no winners.
It doesn’t matter if you wrap this idea in a website that outlines everything neatly and encourages transparency, the idea itself is flawed from the beginning. As a PR professional I would never recommend a client engaging in a program like this – it is high risk for little reward and is one of the most uncreative attempts at business to consumer relations I have witnessed.
If you have something in your budget for a promotion, paying people directly to talk about your product is one of the worst ways to go. There are far better approaches to get publicity and buzz that cost less and yield much greater results and deeper influence for all parties involved. There’s a nice multiplier when you engage in strong marketing, PR and advertising techniques. You don’t achieve that here, and actually may hurt your future endeavors in this space.
Related posts from The Future Buzz
No, Spamming People Still Doesn’t Work
Cold Calling: Destined For Failure
More Important Than Attention – Reputation
Related posts from around the web
Trust Is Non-Transferable (Six Pixels of Separation)
Thoughts To Consider For Better Online Marketing (Michael Fruchter)
Fundamentals Of Social Media Marketing Strategy (Online Marketing Blog)









Jeremiah Owyang replied | Dec 17, 2008 (1 comment)
A few more, I hope you add them in as this is very complete:
bloggers could be biased to write positive reviews, or not receive sponsorship again.
Allen Stern suggested that if reviews are glowing, and audience then finds out if the product is not, not only is the bloggers reputation hurt, but the company’s is.
Adam Singer replied | Dec 17, 2008 (563 comments)
@Jeremiah – great additions, done.
Jakatak replied | Dec 17, 2008 (9 comments)
does this TechCrunch piece
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/12/17/death-to-the-embargo/
have anything to do with your post today about bloggers being paid?
Adam Singer replied | Dec 17, 2008 (563 comments)
@Jakatak – no not at all, i was speaking about the situation in the first link of the article (this: http://www.centernetworks.com/izea-kmart-sears-social-media-paid-bloggers )
Tim Jahn replied | Dec 17, 2008 (59 comments)
Excellent way of putting this spot on Adam. One of my favorite posts of yours.
As you said, any business doing this has clearly missed the point.
CK replied | Dec 17, 2008 (1 comment)
Excellent and thoughtful post (and the kicker is that you’re just giving us such common sense…why do so many not understand these principles?). You might consider adding one more (and if it’s up there, I apologize). One of the worst offenses is running a contest where the blogger outright encourages ppl to retweet the contest so as to be included for a chance to win. What happens? TONS of twitter SPAM to innocents which means lots more noise. It degrades the twitter experience for loyal followers which equates to bad feelings for the blogger and the brand they’ve been paid to endorse.
(and per my comments at many other blogs, these aren’t “sponsored” posts, they’re “paid” posts…not right for companies or paid bloggers to use incorrect messaging when we marketers know better as sponsors are not part of content, they sponsor the already created content…in this case the content was 100% about the brand so these were “paid posts/placements” ;-)
Rock out and so glad to know of your blog now.
Jakatak replied | Dec 17, 2008 (9 comments)
well it sure applies to many different areas. Great post.
Mario Sanchez Carrion replied | Dec 17, 2008 (23 comments)
Adam:
I couldn’t agree with you more. Pay per post doesn’t make sense. Disclosure is not an excuse and it doesn’t make PPP right. I think bloggers are like journalists or editors and their voice must remain independent. In the end, it all comes down to intention. If you wouldn’t have written the post if you hadn’t received money for it, then it’s not kosher, IMHO.
Tim Jahn replied | Dec 17, 2008 (59 comments)
@Mario
Right on Mario. If you weren’t going to write it without getting paid, that’s not cool.
JH replied | Dec 19, 2008 (2 comments)
@adam
Your post is mostly filled with assumption. You’re making some pretty strong claims, but have very little supporting evidence. An appropriate word to describe your post would be – conjecture.
@mario
Despite what you think, bloggers, in general, are not like journalists and are not held to the same standards. But for the sake of discussion, lets say we did hold all bloggers to the ethical standards of journalism.
In journalism, a paid sponsorship of content is not a violation of ethics, so long as there is full disclosure. Additionally, maintaining an “independent voice” is not a standard of journalism.
Adam Singer replied | Dec 19, 2008 (563 comments)
@JH – it is easy to dismiss an entire post by calling the whole thing conjecture – which parts do you disagree with specifically and why? Answer that and we can have a conversation.
I stand by what I wrote and do not believe this is a smart path to monetization. I strongly recommend any serious blogger not engage in this type of transaction – not worth the paltry return for the risk involved and it doesn’t scale. Feels like selling out to be completely honest.
and in reference to:
“In journalism, a paid sponsorship of content is not a violation of ethics, so long as there is full disclosure.”
Okay, find me a New York Times or Wall Street Journal article where an editorial column was paid for with disclosure written by a reporter that wasn’t an advertorial written by a company. I’ll wait.
JH replied | Dec 20, 2008 (2 comments)
@adam
One specific point to get the conversation started: You cite that the strong, impassioned editorial voice is destroyed and that the influenced voice is painful to read.
Here is Chris Brogans K-mart post.
Is this post painful to read? I didn’t think so. According to your statement, it is.
Here is a link to the dullest blog in the world. Some might consider this collection of mundane, yet uninflunenced, statements painful to read. Others might not. I personally wouldn’t add a subscription to this blog in my reader. Would you?
So what is my point?
How people respond to content is very personal and subjective. There are more than a few points in your post which make assumptions about peoples reactions to paid blogging.
Adam Singer replied | Dec 20, 2008 (563 comments)
@JH thank you for the input. You bring up a great point that the emotional response to content is very personal and subjective – agreed 100%.
The response to paid blogging reflects this you’re absolutely right – there is the percentage of readers who it doesn’t bother, but there is also the percentage that it gets under their skin.
Peter Rad replied | Dec 22, 2008 (1 comment)
How is this different than a paid blogger for Microsoft shilling all their products? Does Engadget get free stuff to try and write about? (That’s not how Consumer Reports handles it).
There are numerous magazines that are nothing more than paid advertorials – Tampa Metro and Tampa Bay magazines for two. Life is filled with Pay to Play.
The problem everyone has, I think, is that the term Blogger means different things to different people. A blogger on Gawker is different than one on GigaOm. When I blog for RAD-INFO, it is different than when I blog for TMCnet. And Adam this is your “personal” blog which I guess means you treat this writing different than at PGPR. One size doesn’t fit all.
At the end of the day, a sale has to be made to pay for stuff. That’s simply how it goes.
Some of this sounds like sour grapes. (Why didn’t they pick me!) Or “I’m better than that”.
Adam Singer replied | Dec 22, 2008 (563 comments)
@Peter – No ‘sour grapes,’ but from a PR standpoint, I just see this as an uncreative marketing tactic. Anyone can throw money at something for eyeballs. There’s little value in that for anyone, I see it as lose-lose.
If people aren’t writing about you/your marketing efforts naturally, perhaps there is a reason for it? Injecting yourself into the conversation isn’t the answer. Be remarkable and you’ll get talked about.
Tim Jahn replied | Dec 22, 2008 (59 comments)
I think part of the issue is the idea of a blogger. Bloggers represent a new era in reporting, media, and gathering of information. They represent the idea of Joe Schmoe being able to make a difference and providing you with information you may have gotten from more traditional means yesterday.
When these bloggers behave from time to time like the traditional mass media (ie, getting paid to write about a product), a good chunk of their audience is going to be pissed off (for good reason from their perspective).
Augie Ray replied | Aug 4, 2009 (1 comment)
I ran across your blog post after I’d written about why paid blog posts are bad for brands, bloggers, and readers. You did such a thorough and succinct job, I’m sorry I didn’t see your earlier blog post!
I wanted to alert you that I used some quotes from your blog post for an article I added to my blog. Since I disagree with Forrester’s pro-sponsored conversation opinions, I wanted to make a point and issued a public offer for Forrester to accept a paid blog post on the Groundswell blog. I was surprised when they responded via a post on their blog. Thought you might be interested.
My blog post: http://www.experiencetheblog.com/2009/08/my-paid-blog-post-on-forrester-blog.html
Forrester’s response: http://blogs.forrester.com/groundswell/2009/08/to-augie-ray-thanks-for-the-offer-but-we-dont-take-sponsorships.html
Thank you for some great thinking on this topic, which I think is vital to credibility for bloggers, authenticity for brands, and trust on the part of consumers.