Chipping the web – keys to the domain

Those who forget astroturfing are doomed to discuss paid content

Hey Assaf, thanks for commenting.

Are you saying that the paid posts generate fake buzz? When fully disclosed, a human would not mistake it for such, would they? But OTOH, Google sure could. Maybe what’s needed is a microformat tag to tell crawlers that content is remunerated?

Of course it’s fake buzz, otherwise you wouldn’t have to pay for it. And what effect would it have if people just ignored it?

If you have a disclosure statement in the footer, way below the fold, where most people won’t read it, would it count as much?

Certainly not. I would want to see something at the top, within the content, like Randy’s experiment.

But you could be right: if it’s so obvious, would it have any traction at all? Part of me says, “yes, it would — with the ignorant”. Unkind, but true. They keep putting paid programming on TV even though everyone knows what it is.

I jumped to that link, which I thought was a post about disclosure policies. And I ended up reading an endorsement for a poker site. And then I stepped back, and there was a line of disclosure inbetween the title and the main paragraph.

It wasn’t hidden or in small letters or any other form of overt deceipt. I think it was clear enough this was paid content.

But I’m a quick reader, I always jumpt to the meat of the post, before going sideways. So I skipped the disclaimer the first time I read it. I guess that puts me in the “easily fooled” category.

Also explains why I don’t like paid content. I established a certain rythm for extracting quality information out of mounds of content, most of which is intent to decieve (or as marketers like to think of it, allure) me. And all of a sudden, there’s a system to fool me.

And a good one.

Of course, I’ll adjust. We’ll all adjust. We’ll have a Firefox extension for blocking these blogs, filters for trusts, etc. But then we’ll end up in an arms race, as we do with spammers, with collateral damage, and a shrinking Web.

You are quite correct Sterling in saying “paid posts” (plus paid comments, forum remarks, etc.). I was not referring to ads on blogs.

When we see an ad, we know it is a company talking to us about their products, and we tend to ignore them, unless we’re shopping for that very item

What’s devious and destructive about Paid Posts or Compensated Comments is that we assume that they’re not incentivized, that they’re spontaneous, genuine, selfless, altruistic, non-commercial remarks without bias.

If we must be suspicious of any praise or critique of products and companies, that we read in blogs and other online forums, it breaks the self-policing Trust Web of the blogosphere.

Now that you’ve put it that way, Assaf, I must admit that I’m not a fan of transforming the blogosphere into the digital equivalent of US Highway 1 when I was a child: billboard after billboard, obscuring the scenery. “Sign, sign, everywhere a sign…”

So, Vaspers, what’s your plan? I’m sure you’ll want to save that for another post, but I had to ask.

One thing we can do right now: go to WOMMA (Word of Mouth Marketing Association) web site. Then go to the Ethical Guidelines page (I forget the precise wording right now) and post a comment (if comments are still open after my scathing critique) and complain, and promise to boycott and flame those companies who use paid and incentivized “buzz agents”.

Assaf perfectly understands this issue of “false buzz”. The companies have shit products, generally, and thus HAVE to pay people to say nice things. Or a competitor has superior products, so they HAVE to pay people to bitch about the competitor.

Doc Searls understands this issue also, he just maybe read my post a bit hurriedly or something. But his remarks are still pretty much on target.

Giddy “social media” enthusiast marketing bloggers are falling all over themselves to praise this crappy new twist in blogging and comment posting.

I am very annoyed at how they have abandoned whatever critical thinking skills they might have had. Perhaps they are greedy, have no real clients, and see this as a way to make some chump change, without having to go back to flipping burgers and waiting tables again.

Well said, Vaspers. What was I thinking? Of course good products don’t need that kind of promotion, and wouldn’t use it unless they just had a lame marketing department.

Yes, I read Doc regularly and know that this would run counter to his ideas of “intention marketing”, so it surprised me when he seemed to slip.

It was not Doc’s fault really. I jumped around from ads to paid posts and it would be easy to focus on on or the other.

It’s hard for me to stick to one topic per post, as my mind is prone to embrace multiple topics and pool them together in an unpalatable mush of thought-geysersing, conceptual vortexing, and overwrought zeal.

[...] Insteresting discussion over at Sterling’s blog, started by Vaspers the Grate! about blogstitution, aka paid content. We’re talking about advertising masked as editorial. A more sophisticated, and I’ll grant, effective, form of blog and comment spam. [...]

(link corrected)

Good products don’t need that kind of promotion? The ipod is usually perceived as a good product and is heavily promoted. Once the ball starts rolling, even good products have to follow, otherwise they just disappear in the noise.

No, because quality products can afford quality promotion.

The word of mouth that comes from a killer product. The quality advertising that healthy revenues buy you. The eco-system that develops around products people buy and actually use.

We already have a system for cheap advertising of undesirable products: spam.

Assaf once again nails it better than I do.

So the question is whether paid per post is going to develop as a legitimate advertisement system or a rogue one, similar to spam.

An interesting similarity exists in the magazine business, where you find these pages that look like any random article. It just lets you know that it’s actually a commercial with a small note in a corner. I find it deeply annoying. And I read much more blogs than magazines.

My take is that pay per post is going to develop in the same way.

Matthieu, thanks for reading and commenting. I have to agree with assaf, though, that paid posts represents a lower grade of advertising that shouldn’t be necessary for a quality product. I don’t see the iPod buying 30-minute paid segments on TV, for instance — nor, as assaf says, spamming.

The big question then is how much acceptance this form of advertising will achieve. If it becomes the norm, then even quality products might use it. I’m beginning to get passionate about making sure that doesn’t happen.

Quality products will always want to distinguish themselves. You pay top dollar to an ad agency precisely so your glossy ad doesn’t look like an infomercial.

We’re the consumers here, and we get a say, and if we keep that distinction in our minds, advertisers will keep that distinction in the way they approach us.

Trouble is, assaf, there are enough thoughtless people out there clicking on spam ads to keep them in business, so why wouldn’t there be enough marks to bite on these as well?

There will be. I can’t think of a single way to stop paid content from happening, or from it being successful in its own slice of the market.

But I don’t subscribe to splogs, and I block comment spam on my blog.

Advertisers know we’re discerning, which is why quality products don’t use infomercials, and magazines bury these cheap ads near the end, where you’re less likely to see them.

If we keep this distinction on the blogosphere, we’re just going to help quality voices attract quality advertising (and the other way around).

[...] Keys to the domain : Western tonal music has 24 keys: 12 major and 12 minor. [...]

[...] Randy reviews ReviewMe, and gives it a tentative thumbs-down. But not exactly for the reasons discussed here. Randy’s Besting Adwords blog focuses on generating revenue from blogging, so his recommendation is based solely on that metric. Bottom line: ReviewMe doesn’t pay enough to offset the resulting loss of readership. [...]