well, this activity at least proves the adage, "birds of a feather flock together...."
There is not much difference between you and your audience. Selling out is selling out whether you are an A lister or Z lister.
Stephan Tual
· 2 years ago
As long as they don't make you write "I heart PPP" on your forehead... :-p
VC Dan
· 2 years ago
You sure know how to make a splash Robert ;-)
Feeling the need explain "I'm a capitalist" reminds me of Atlas Shrugged -- and scares me about the world we're living in right now. Maybe the conference should be called: Galt's Gulch!
In either case, I would be cautious to describe this model as "blog advertising". It's closer to advertorial.
marcus
· 2 years ago
I love payperpost and am a proud postie. I am flabbergasted that someone who is such an outspoken critic of them will agree to accept money from them to come speak. There are thousands of us who aren't A-list bloggers who use PPP to help with the bills. I hope you don't get up there and trash us
shel israel
· 2 years ago
Robert, I am personally dosappointed that you have chosen to do this. To me Pay for Post represents everything that the book you and I wrote opposes. I wish you would change your mind. This will not help your reputation.
Jon
· 2 years ago
Robert never claimed to be on a quest to save the world from capitalism. His disclaimer about speaking at the PayPerPost conference isn't required and he doesn't owe anyone an explanation. Most public speakers do not turn down speaking opportunities- paid or unpaid- at a given venue based on objections to ideas held by the host or audience. Let's be realistic instead of petty and small-minded.
scoobietron
· 2 years ago
How can I parody this shit, man? Will they require you to write "I HEART PPP" on your face in magic marker?
shel israel
· 2 years ago
One more thought, Robert. You taught me the standards for blogging that I adhere to. It is what you taught me that makes me so passionately oppose Pay per Post, who have shown themselves to be the sidewalk hookers of the blogosphere. Robert, I really hope you cancel. In the long run, you will be doing PodTech a service.
Jeremiah Owyang
· 2 years ago
:(
Jon
· 2 years ago
Shel- are you going to voice your opposition to other forms of paid content creation, or are we treating the internet as the holy grail of communication platforms?
I remember when this type of thinking first surfaced with the emergence of the world wide web- when posting an advertisement online was widely described as act of unprecedented immorality.
Well, last time I checked, the internet hadn't prevented a war or ended poverty. And you may want to turn off your computer now because in surfing the web you're contributing to global warming.
Webomatica
· 2 years ago
Well, I do give you credit for disclosing...! As long as you're up front about what you blog about and why, so we know what's shilling and what's genuine.
I am wondering what Jason Calacanis is going to write when he finds out about this, however...
Mujibur
· 2 years ago
...this just further confirms what many of us have been saying for a long time. Robert is simply a paid mouthpiece. This isn't about conversation, it's about the almighty buck.
LayZ
· 2 years ago
Is this the first incident of a blog Jumping the Shark?
LayZ
· 2 years ago
meant to say "blogger Jumping the shark"
Brian
· 2 years ago
Hopefully you will take the opportunity to try to convince people that more disclosure is good. Of course, if I know that someone is paid to say good things about a product, I'm more likely to totally ignore what they say, so I don't think that will go very far.
james
· 2 years ago
jeez,
while I want you and everyone to mke as much money as you can, this stinks.
To me the whole payperpost reeks for a blogger like you.
It comprimises the your premise of your book, and your reputation. Thats my opinion only, but one of the things about reading you for years is knowing that you believed in certain things, and posting for pay wasnt one of them.
jeneane
· 2 years ago
smartest thing you've done in a long time.
whoknew
· 2 years ago
@5 regardless of disclosure, large parts of this blog have become advertorials for various firms with friendships or financial relationships with Scoble. Its like ad placement within TV shows - except in this case, its Seagate, Jotspot, and several others that consistently get mentioned several times per week. Whether it contractual or not isnt the issue - Robert plays both sides here as to his blog being his personal blog and seagate being his sponsor - it just creates the illusion that he has more than a passing interest in some of the companies being so prominently highlighted.
A Listers paid to do things? Its been obvious that many A Listers have been "paid to post" for some time now...they just get to redefine the terms (much like escorts have differentiated their craft from prostitution). In previous posts, Scoble rationalizes his own shilling as being somehow different from payperpost because his deals are for a lot more than $10. He argues that paying Podtech rather than him directly somehow makes many of these recent character lapses ok...didnt OJ Simpson have a similar excuse regarding payment for his recent failed book deal not going to him?
Character is something that can only be measured in the face of difficult choices and the absence of oversight. Hard choices provide myriad opportunities to display true character. Some participants in the incestuous upper echelon of blogging have retained their character in the face of the corrupting influences of money. Shel immediately comes to mind....He´s made good choices all around with consistent displays of integrity.
Others like robert seem to really be losing their moral compass in the face of hard choices without any guiding forces. Examples by Robert include declaring capitalism to be more important than reputuation or integrity as well as redefining gifts of expensive laptops (seemingly used only for video editing and never formally reviewed) as "loans" for unspecified time periods. Were those intel and AMD machines ever returned or are you still "borrowing" them for your day to day work? If returned, how long did you have them for?
Microsoft was good for Robert in that it forced him to operate within a set of unwritten rules that guided his online conduct. Post Microsoft, many of us hoped that Naked Conversations would serve as the guiding principle for corporate blogging. Unfortunately, those principles are being subtly redefined once again...
The only oversight or guiding principle now on this blog seems to be either money or pressure from the blogospere...with everything being ok as long as "too many people do not complain about it".
Prior to this lapse in your judgement, I had posted about how this blog was not displaying the principles outlined in Naked Conversations. I was chided for not signing my name. I thought about that at length...and realized that, as "nameless guy", essentially I pay Robert Scoble through my almost daily participation in his blog. Dozens of thousands of us help to pay his salary every day without signing our names as little numbers added up in his blog stats for which he can justify his paycheck.
Without us, Seagate et al wouldnt give him a dime....and based on signed comments from well respected people, he is losing more and more of us.
WhoKnew
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
whoknew: I have no financial or friendship arrangement with JotSpot.
I bought my own MacBookPro, which is what I am switching my entire life over to. I have various review machines at my house on loan which are being sent back.
And I sign my name to everything I do so you know everything bad and good I do. More later, I don't have good connectivity here in Germany.
ted demopoulos
· 2 years ago
That's great! I speak for money for many people I don't agree 100% with, as long as I don't think they are evil. I don't think PayPerPost quite qualifies as "evil" -- although I do think they suck! You'll add a needed perspective -- kudos to them for inviting you.
I assume they are not writing your speech? (that's a joke boys and girls!)
mikecane
· 2 years ago
Are we going to witness Meltdown Of The Week here from now on?
I just posted this over at Duncan's blog too, but think it needs to be reposted here too:
Duncan has some things wrong.
1) I am being paid to speak at the PayPerPost conference. I have NOT been told what to say. I have NOT been told to say only positive things. I have NOT been told to say ANYTHING on PayPerPost’s behalf. 2) You have not disclosed that you think I am stealing content on my link blog and that we have had violent disagreements in the past. 3) You have not given any context. PayPerPost pays people to attack me (seriously, it has). I dislike PayPerPost’s goals a lot and am not changing my opinions of PayPerPost just because they are <strike>paying us a tiny sum of money (far smaller than what Seagate is paying to sponsor my show, and a tiny fraction of what I was paid at Microsoft)</strike>. UPDATE: We've decided not to accept the honorarium so PayPerPost will only be covering my travel expenses. I also don’t agree with PayPerPost’s disclosure policies. 4) I am not going to be speaking out on PayPerPost’s behalf, nor have they asked me to. They simply wanted me to speak on whatever I would like to their audience. 5) If you don’t like what a company is doing, are you going to get better results by throwing rocks through its front window or sitting down with them and trying to change its behavior? 6) If you feel a “lynching” coming on, don’t you have a responsibility to add clarity and calmness to the discussion? It sure looks like you are handing out rope. On the ethical scale corporate shills come above lynchers.
david a
· 2 years ago
props to scoble. taking on a topic and keynote such as this. it's out there.. ppp is doing a top notch job at this type of blogger postings, and he'll bring a great deal of insight to this topic. Congrats Scoble
Garth
· 2 years ago
I don't see what the big deal is about PayPerPost as it does not differ much in what happens in the traditional media space today.
That also has a place and will sort itself out.
But Jarvis and the other self appointed moral guardians of the blogosphere should really just piss off as they don't represent anybody except themselves.
Todd Zeigler
· 2 years ago
If you have serious issues with PayPerPost, I really don't know why you would speak there. Regardless of what you say or whether they pay you or not, your presence there gets them publicity and adds legitimacy to their event (and thus their company). By going you are helping them build their company.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Todd: because dialog helps more than it hurts. At least in the world I want to live in.
Damien Mulley
· 2 years ago
Robert, Are you contractually obliged to attend this as it is what your company dictates?
Is Podtech running out of cash? It just seems like you have to go to this and the Intel video fiasco made it seem like you were under personal pressure to get more attention for them.
I think you should go and take expenses but not take a fee and from the keynote tell them all there what blogging is about, like you and Shel wrote about and explain why the pay per post model is a bad thing.
You're well respected and loved because you are not a shill. I hope you're not changing.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Damien: no, I'm not obligated to go, but I gave my word and I intend to keep it.
Is PodTech running out of cash? No. I just closed a big sponsorship deal with Seagate and we had a hugely successful BlogHaus and other initiatives going.
I am not taking a fee. See my update up above.
I will definitely give my side of why I think total, granular, disclosure is a good thing for the "Google World."
I hope I'm not changing either. But, one thing about being in front of an audience. They love pointing it out if they perceive changes!
Damien Mulley
· 2 years ago
Ok, the time delay between writing my comments and pressing post was two hours (I forgot!). Good to see some additional info added. Best of luck with the talk. Will you have a video of it? I bet more people watch it than the Intel one!
Ben Scoble
· 2 years ago
What is wrong with PPP? Since when does the bloggospere have to be strictly opinion? Even PPP makes people disclose they are getting paid. If you don't want to hear an advertisement, DON'T KEEP READING!!! As for my Bro taking money for speeches, sink your teeth into this: 1. Traveling to Europe is very expensive. Yes, its part of his job, but someone is still paying for the travel.
2. He is very good at public speaking and he knows his subject as good as anyone. So, people want him to speak at their functions.
3. Even when he takes money for speaking, he is very objective. More so than most of the people who post to his blog.
4. He is so liberal he can't be a capitalist - socialist maybe.
Anyway ... enjoy Europe Bro and keep the speeches real.
Josh Miller
· 2 years ago
Speaking of advertising and somewhat off topic, I just noticed there's an Amazon ad in the sidebar. I thought it was against Wordpress polocy to have advertising on wordpress blogs, including pay per post.
Jason
· 2 years ago
have them make a donation to charity for your speaking fee... a lot of famous folks like yourself do that.
LayZ
· 2 years ago
@35 PodTech made money on BlogHaus?????
Ben Scoble
· 2 years ago
Hey, Give Maryam a hug or two. I just got off her blog and she deserves them. I would not get in her way after I cuss you out. hehehe
LayZ
· 2 years ago
So, following you logic Robert, Microsoft should invite Steve Jobs and Linus Torvalds to speak at TechEd? IBM should invite Ray Ozzie to speak at Lotusphere now? Nokia should invite Adrian Nemcek to speak at NokiaWorld?
Josh
· 2 years ago
I don't get it. Why is paying someone to speak at an event or conference such a big deal? You know those speakers at every college graduation? Paid. You know every time Bill Clinton speaks? $200,000.
What's wrong with getting paid to speak? You're providing a service and being compensated for it. Getting paid to be a mouthpiece for a product or service (this is called endorsement, and it's what athletes do all the time) is different, though also nothing wrong with it as long as it clear your endorsement is paid. But it looks like PayPerPost was just paying Robert an appearance/speaking fee (which he seems to be no longer accepting).
I don't see how this is at all something to get concerned about.
Mike Cane
· 2 years ago
>>>On the ethical scale corporate shills come above lynchers.
Wow. And you really believe that?
Incredible.
ted demopoulos
· 2 years ago
This is NO big deal. I see no problem. It's not like Robert is speaking for NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association.
And they should pay him too -- I have ZERO doubt Robert will always speak his mind.
Kamal Jain
· 2 years ago
Robert, what you are doing is consistent with what you say! That's very good.
Question: Would PayPerPost look at your speech and approve it?
I know the answer is negative. You are allowed to speak what you want.
My advise to them: Offer the same deal to ther bloggers for their PayPerPost service. Pay the money to a blogger who wants to write about a product, without getting any approval first.
There is not much different between you, who will speak to the public via a physical platform vs a payperpost blogger who writes via the blogosphere.
One question which payperpost will ask? How will they make sure that you do not say things too critical to them?
Logically speaking, in case you do then other companies would not be dying to invite you in future. Therefore for your own professional good, you have incentive not to be too critical. Similarly payperpost could do the same with their platform. If these bloggers take money from an advertiser and then do not focus on the positive side of the advertiser then other advertisers won't hire the same bloggers in future.
All payperpost has to do is to maintain an aggregate effectiveness score of bloggers based on the advertisers' feedback.
Kevin Burton
· 2 years ago
Dude..... you've lost some points in my book.
This isn't about advertising. This is about spam.
These guys are spammers! If they were concerned about advertising they would allow bloggers to use rel="nofollow"....
This is a bit like doing to a conference hosted by a convicted rapist and then keynoting on the rights of rape victims.
Either way you legitimize them.
You've jumped the shark dude. :-/ Come back from the dark side!
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Kevin: I don't see doing SEO (even the worst kind) as being anywhere close to rape. But maybe that's just me.
Kamal: PayPerPost does not get prior restraint on my speech.
Mike: if you think killing someone (which is what lynching is) is more ethical than someone selling something or shilling for something then I simply don't want you to be a reader of mine. Have a nice day.
LayZ: it was very clear that Seagate, Microsoft, and AMD sponsored the BlogHaus and that PodTech put it on.
LayZ
· 2 years ago
51: "it was very clear that Seagate, Microsoft, and AMD sponsored the BlogHaus and that PodTech put it on."
That's all very interesting, but that's not what I asked. Did you clear a profit from BlogHaus?
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
LayZ: to tell you the truth, I'm not sure (I don't want to say yes, because I haven't seen the final report yet), but it will definitely be a profitable thing in the future.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
#44: Bill Gates spoke at MacWorld one year. I've seen Oracle and other competitors speak at TechEd. At Channel 9 I had Google employees on, even though Google was kicking Microsoft's behind in a whole raft of things.
Karoli
· 2 years ago
Wow, I see the sanctimonium continues. It would be wonderful if some of the commenters actually updated their facts before blowing a gasket.
I am not a spammer. I do not write positive reviews on demand. I have never been paid to write something that I didn't believe. I decline any opportunity where an advertiser will not give me freedom to write as I see fit.
Robert, props to you for doing something you knew would be unpopular but that you also knew you could do while preserving your integrity. Others could learn from your example.
Evidently in some areas of the blogosphere, it's not so much a conversation as it is dictation. Or dictatorial, judging from these comments.
Rishi Khaitan
· 2 years ago
Robert,
I am a religious reader of Scobleizer, but via my RSS reader so I rarely see the post comments. This time I did and honestly, I'm shocked about all the criticism that you are receiving regarding this PayPerPost appearance.
You have gone out of your way to disclose the exact terms of the speaking agreement. I can't remember the last time I've seen such full disclosure. Furthermore, you are going on behalf of PodTech which , last time I checked, is a business that needs to market itself in order to pay the bills.
If I found out that you altered your speech to appease the PayPerPost folks I would have lost faith in your mission, but since you have clearly stated that this will not happen, I see no issue.
By speaking at this event, the only result is that you may influence those in the audience to understand the point of view that you and your readers share. In my humble opinion, that is better than not speaking and having no influence.
LayZ
· 2 years ago
@54 Fair enough. It's one thing to have sponsors to help cover costs. Happens at conferences all the time. It's another to imply that BlogHaus was contributing to PodTech's bottom line.
emilyishere
· 2 years ago
fair!
i know this sounds so annoying of me, but i'm begging you....
please come my blog, emilyishere.wordpress.com, and comment. if you dont have anything to say, just say hi or i like your blog or this blog is stupid. i'd even be happy if you wrote "this blog stinks."
it's a blog with tips for preteen girls (girls, we know the feeling...my partner who posts most of the time is my thirteen-year-old sister, so she's an expert) neopets cheats, clubpenguin cheats, and a little homework helper.
it is dedicated to all those girls out there who need help.
LayZ
· 2 years ago
@54 Again, all very interesting, but again it doesn't really answer the question. It's one thing to speak at some session buried in the conference agenda. I could see Oracle perhaps helping folks understand how to get the most out of running Oracle on a Windows platform. Both MS and Oracle benefit.
Nice attempt at an example, but we all know the sole reason Gates spoke at MacWorld that year. Would he be as welcomed today? Are you speaking at the PPP conference in the context of helping to bail them out?
Then Ch 9 infomercial examples you cite are hardly comparable to what we are discussing. But, again, nice try!
So, care to try again to answer my question?
LayZ
· 2 years ago
@55.. "Evidently in some areas of the blogosphere, it’s not so much a conversation as it is dictation. Or dictatorial, judging from these comments."
You mean sorta like when Scoble scolds companies for not blogging, or tells bloggers how to blog or tries to define what a blog is because he wrote a book on it? Or whines and demands that bloggers should link to him when he thinks he has a story? Yea, I can see your point.
Chris Paton
· 2 years ago
There's nothing wrong with being paid to speak at a conference. If people stopped paying for conference speakers then conferences would be a long stream of self-publicising ego-maniacs instead of interesting and high profile personalities and experts (who probably wouldn't speak unless they got paid for it).
Regarding PPP:
Bloggers have been putting up paid for posts for long before PayPerPost came on the scene. Techcrunch does a 'Thank You' post to it's advertisers every so often. Many other blogs do the same.
PayPerPosts problem is that they thought that any publicity was good publicity. They courted controversy and revelled in it.
The problem is that with a lot of bloggers, their popularity is based on the trust of their readers and that trust could be hampered by being associated with PPP. This means PPP are now only working with low traffic, low page-rank bloggers who the advertisers don't want to pay for.
They now have to quickly rebuild their reputation so that some big bloggers start using their services before they run out of money.
The trouble is that other services are now available, ReviewMe for example, that don't have the bad rep of PPP, and any blogger that wants to do in-post advertising would probably choose them instead to preserve their reputation. Although it does seem like PPP have brought down this whole fledgling industry.
What could have been a great (and ethical with disclosure) revenue stream for bloggers is being hampered by controversy and PR mis-management.
Kevin Burton
· 2 years ago
Robert,
PPP is black hat SEO. It's like calling a spamming SEO. You're taking an unethical activity and white washing it by classifying it with a whitehat activity.
These guys ruin the Internet for the rest of us.
Kevin Burton
· 2 years ago
BTW. As an aside...
You haven't resorted to the Dvorak link bait method have you?
I'm really surprised this whole discussion focuses on the payment (which, btw. Robert has declined in the meantime.)
Gettting paid to speak is normal, that's not the point here. I think this is more about what conference Robert wants to endorse by becoming a speaker, whether paid or not.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Kevin: >>PPP is black hat SEO.
I have to call bull#### on this.
Black hat SEO is secret stuff. Cloaking. Link farms that you can't see. Invisible keywords. Splog farms. Etc.
Everything that PPP has done has been out front in the full heat of the public gaze. Yeah, they are far from perfect, but they are far far from black hat SEO.
The fact that you -- a well-regarded developer and studier of SEO techniques -- can't tell the difference scares the #### out of me.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Zoli: >>I think this is more about what conference Robert wants to endorse by becoming a speaker, whether paid or not.
Endorsement works both ways. PPP knows that I've attacked them in the past and is likely to attack them in the future (unless they ask their members to do full disclosure, like what I've done here). So, maybe they are endorsing that viewpoint too in front of their best members?
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
>Are you speaking at the PPP conference in the context of helping to bail them out?
Nope.
Dominic
· 2 years ago
People who need commentary like PPP. People who can provide it regularly hate it. Like McDonalds, you don't have to eat there but I'm sure that people do go there and get what they want.
Zoli Erdos
· 2 years ago
Robert, that's a possibility, certainly. Or, it could be a PR coup: "look, we're no longer bad guys, even Scoble spoke at our conference" ...
Michael Markman
· 2 years ago
If it's the weekend, it's time for us all to get hooked on the latest release of Scoble link bait. Robert, you're awesome at this. Dvorak should pay you for lessons.
Kevin Burton
· 2 years ago
Robert.
It *is* Blackhat SEO.
They're *trying* to spam Google. Any link exchange which would object to using rel=nofollow IS a spammer.
Spamming == blackhat SEO.
I mean god. In the beginning they didn't even want to have disclosure!
They're also hurting bloggers. Most of these bloggers aren't going to be aware that their Google juice is going to be damaged when they participate in PPP spam campaigns. Microsoft has already come out and said that if they catch you selling links they'll blacklist your blog.
These guys are the Sith lords of the blogosphere! Don't convert to the dark side!
For the record.... I'm ALL for advertising but it has to be behind a link firewall which ISN'T search engine spam.
Kevin
JoeDuck
· 2 years ago
Wow, I'm really disappointed in how hostile people are to you about giving a simple keynote. If Bill Gates keynotes CES does it mean he supports all the violence in GTA and Resident Evil? Of course not.
I'm not currently a PPP enthusiast and don't plan to blog for them, and perhaps Shel's even right to call this approach the sidewalk hookers of the blogosphere (clever and catchy!). However if t disclosures are prominent and clear PPP people can note that they are doing a similar sort of thing that a *paid* journalist does when they review gadgets or movies or Techcrunch does when they review companies.
I smell a lot of hypocrisy here. Prominent folks who are directly paid very big money to blog in various forms are insisting that stay at home moms can't pick up a few bucks for reviewing something. And if Shel is right those evil hookers, blogging between tricks, will be denied the money that could get them off the street!
The critics worry about credibility and that's good, but it's hypocritical to get paid indirectly by blogging (e.g. TechCrunch, Engaget, O'Reilly, Battelle, Shel, etc, etc, etc) and then suggest without more elaboration that other payment routines are inherently flawed and dishonest. Are you just protecting your turf?
marcus
· 2 years ago
I am a payperpost blogger and I will be there. I look forward to seeing you speak because you are a good blogger and I think your insights can make me a better blogger. That being said, the price of conference/flight/hotel for me is not a small sum and I will be disappointed if I spend that money to sit and hear you badmouth payperpost and the bloggers who have full time jobs and families and are happy to have an opportunity to make some extra money. I personally know that some of us use the money for little extras in our life that otherwise wouldn't be possible.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Marcus: I only badmouth those who don't disclose -- just like I have here. I think you don't understand the disagreements I've had with PayPerPost. I want per-item disclosures. I don't have a problem with blog advertising. I've supported other blog advertising approaches like Google ads and Amazon Affiliate links (even have one of those myself on my blog).
The company in the past has done some smarmy things, though, including paying people to attack me because of my stances.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Kevin: it's very easy for Google to track PayPerPost advertisers and remove any influence they are putting on Google's relevancy indexes. Why is that? Because PayPerPost is doing its work in the public gaze and everyone can see who is advertising on PayPerPost and because PayPerPost now requires disclosure (at least on the blog level -- I'd still love it if PayPerPost required per-item disclosure for a totally different reason -- cause everything is going toward RSS).
But, to not understand that fundamental difference makes you look really lame dude. If I were you I'd worry about removing real sploggers from your TailRank service (I still see some there from time to time). PayPerPost isn't even close to being among the most evil here.
Kevin Burton
· 2 years ago
Robert.
You're not an engineer. While it's easy for YOU to see that a story is about PayPerPost it's NOT that easy for a robot to see if a story is sponsored by a search engine.
Do you use the string "Pay Per Post" or "PayPerPost" ? What if there's a typo? What if the blogger simply doesn't disclose (this is actually happening all the time right now btw even though disclosure is apparently a requirement).
Is there a URL of all PPP campaigns? There are a few listed on the site but I do NOT believe there's a public URL available.
Also.... do search engines have to write code to walk around every SPAM company? What about Text Link Ads? What about all the PPP competitors that are coming out of the shadows?
While Google does generally do a decent job here the reason these companies are resorting to spam is that it WORKS! Google isn't perfect and so these guys are trying to take advantage of this opportunity to make a buck - Internet be damned!
And even if Google WERE perfect there's still Yahoo and MSN that they can spam.
You haven't done your research here. This is fine of course because it's not your job. The point I'm trying to make is that it's probably NOT a good idea to accept an invitation to speak from a company that's highly controversial to say the least without knowing why people are mad at them.
Ewan Spence
· 2 years ago
So I have mixed views - yes there's the whole 'evil-ness' of PPP, so at the very leastyou have to figure that by attending you are, to a certain extent, legitimising their view *no matter what you say or what your view is*. That's a personal cost to you and you have to decide whether that is something you are willing to pay. Make no bones about it, by attending you are endorsing PPP and their view.
On the other hand, I do see the view that to change views you have to engage - but PPP have already taken on their funding, their business plan is set, I don't see it majorly diverting at all.
Finally, I'm in agreement with Jason. You (or if you want to split hairs, have PodTech in the middle as a wayman) should have taken the fee and passed it on to charity. You could even have started a conversation here on which charity bloggers would want to support.
Every blog that uses PayPerPost is required to do a disclosure on that blog's home page, so it shouldn't be hard to see how something is gaming Google and my friends who are programmers say it isn't hard to tell a PPP post -- if that disclosure isn't being done, then we should shame the bloggers into doing disclosures. You say it's hard, but then Google employees armies of PhD's for a reason.
One approach? Keep track of PPP-disclosed Bloggers (all PPP bloggers are forced to disclose due to PPP's policies) then discount items that appear on more than one of their blogs. It's not that hard.
Even if they don't disclose, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out something is being gamed. I read only 500 feeds and I can see gaming going on. All of a sudden a company starts being discussed when it wasn't before. It shouldn't be too hard for us to protect against this kind of gaming, particularly since most of it is being done in public. The sploggers and others who copy content and put Google ads next to it are far more evil and ones I worry about a lot more than PPP.
Stephane Rodriguez
· 2 years ago
I side with Kevin here. Technically, there is a lot of entropy going on, and while it could be possible to blacklist PPP, it would only encourange their competitors.
PPP should instead force their bloggers to use the rel=nofollow principle which is simple, effective and fair.
Who Knew
· 2 years ago
PPP changes the fundamental conversation of the web by interjecting subtle commercialism into the conversation of personal blogs. So, hypothetically, if someone (lets call him "Rob Scoble") had a personal blog with subtle commercial messages weaved into otherwise compelling conversation, disclosed as such in a general way (not post by post), and compensated for such activities, his approach would be using the PPP model, right?
The best part is that our hypothetical blogger above wouldn't part of any formal organization that could be detected by Google. At least now I understand why you have no issues with PPP as long as they disclose. Can you say that you are using a different model?
As for sploggers being more "evil" than PPP, they essentially do different things. Sploggers steal intellectual property to make ad revenue. Bad. However, I'm unaware of a corporate entity actively and openly recruiting people to formally be part of such activities.
The obvious disconnect with your commenters may be drawn from the difference of the underground nature of the splogger (for which people have no "suspension of disbelief" - they know that such things will happen when money is involved) and the organized approach of changing conversations under a formal corporate banner (for which many people seemingly want to suspend their disbelief that corporate entities would be involved in such activities)
Sorry, but I have to comment about the following:
"One approach? Keep track of PPP-disclosed Bloggers (all PPP bloggers are forced to disclose due to PPP’s policies) then discount items that appear on more than one of their blogs. It’s not that hard."
Yep - until Paid-For-Posts (PFP), WePayYou (WPY), and Sell-Your-Soul (SYS) open their doors and start doing business. If this were an interview question, your answer wouldn't scale much beyond the original company. No Hire.
WhoKnew
mikecane
· 2 years ago
>>>Mike: if you think killing someone (which is what lynching is) is more ethical than someone selling something or shilling for something then I simply don’t want you to be a reader of mine. Have a nice day.
Such a crybaby! And such a BS retort too! Who do you think is going to swallow your switch from metaphorical lynching to *literal* lynching? Point out all the posts here that have advocated a *literal* rope? You goddammed well can't.
But I see you for what you are now and can rightfully ignore you.
Go get an education in shilldown too. Watch "Roger & Me."
Exactly. Having that conversation with those that criticize you helps everyone grow! Being afraid to talk to those that have a different opinion, or putting yourself on a pedestal unwilling to associate with them is far more damaging than engaging them.
Closed-mindedness is a shameful thing!
Shelley
· 2 years ago
Anyone else notice how these 'controversial' items always pop up on Friday, when news is slight, and items remain longer on Techmeme?
Anyway, Robert you've been putting comments like the following all over:
"And the reverse is also true. PPP has paid people to attack me in the past. It’s a company I don’t agree with (at least I won’t until they require per-item disclosures, just like I did with my disclosure).
But, I disagree with you that this is an endorsement by me. Anyone who sees it as such really hasn’t done their homework. "
Why are you speaking at this conference, then? Doing so does give this conference wider visibility. Are you going to chastise the audience? As another person wrote about, they don't want to attend an event just to be talked down to, or derided.
Everything you say and have said in the past implies a disdain for this company. Why then speak at a conference for a group and a company you disdain? Especially one that 'sends people out to attack you'.
(DISCLOSURE: my criticism of Robert Scoble is not sponsored; I do it for free.)
If I were asked to speak in front of a group I disdain, I would say no. I would in front of a group who disagrees on issues with me, but not one I actually disdain.
You know who I feel sorry for? The people attending this so-called conference. They're being manipulated.
There are many ethical, moral and common sense decisions that will have to be made as this paid bloggers issue continues. Wal-Mart and that PR firm were attacted, and rightly so, when they created happy shopping bloggers who were paid because the money changed what they would say about Wal-Mart.
Why would that not apply for taking money from PayPerPost?
It is one thing for bloggers to get paid for good work, which is a principal of capitalism that has worked for centuries.
It is another for one of the most influential bloggers in the world, who already makes very good money and enjoys terrific perks from his day job, to accept payment for a speech without revealing it originally. Anyone paying Robert is paying for influence and credibility, not just a speech.
The old media has been atwitter all week discussing the same problem with CNBC uber-business reporter Maria Bartiromo and her accepting favors from Todd Thomson, formerly chief of Citigroup's wealth management unit. Thomson was fired by Citigroup for poor judgment, including his dealings with Bartiromo.
Now...as with Robert, you can say it there is nothing wrong with Bartiromo accepting corporate jet rides from Citigroup...on one level...except for this...no reporter, no matter how famous, can get too close to, or accept favors from the people and companies she covers, without problems. Experience has shown how dangerous that is and there is a reason such controls are in place.
Yes, so Robert accepts a few dollars for a speech. On one level, so what? But on other levels, it matters deeply. His uber-blogger stature means that whatever companies and products he associates with will benefit from being in his orbit.
George Washington made every mistake a military man can make at least once...he just never made it twice. I think Robert will display the same wisdom and will be more careful about to whom and to what he lends his hard-earned and well-deserved reputation as the world's number one blogger in the future.
Bubba
· 2 years ago
Bobby, how is being a Postie any different than what you have been doing for the last several years? Other than the fact you make more money by blogging than the Posties? You did it when you worked at the Borg, you're doing it now with Seagate and Intel. I just find the irony and hypocrasy incredible for you to lambast nickel and dime "pay for" posts when you've been doing essentially the same thing with mulit million and billion dollar corporations since you've become a luminary. I'd go as far to say it's what put you on the map.
BTW, may want to buy your brother an atlas. While it might be expensive to travel to Europe, last I loooked Orlando was still in the good ol' USof A.
Kevin Burton
· 2 years ago
Robert.
Do you realize how many different types of spam there are? This is just one specific type.
There are hundreds of types of spam each with potential algorithms which can be used to defeat them.
Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc. spending hundreds of millions (billions?) of dollars a year to defeat spam. From additional hardware, to wasted engineering time, to mad users, it all adds up.
We can an are blogging PPP spam from Tailrank but it costs us money. We spend about 20% of our engineer and hardware resources on blocking spam. We're a small company and there are *plenty* of things I'd rather spend this cash on like hiring a few more engineers.
What really scares me about PPP is that now these scum are coming out of their caves and asking VCs to invest millions of dollars and way too many people are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and play devils advocate just because they have cash.
Anyway.. I'm done arguing about it. Half of the reason for me commenting on this was to help protect you from losing a ton of credibility in the tech industry. The other half is to prevent PPP from getting any more attention.
@90 "Everything you say and have said in the past implies a disdain for this company. Why then speak at a conference for a group and a company you disdain? Especially one that ’sends people out to attack you’."
I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question. Because the an$swer is obviou$, i$ is not? For expo$ure. Scoble is basically an exposure whore.
Ben Scoble
· 2 years ago
LayZ - Why don't you ever say anything constructive? It is anonymous guys like you that I am starting to consider as "Spam". I wish all of these "A" listers would block posts from anonymous a-holes like you!!!
consensusblog
· 2 years ago
Robert, I won't pretend that you speaking at PPP's event is the end of the world, but your comments strike me as uncharacteristically disingenuous. It doesn't matter if you go to their event and trash them. They will spend the next four months hyping your appearance so much that nothing you say in 45 minutes or so on stage will overcome that. They are trying to bask in your integrity and hope that your association with their conference rubs off on them. It's a savvy marketing move on their part. For you, though, I fear it's something worse. Disclosure is not enough.
consensusblog
· 2 years ago
Seeing Ben Scoble's post reminded me that I'd mistakenly logged in anonymously. I'm Greg Cannon. http://techworking.wordpress.com
meanguy
· 2 years ago
is the cashflow so tight at podtech that you have to take crappy gigs like these?
look dude, you're not overwhelmingly charismatic and your depth of understanding of technology and media is merely good. there's nothing going on in your interviews that a cuter, dumber person with a bunch of prep couldn't achieve.
which means the only thing you've got going for yourself is credibility... and it's been a really rough month in that regard.
if there's a benefit to you or your company to attend something, go. if they're paying you, accept. consider the pluses and minuses and either go big or stay home.
you will not be able to build or salvage credibility based on "disclosures". you've revealed that you're aware of the perception issue yet you still took the gig. a disclaimer doesn't change anything.
you're using it like it's some type of get out of jail free card. it isn't. some people will freak out about the association, most won't. either way, the damage is done and it's time to focus on the basics with your career.
are you the globetrotting cute geek with a video camera? are you a personality? are you a technologist? are you a journalist?
the land grab and the cash grab is screwing you here. right now you're none of these things because you're trying to do it all. pick one, build a brand, build credibility, and get on with business.
brettbum
· 2 years ago
I'm still laughing at the Galt's Gulf reference.
So if John Galt were an actual person and not a character, would he write a blog about what ever it is he wanted to and take advertorial money along the way to fund his endeavors?
or would the money be considered settling in and accepting the system and supporting the stupid bastards of the world?
He tuned in and dropped out.
(And would Dagny Taggart think Galt was still over poweringly hot for being a blogger that took ad money?)
_________________________________
If as an alternate we look at the fountainhead and Howard Roark the perspective is slightly different.
He took cllient money all the time, but only when they gave him free reign. So Roark were a blogger,would he write a sponsored article in any form he liked would and mention a company along the way? (He did put the names of his clients on the buildings he made, so is that sponsored advertising? Should Ayn have settled the question of whether or not Howard Roark should have run an ad in the paper saying, I made this building it is mine, but he named them after the wishes of the clients he worked for.
hmmmmm
idle thought
interesting character connections
Ted Murphy - Howard Roark (Building something everyone else says is crap)
Michael Arrington - Ellsworth Toohey
Robert Scoble - Gail Wynand
All the little bloggers - Dominique Francon
All the Big bloggers - Peter Keating
lol
Alexander
· 2 years ago
I don't think you should have endorsed PPP.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Alexander: please name one place I've endorsed PPP. I'm speaking at a blogging conference that's being hosted by PPP. That's far from endorsing PPP itself. At least it is if you are a thinking person and I only want thinking people reading me here. Thanks!
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
>>meanguy: not overwhelmingly charismatic.
Hmmm, well, tell me then, why did I get rated #2 at Google's Zeitgeist conference when compared with far more professional speakers and many CEOs of very large billion dollar conferences?
Same thing last year at LIFT. Only one who beat me was Cory Doctorow.
There's a reason I get invited to speak at conferences and continue to do so (I just turned down three more invites to keynote speeches, by the way, cause I already had previous plans).
meanguy
· 2 years ago
you get invited to conferences based on your credibility, not your charisma.
this is the human form of "it's the content, stupid."
funny you mention Cory: he's perhaps one of the few people on the web who's shedding credibility more rapidly than you are lately.
there are people who burn bright and brief and there are those who are always around. there's a balance between self-promotion, credibility and content that will enable you hit it long term. find it.
it doesn't matter what you look like or how charismatic you are. amanda's boobies can drop a foot and if she's played it right she'll have the barbara walters gig. if not, she'll be a bitter female dave winer shouting "i invented web video with rocketboom and had a million viewers" surrounded by cats in the year 2031.
So Ben, your just like your brother - unless you have a blog you can't comment on somebody else's blog? Before you comment on Scoble's blog you have to give your resume out?
I may not know how to cook a decent meal but I still know when my food tastes like crap.
All Comments
There is not much difference between you and your audience. Selling out is selling out whether you are an A lister or Z lister.
Feeling the need explain "I'm a capitalist" reminds me of Atlas Shrugged -- and scares me about the world we're living in right now. Maybe the conference should be called: Galt's Gulch!
In either case, I would be cautious to describe this model as "blog advertising". It's closer to advertorial.
I am personally dosappointed that you have chosen to do this. To me Pay for Post represents everything that the book you and I wrote opposes. I wish you would change your mind. This will not help your reputation.
I remember when this type of thinking first surfaced with the emergence of the world wide web- when posting an advertisement online was widely described as act of unprecedented immorality.
Well, last time I checked, the internet hadn't prevented a war or ended poverty. And you may want to turn off your computer now because in surfing the web you're contributing to global warming.
I am wondering what Jason Calacanis is going to write when he finds out about this, however...
while I want you and everyone to mke as much money as you can, this stinks.
To me the whole payperpost reeks for a blogger like you.
It comprimises the your premise of your book, and your reputation.
Thats my opinion only, but one of the things about reading you for years is knowing that you believed in certain things, and posting for pay wasnt one of them.
A Listers paid to do things? Its been obvious that many A Listers have been "paid to post" for some time now...they just get to redefine the terms (much like escorts have differentiated their craft from prostitution). In previous posts, Scoble rationalizes his own shilling as being somehow different from payperpost because his deals are for a lot more than $10. He argues that paying Podtech rather than him directly somehow makes many of these recent character lapses ok...didnt OJ Simpson have a similar excuse regarding payment for his recent failed book deal not going to him?
Character is something that can only be measured in the face of difficult choices and the absence of oversight. Hard choices provide myriad opportunities to display true character. Some participants in the incestuous upper echelon of blogging have retained their character in the face of the corrupting influences of money. Shel immediately comes to mind....He´s made good choices all around with consistent displays of integrity.
Others like robert seem to really be losing their moral compass in the face of hard choices without any guiding forces. Examples by Robert include declaring capitalism to be more important than reputuation or integrity as well as redefining gifts of expensive laptops (seemingly used only for video editing and never formally reviewed) as "loans" for unspecified time periods. Were those intel and AMD machines ever returned or are you still "borrowing" them for your day to day work? If returned, how long did you have them for?
Microsoft was good for Robert in that it forced him to operate within a set of unwritten rules that guided his online conduct. Post Microsoft, many of us hoped that Naked Conversations would serve as the guiding principle for corporate blogging. Unfortunately, those principles are being subtly redefined once again...
The only oversight or guiding principle now on this blog seems to be either money or pressure from the blogospere...with everything being ok as long as "too many people do not complain about it".
Prior to this lapse in your judgement, I had posted about how this blog was not displaying the principles outlined in Naked Conversations. I was chided for not signing my name. I thought about that at length...and realized that, as "nameless guy", essentially I pay Robert Scoble through my almost daily participation in his blog. Dozens of thousands of us help to pay his salary every day without signing our names as little numbers added up in his blog stats for which he can justify his paycheck.
Without us, Seagate et al wouldnt give him a dime....and based on signed comments from well respected people, he is losing more and more of us.
WhoKnew
I bought my own MacBookPro, which is what I am switching my entire life over to. I have various review machines at my house on loan which are being sent back.
And I sign my name to everything I do so you know everything bad and good I do. More later, I don't have good connectivity here in Germany.
I assume they are not writing your speech? (that's a joke boys and girls!)
http://mikecane.wordpress.com/2007/02/02/like-t...
http://mikecane.wordpress.com/2007/02/02/such-b...
I just posted this over at Duncan's blog too, but think it needs to be reposted here too:
Duncan has some things wrong.
1) I am being paid to speak at the PayPerPost conference. I have NOT been told what to say. I have NOT been told to say only positive things. I have NOT been told to say ANYTHING on PayPerPost’s behalf.
2) You have not disclosed that you think I am stealing content on my link blog and that we have had violent disagreements in the past.
3) You have not given any context. PayPerPost pays people to attack me (seriously, it has). I dislike PayPerPost’s goals a lot and am not changing my opinions of PayPerPost just because they are <strike>paying us a tiny sum of money (far smaller than what Seagate is paying to sponsor my show, and a tiny fraction of what I was paid at Microsoft)</strike>. UPDATE: We've decided not to accept the honorarium so PayPerPost will only be covering my travel expenses. I also don’t agree with PayPerPost’s disclosure policies.
4) I am not going to be speaking out on PayPerPost’s behalf, nor have they asked me to. They simply wanted me to speak on whatever I would like to their audience.
5) If you don’t like what a company is doing, are you going to get better results by throwing rocks through its front window or sitting down with them and trying to change its behavior?
6) If you feel a “lynching” coming on, don’t you have a responsibility to add clarity and calmness to the discussion? It sure looks like you are handing out rope. On the ethical scale corporate shills come above lynchers.
That also has a place and will sort itself out.
But Jarvis and the other self appointed moral guardians of the blogosphere should really just piss off as they don't represent anybody except themselves.
Are you contractually obliged to attend this as it is what your company dictates?
Is Podtech running out of cash? It just seems like you have to go to this and the Intel video fiasco made it seem like you were under personal pressure to get more attention for them.
I think you should go and take expenses but not take a fee and from the keynote tell them all there what blogging is about, like you and Shel wrote about and explain why the pay per post model is a bad thing.
You're well respected and loved because you are not a shill. I hope you're not changing.
Is PodTech running out of cash? No. I just closed a big sponsorship deal with Seagate and we had a hugely successful BlogHaus and other initiatives going.
I am not taking a fee. See my update up above.
I will definitely give my side of why I think total, granular, disclosure is a good thing for the "Google World."
I hope I'm not changing either. But, one thing about being in front of an audience. They love pointing it out if they perceive changes!
1. Traveling to Europe is very expensive. Yes, its part of his job, but someone is still paying for the travel.
2. He is very good at public speaking and he knows his subject as good as anyone. So, people want him to speak at their functions.
3. Even when he takes money for speaking, he is very objective. More so than most of the people who post to his blog.
4. He is so liberal he can't be a capitalist - socialist maybe.
Anyway ... enjoy Europe Bro and keep the speeches real.
What's wrong with getting paid to speak? You're providing a service and being compensated for it. Getting paid to be a mouthpiece for a product or service (this is called endorsement, and it's what athletes do all the time) is different, though also nothing wrong with it as long as it clear your endorsement is paid. But it looks like PayPerPost was just paying Robert an appearance/speaking fee (which he seems to be no longer accepting).
I don't see how this is at all something to get concerned about.
Wow. And you really believe that?
Incredible.
It's not like Robert is speaking for NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association.
And they should pay him too -- I have ZERO doubt Robert will always speak his mind.
Question: Would PayPerPost look at your speech and approve it?
I know the answer is negative. You are allowed to speak what you want.
My advise to them: Offer the same deal to ther bloggers for their PayPerPost service. Pay the money to a blogger who wants to write about a product, without getting any approval first.
There is not much different between you, who will speak to the public via a physical platform vs a payperpost blogger who writes via the blogosphere.
One question which payperpost will ask? How will they make sure that you do not say things too critical to them?
Logically speaking, in case you do then other companies would not be dying to invite you in future. Therefore for your own professional good, you have incentive not to be too critical. Similarly payperpost could do the same with their platform. If these bloggers take money from an advertiser and then do not focus on the positive side of the advertiser then other advertisers won't hire the same bloggers in future.
All payperpost has to do is to maintain an aggregate effectiveness score of bloggers based on the advertisers' feedback.
This isn't about advertising. This is about spam.
These guys are spammers! If they were concerned about advertising they would allow bloggers to use rel="nofollow"....
This is a bit like doing to a conference hosted by a convicted rapist and then keynoting on the rights of rape victims.
Either way you legitimize them.
You've jumped the shark dude. :-/ Come back from the dark side!
Kamal: PayPerPost does not get prior restraint on my speech.
Mike: if you think killing someone (which is what lynching is) is more ethical than someone selling something or shilling for something then I simply don't want you to be a reader of mine. Have a nice day.
LayZ: it was very clear that Seagate, Microsoft, and AMD sponsored the BlogHaus and that PodTech put it on.
That's all very interesting, but that's not what I asked. Did you clear a profit from BlogHaus?
I am not a spammer. I do not write positive reviews on demand. I have never been paid to write something that I didn't believe. I decline any opportunity where an advertiser will not give me freedom to write as I see fit.
Robert, props to you for doing something you knew would be unpopular but that you also knew you could do while preserving your integrity. Others could learn from your example.
Evidently in some areas of the blogosphere, it's not so much a conversation as it is dictation. Or dictatorial, judging from these comments.
I am a religious reader of Scobleizer, but via my RSS reader so I rarely see the post comments. This time I did and honestly, I'm shocked about all the criticism that you are receiving regarding this PayPerPost appearance.
You have gone out of your way to disclose the exact terms of the speaking agreement. I can't remember the last time I've seen such full disclosure. Furthermore, you are going on behalf of PodTech which , last time I checked, is a business that needs to market itself in order to pay the bills.
If I found out that you altered your speech to appease the PayPerPost folks I would have lost faith in your mission, but since you have clearly stated that this will not happen, I see no issue.
By speaking at this event, the only result is that you may influence those in the audience to understand the point of view that you and your readers share. In my humble opinion, that is better than not speaking and having no influence.
i know this sounds so annoying of me, but i'm begging you....
please come my blog, emilyishere.wordpress.com, and comment. if you dont have anything to say, just say hi or i like your blog or this blog is stupid. i'd even be happy if you wrote "this blog stinks."
it's a blog with tips for preteen girls (girls, we know the feeling...my partner who posts most of the time is my thirteen-year-old sister, so she's an expert) neopets cheats, clubpenguin cheats, and a little homework helper.
it is dedicated to all those girls out there who need help.
Nice attempt at an example, but we all know the sole reason Gates spoke at MacWorld that year. Would he be as welcomed today? Are you speaking at the PPP conference in the context of helping to bail them out?
Then Ch 9 infomercial examples you cite are hardly comparable to what we are discussing. But, again, nice try!
So, care to try again to answer my question?
You mean sorta like when Scoble scolds companies for not blogging, or tells bloggers how to blog or tries to define what a blog is because he wrote a book on it? Or whines and demands that bloggers should link to him when he thinks he has a story? Yea, I can see your point.
Regarding PPP:
Bloggers have been putting up paid for posts for long before PayPerPost came on the scene. Techcrunch does a 'Thank You' post to it's advertisers every so often. Many other blogs do the same.
PayPerPosts problem is that they thought that any publicity was good publicity. They courted controversy and revelled in it.
The problem is that with a lot of bloggers, their popularity is based on the trust of their readers and that trust could be hampered by being associated with PPP. This means PPP are now only working with low traffic, low page-rank bloggers who the advertisers don't want to pay for.
They now have to quickly rebuild their reputation so that some big bloggers start using their services before they run out of money.
The trouble is that other services are now available, ReviewMe for example, that don't have the bad rep of PPP, and any blogger that wants to do in-post advertising would probably choose them instead to preserve their reputation. Although it does seem like PPP have brought down this whole fledgling industry.
What could have been a great (and ethical with disclosure) revenue stream for bloggers is being hampered by controversy and PR mis-management.
PPP is black hat SEO. It's like calling a spamming SEO. You're taking an unethical activity and white washing it by classifying it with a whitehat activity.
These guys ruin the Internet for the rest of us.
You haven't resorted to the Dvorak link bait method have you?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gOHzHVF-4Mg
Ug.
Gettting paid to speak is normal, that's not the point here. I think this is more about what conference Robert wants to endorse by becoming a speaker, whether paid or not.
I have to call bull#### on this.
Black hat SEO is secret stuff. Cloaking. Link farms that you can't see. Invisible keywords. Splog farms. Etc.
Everything that PPP has done has been out front in the full heat of the public gaze. Yeah, they are far from perfect, but they are far far from black hat SEO.
The fact that you -- a well-regarded developer and studier of SEO techniques -- can't tell the difference scares the #### out of me.
Endorsement works both ways. PPP knows that I've attacked them in the past and is likely to attack them in the future (unless they ask their members to do full disclosure, like what I've done here). So, maybe they are endorsing that viewpoint too in front of their best members?
Nope.
It *is* Blackhat SEO.
They're *trying* to spam Google. Any link exchange which would object to using rel=nofollow IS a spammer.
Spamming == blackhat SEO.
I mean god. In the beginning they didn't even want to have disclosure!
They're also hurting bloggers. Most of these bloggers aren't going to be aware that their Google juice is going to be damaged when they participate in PPP spam campaigns. Microsoft has already come out and said that if they catch you selling links they'll blacklist your blog.
These guys are the Sith lords of the blogosphere! Don't convert to the dark side!
For the record.... I'm ALL for advertising but it has to be behind a link firewall which ISN'T search engine spam.
Kevin
I'm not currently a PPP enthusiast and don't plan to blog for them, and perhaps Shel's even right to call this approach the sidewalk hookers of the blogosphere (clever and catchy!). However if t disclosures are prominent and clear PPP people can note that they are doing a similar sort of thing that a *paid* journalist does when they review gadgets or movies or Techcrunch does when they review companies.
I smell a lot of hypocrisy here. Prominent folks who are directly paid very big money to blog in various forms are insisting that stay at home moms can't pick up a few bucks for reviewing something. And if Shel is right those evil hookers, blogging between tricks, will be denied the money that could get them off the street!
The critics worry about credibility and that's good, but it's hypocritical to get paid indirectly by blogging (e.g. TechCrunch, Engaget, O'Reilly, Battelle, Shel, etc, etc, etc) and then suggest without more elaboration that other payment routines are inherently flawed and dishonest. Are you just protecting your turf?
The company in the past has done some smarmy things, though, including paying people to attack me because of my stances.
But, to not understand that fundamental difference makes you look really lame dude. If I were you I'd worry about removing real sploggers from your TailRank service (I still see some there from time to time). PayPerPost isn't even close to being among the most evil here.
You're not an engineer. While it's easy for YOU to see that a story is about PayPerPost it's NOT that easy for a robot to see if a story is sponsored by a search engine.
Do you use the string "Pay Per Post" or "PayPerPost" ? What if there's a typo? What if the blogger simply doesn't disclose (this is actually happening all the time right now btw even though disclosure is apparently a requirement).
Is there a URL of all PPP campaigns? There are a few listed on the site but I do NOT believe there's a public URL available.
Also.... do search engines have to write code to walk around every SPAM company? What about Text Link Ads? What about all the PPP competitors that are coming out of the shadows?
While Google does generally do a decent job here the reason these companies are resorting to spam is that it WORKS! Google isn't perfect and so these guys are trying to take advantage of this opportunity to make a buck - Internet be damned!
And even if Google WERE perfect there's still Yahoo and MSN that they can spam.
You haven't done your research here. This is fine of course because it's not your job. The point I'm trying to make is that it's probably NOT a good idea to accept an invitation to speak from a company that's highly controversial to say the least without knowing why people are mad at them.
On the other hand, I do see the view that to change views you have to engage - but PPP have already taken on their funding, their business plan is set, I don't see it majorly diverting at all.
Finally, I'm in agreement with Jason. You (or if you want to split hairs, have PodTech in the middle as a wayman) should have taken the fee and passed it on to charity. You could even have started a conversation here on which charity bloggers would want to support.
Every blog that uses PayPerPost is required to do a disclosure on that blog's home page, so it shouldn't be hard to see how something is gaming Google and my friends who are programmers say it isn't hard to tell a PPP post -- if that disclosure isn't being done, then we should shame the bloggers into doing disclosures. You say it's hard, but then Google employees armies of PhD's for a reason.
One approach? Keep track of PPP-disclosed Bloggers (all PPP bloggers are forced to disclose due to PPP's policies) then discount items that appear on more than one of their blogs. It's not that hard.
Even if they don't disclose, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out something is being gamed. I read only 500 feeds and I can see gaming going on. All of a sudden a company starts being discussed when it wasn't before. It shouldn't be too hard for us to protect against this kind of gaming, particularly since most of it is being done in public. The sploggers and others who copy content and put Google ads next to it are far more evil and ones I worry about a lot more than PPP.
PPP should instead force their bloggers to use the rel=nofollow principle which is simple, effective and fair.
The best part is that our hypothetical blogger above wouldn't part of any formal organization that could be detected by Google. At least now I understand why you have no issues with PPP as long as they disclose. Can you say that you are using a different model?
As for sploggers being more "evil" than PPP, they essentially do different things. Sploggers steal intellectual property to make ad revenue. Bad. However, I'm unaware of a corporate entity actively and openly recruiting people to formally be part of such activities.
The obvious disconnect with your commenters may be drawn from the difference of the underground nature of the splogger (for which people have no "suspension of disbelief" - they know that such things will happen when money is involved) and the organized approach of changing conversations under a formal corporate banner (for which many people seemingly want to suspend their disbelief that corporate entities would be involved in such activities)
Sorry, but I have to comment about the following:
"One approach? Keep track of PPP-disclosed Bloggers (all PPP bloggers are forced to disclose due to PPP’s policies) then discount items that appear on more than one of their blogs. It’s not that hard."
Yep - until Paid-For-Posts (PFP), WePayYou (WPY), and Sell-Your-Soul (SYS) open their doors and start doing business. If this were an interview question, your answer wouldn't scale much beyond the original company. No Hire.
WhoKnew
Such a crybaby! And such a BS retort too! Who do you think is going to swallow your switch from metaphorical lynching to *literal* lynching? Point out all the posts here that have advocated a *literal* rope? You goddammed well can't.
But I see you for what you are now and can rightfully ignore you.
Go get an education in shilldown too. Watch "Roger & Me."
Exactly. Having that conversation with those that criticize you helps everyone grow! Being afraid to talk to those that have a different opinion, or putting yourself on a pedestal unwilling to associate with them is far more damaging than engaging them.
Closed-mindedness is a shameful thing!
Anyway, Robert you've been putting comments like the following all over:
"And the reverse is also true. PPP has paid people to attack me in the past. It’s a company I don’t agree with (at least I won’t until they require per-item disclosures, just like I did with my disclosure).
But, I disagree with you that this is an endorsement by me. Anyone who sees it as such really hasn’t done their homework. "
Why are you speaking at this conference, then? Doing so does give this conference wider visibility. Are you going to chastise the audience? As another person wrote about, they don't want to attend an event just to be talked down to, or derided.
Everything you say and have said in the past implies a disdain for this company. Why then speak at a conference for a group and a company you disdain? Especially one that 'sends people out to attack you'.
(DISCLOSURE: my criticism of Robert Scoble is not sponsored; I do it for free.)
If I were asked to speak in front of a group I disdain, I would say no. I would in front of a group who disagrees on issues with me, but not one I actually disdain.
You know who I feel sorry for? The people attending this so-called conference. They're being manipulated.
Well darn, so are the rest of us.
There are many ethical, moral and common sense decisions that will have to be made as this paid bloggers issue continues. Wal-Mart and that PR firm were attacted, and rightly so, when they created happy shopping bloggers who were paid because the money changed what they would say about Wal-Mart.
Why would that not apply for taking money from PayPerPost?
It is one thing for bloggers to get paid for good work, which is a principal of capitalism that has worked for centuries.
It is another for one of the most influential bloggers in the world, who already makes very good money and enjoys terrific perks from his day job, to accept payment for a speech without revealing it originally. Anyone paying Robert is paying for influence and credibility, not just a speech.
The old media has been atwitter all week discussing the same problem with CNBC uber-business reporter Maria Bartiromo and her accepting favors from Todd Thomson, formerly chief of Citigroup's wealth management unit. Thomson was fired by Citigroup for poor judgment, including his dealings with Bartiromo.
Now...as with Robert, you can say it there is nothing wrong with Bartiromo accepting corporate jet rides from Citigroup...on one level...except for this...no reporter, no matter how famous, can get too close to, or accept favors from the people and companies she covers, without problems. Experience has shown how dangerous that is and there is a reason such controls are in place.
Yes, so Robert accepts a few dollars for a speech. On one level, so what? But on other levels, it matters deeply. His uber-blogger stature means that whatever companies and products he associates with will benefit from being in his orbit.
George Washington made every mistake a military man can make at least once...he just never made it twice. I think Robert will display the same wisdom and will be more careful about to whom and to what he lends his hard-earned and well-deserved reputation as the world's number one blogger in the future.
BTW, may want to buy your brother an atlas. While it might be expensive to travel to Europe, last I loooked Orlando was still in the good ol' USof A.
Do you realize how many different types of spam there are? This is just one specific type.
There are hundreds of types of spam each with potential algorithms which can be used to defeat them.
Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc. spending hundreds of millions (billions?) of dollars a year to defeat spam. From additional hardware, to wasted engineering time, to mad users, it all adds up.
We can an are blogging PPP spam from Tailrank but it costs us money. We spend about 20% of our engineer and hardware resources on blocking spam. We're a small company and there are *plenty* of things I'd rather spend this cash on like hiring a few more engineers.
What really scares me about PPP is that now these scum are coming out of their caves and asking VCs to invest millions of dollars and way too many people are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and play devils advocate just because they have cash.
Anyway.. I'm done arguing about it. Half of the reason for me commenting on this was to help protect you from losing a ton of credibility in the tech industry. The other half is to prevent PPP from getting any more attention.
I still think they'll implode though.
http://www.feedblog.org/2007/01/and_so_the_bubb...
... is clear evidence :)
Kevin
I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question. Because the an$swer is obviou$, i$ is not? For expo$ure. Scoble is basically an exposure whore.
I won't pretend that you speaking at PPP's event is the end of the world, but your comments strike me as uncharacteristically disingenuous. It doesn't matter if you go to their event and trash them. They will spend the next four months hyping your appearance so much that nothing you say in 45 minutes or so on stage will overcome that. They are trying to bask in your integrity and hope that your association with their conference rubs off on them. It's a savvy marketing move on their part. For you, though, I fear it's something worse. Disclosure is not enough.
look dude, you're not overwhelmingly charismatic and your depth of understanding of technology and media is merely good. there's nothing going on in your interviews that a cuter, dumber person with a bunch of prep couldn't achieve.
which means the only thing you've got going for yourself is credibility... and it's been a really rough month in that regard.
if there's a benefit to you or your company to attend something, go. if they're paying you, accept. consider the pluses and minuses and either go big or stay home.
you will not be able to build or salvage credibility based on "disclosures". you've revealed that you're aware of the perception issue yet you still took the gig. a disclaimer doesn't change anything.
you're using it like it's some type of get out of jail free card. it isn't. some people will freak out about the association, most won't. either way, the damage is done and it's time to focus on the basics with your career.
are you the globetrotting cute geek with a video camera? are you a personality? are you a technologist? are you a journalist?
the land grab and the cash grab is screwing you here. right now you're none of these things because you're trying to do it all. pick one, build a brand, build credibility, and get on with business.
So if John Galt were an actual person and not a character, would he write a blog about what ever it is he wanted to and take advertorial money along the way to fund his endeavors?
or would the money be considered settling in and accepting the system and supporting the stupid bastards of the world?
He tuned in and dropped out.
(And would Dagny Taggart think Galt was still over poweringly hot for being a blogger that took ad money?)
_________________________________
If as an alternate we look at the fountainhead and Howard Roark the perspective is slightly different.
He took cllient money all the time, but only when they gave him free reign. So Roark were a blogger,would he write a sponsored article in any form he liked would and mention a company along the way? (He did put the names of his clients on the buildings he made, so is that sponsored advertising? Should Ayn have settled the question of whether or not Howard Roark should have run an ad in the paper saying, I made this building it is mine, but he named them after the wishes of the clients he worked for.
hmmmmm
idle thought
interesting character connections
Ted Murphy - Howard Roark (Building something everyone else says is crap)
Michael Arrington - Ellsworth Toohey
Robert Scoble - Gail Wynand
All the little bloggers - Dominique Francon
All the Big bloggers - Peter Keating
lol
Hmmm, well, tell me then, why did I get rated #2 at Google's Zeitgeist conference when compared with far more professional speakers and many CEOs of very large billion dollar conferences?
Same thing last year at LIFT. Only one who beat me was Cory Doctorow.
There's a reason I get invited to speak at conferences and continue to do so (I just turned down three more invites to keynote speeches, by the way, cause I already had previous plans).
this is the human form of "it's the content, stupid."
funny you mention Cory: he's perhaps one of the few people on the web who's shedding credibility more rapidly than you are lately.
there are people who burn bright and brief and there are those who are always around. there's a balance between self-promotion, credibility and content that will enable you hit it long term. find it.
it doesn't matter what you look like or how charismatic you are. amanda's boobies can drop a foot and if she's played it right she'll have the barbara walters gig. if not, she'll be a bitter female dave winer shouting "i invented web video with rocketboom and had a million viewers" surrounded by cats in the year 2031.
http://bscoble.blogspot.com/2007/02/anonymous-b...
Just a little article about anonymous Bloggers.
I may not know how to cook a decent meal but I still know when my food tastes like crap.