Scobleizer - Latest Comments in “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

Dips — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:36:06 -0000

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.

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

Ben Scoble — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:37:27 -0000

I love anonymous bloggers who question credibility ...
http://bscoble.blogspot.com...
Just a little article about anonymous Bloggers.

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

meanguy — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 07:20:54 -0000

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.

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

Robert Scoble — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:23:13 -0000

>>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).

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

Robert Scoble — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:14:36 -0000

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!

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

Alexander — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:47:12 -0000

I don't think you should have endorsed PPP.

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

brettbum — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:48:30 -0000

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

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

meanguy — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:33:09 -0000

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.

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

consensusblog — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:59:51 -0000

Seeing Ben Scoble's post reminded me that I'd mistakenly logged in anonymously. I'm Greg Cannon. http://techworking.wordpres...

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

consensusblog — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:02:23 -0000

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.

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

Ben Scoble — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 09:17:15 -0000

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!!!

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

LayZ — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 22:15:44 -0000

@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.

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

Kevin Burton — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:14:31 -0000

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.

I still think they'll implode though.

http://www.feedblog.org/200...

... is clear evidence :)

Kevin

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

Bubba — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:01:54 -0000

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.

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

Poetslife — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 15:34:23 -0000

Robert...FYI - Here is my post from http://blogcritics.org/arch...

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.

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

Shelley Powers — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 12:38:15 -0000

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.

Well darn, so are the rest of us.

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

Sindy — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 10:50:37 -0000

Todd: because dialog helps more than it hurts. At least in the world I want to live in.

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!

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

mikecane — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 10:24:44 -0000

Damn typos! Shilldown = shilldom.

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

mikecane — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 10:23:36 -0000

>>>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."

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

Who Knew — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 09:28:03 -0000

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

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

Stephane Rodriguez — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 09:23:38 -0000

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.

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

Robert Scoble — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 05:41:14 -0000

Kevin: I've been talking about how PayPerPost games Google before anyone else that I remember. http://scobleizer.com/2006/...

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.

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

Ewan Spence — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 04:56:41 -0000

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.

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

Kevin Burton — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 04:49:05 -0000

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.

Re: “PayPerSpeech” disclosure

Robert Scoble — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 04:17:28 -0000

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.