Inevitably, Wal Mart shows up (but only briefly)

Ever since blogging hit the scene companies of all types have been struggling with ways to capitalize on their appeal without infringing on the integrity that makes them popular. This has proven to be a tricky conundrum as the WalMart/Edelman scandal debacle proved. It would seem the public holds bloggers to stricter ethical standards than they do “legitimate” news and information organizations, even though these depend on advertisement dollars to subsist. Well, recently I found a strategy that aims to monetize the blog explosion in a model that, in theory, benefits both advertisers and bloggers.

The name of the company is Pay per Post and they promise to do just this, they pay bloggers to post about companies and products. Their business model depends on linking advertisers and bloggers in the same way that ad-sense hooks up publishers and advertisers. Using PayPerPost.com advertisers create an "opportunity" for bloggers. That opportunity, along with opportunities from other advertisers, appears on a searchable index displayed to PayPerPost bloggers. The bloggers review the requirements for the opportunities along with the amount offered by the advertiser (up to $20 per post) for blogging about the topic. The blogger writes about the opportunity, PayPerPost.com staff review the content and the blogger is paid upon completing the terms of the agreement. Founder Ted Murphy was quoted as saying:

"Media companies and celebrities have been compensated for endorsement and product placement for years. Finally bloggers will be compensated for all the traffic and sales they generate when they blog about products and companies."

I think that just as is the case with product placement, a blogger that enters this system will be jeopardizing the integrity of the medium. But, as I mentioned in the first paragraph, in the world of blogging this can be an unforgivable transgression.

Still, as you can see from the video on this page, there is definitely space for freedom of expression in these early posts. Also, it is entirely possible that, as we do with TV, quality and production value will dictate our tolerance of advertising in our entertainment. This is what advertisers who post on YouTube are betting on.

The other big issue, patent in the WalMart case, is that readers are probably more put off by the deception, than by reading something someone was paid to write. To head this off Pay per Post has come up with a “disclosure badge.” The badges—a small graphic appearing directly in blog postings created by the company's participating Consumer Content Creators—allow readers to not only see who is sponsoring the content, but also to benefit from links and other information provided by the sponsor.

It will be interesting to see how long it is before the democratic nature of blogging gives way to the oligarchic models of modern mass media just as Radio did and TV never got a chance to do.

Your Assignment: Become a Pay per Post Blogger and push the envelope… how far can you go and still get paid?

P.S. A small collection of nagging thoughts:

Every day hundreds, if not thousands, of advertising impacts bombard the average person. This is annoying, ugly and, most relevant to this particular discussion, demeaning.

Through products like DVR's and Firefox extensions that allow users to eliminate advertising from the internet, consumers are pushing back.

I propose a new terminology: customer dignity.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary dignity is "The quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect." As marketers we usually listen to these words and think: "how do I make my customers think I respect them?"

Maybe we should be thinking "How do I develop mutual respect between my customer and me?"

I believe products like Tivo should be an aberration. Whole industries have cropped up dedicated to help us avoid advertising, what message does this send? It seems consumers have been slowly pushed to their limits in terms of when, how and especially why companies communicate with them.

We have convinced ourselves that if our messages are relevant then we are somehow avoiding the reason people want to skip ads. I think we are minimizing a negative effect, we are leaving less of a footprint. We haven't solved the real issue.

I believe consumers have an underlying feeling of injustice, a dirty feeling from the branded life we live in.

The Masters Golf Tournament is a marketing anomaly. During coverage CBS broadcasts only 6 minutes of advertising for every hour of programming.This is caring about customers in real and tangible way.

Shouldn't cable TV have less advertisement than network TV? In theory I'm paying a subscription right? Only the movie channels truly embody the idea of cable TV and they are the only people who are actually growing their audience.

We can, and probably will, find an infinite number of empty spaces to fill with a sales pitch; I don't believe this means we should. Don't try to sell me every opportunity you get, I will stop listening to you and, if you push it, stop buying from you.

Should advertisers be concentrating, as I know them to be, on how to circumvent Tivo, or should they consider why DVR's exist at all? I believe if they figure out the latter they could take an important step towards achieving one of the most important competitive advantages out there, loyalty.