Blogging Ethics and Pay Per Post

There is a troubling trend growing in the blogoshpere (I really hate using that term but as my old boss used to say - It is what it is).  There are a number of companies offering bloggers money to write about their products or services.  It is called Pay Per Post and it comes in a few flavors.  Some services will pay as little as $5 to write a short blurb with a link while others offer $50 and up to write a positive, neutral or negative tone about a product or service. 

I subscribe to a number of Google Alerts to keep up with what others are writing about the Outer Banks.  The news media has been hot on inflated gasoline prices lately and I even wrote a post in response to a blogger about the actual economic impact of higher prices at the pump on those making the trek to the Outer Banks this summer.  I found another article by History Mike claiming his family cannot make the trip because of the extra $150 he would have to spend on gas (accurate estimate if he was driving a Winnebago towing a car).  I was ready to dispute his claim about the true cost and then I noticed his Pay Per Post link on his page.  Was History Mike really considering bagging the trip to the coast because of higher gas prices or was he looking for a reason to link to local businesses for money?  After a few comments History Mike wrote another post titled On Blog Advertising and Double Standards about the backlash he is receiving from what he considers blog purist. 

Here are some additional views on Pay Per Post from those that really know what they are talking about:

Jeff Jarvis from Buzz Machine likes the idea correction - Jeff doesn't like it either.  Sorry about that.  Jeff likes the idea of employers paying employees to blog.  I tried to find a good argument supporting pay per post but most were:  Why not, everyone else does it...  You can't be blamed for trying to make money...
Dan Shanoff from the Huffington Post really does not like the idea
Tom Hespos from iMedia Connection is against the idea
Marshall Kirkpatrick from Techcrunch writes about PayPerPost

I read an article in Inc. Magazine by David Freedman about people being sued for content in their blog or website.  I would think long and hard before I wrote a negative article through pay per post.  While you might pocket $50, you will probably be adding your name to the court docket.  I understand why people are using blogs for dollars.  The platform is probably the best way to get rankings in the search engine results.  The bottom line is that pay per post is not for me.   

Comments

[Paula The Surf Mom]

Would you consider Sammy's dog cookie deal with Brew Thru as pay per post?

[Ronnie Roach]

Paula,

As far as I am concerned - Sammy is totally in the clear. As for you baiting the folks at Ford - I hope you get the Navigator and then our family can buy "the car that Sammy rode in".

I was going to use your blog as an example of what is acceptable but ended up running out of time. Tell Sammy hello.

[Frank Gilroy]

I was doing a search on "pay per post" under a different sort of context and stumbled across your post. I don't have a problem with the idea of somebody getting paid to write. But I do have a problem with the opinions being determined by the people paying the bills.

[robert berkman]

Hi Barry--Jeff Jarvis actually hates payperpost, the link that you entered was an article whereby Jeff Jarvis was happy to see that some bloggers were being paid to blog by publishers and employers--no conflicts of interest there.