Transparency vs. Payola: Weighing Risks

PayPerPost: Worth the risk?

Over at the Center for Citizen Media blog, I've joined an interesting conversation concerning the thorny issue of payola in online media. See: PayPerPost: A Cancer on the Blogosphere, or Merely Semi-Sleazy? by Dan Gillmor.

Background: The controversial online advertising service PayPerPost attracted considerable blog and media attention after it recently got $3 million in venture funding. In a nutshell, PayPerPost is an automated system where companies can advertise their sites, products, services, or brands through a network of approved bloggers who get paid $2 per qualifying post. That is, bloggers who sign on to PayPerPost agree to write about those advertisers.

PayPerPost reviews and approves those posts, which can be required to be positive. Although PayPerPost urges its bloggers to be "honest," it discourages them from disclosing their relationship with PayPerPost. So, ethically, everyone involved appears to be on thin ice -- but when did ethics ever have much to do with the advertising business?

...Anyway, Dan Gillmor's post on the PayPerPost flap nudged me to consider the issue of payola more closely. Here are a couple of comments I contributed to that discussion...

On Oct. 10, I left this comment to Dan Gillmor's post:

Payola has a long, rich history in all kinds of media -- even word of mouth! It also can be difficult to prove.

For instance, if an organization sends a blogger or journalist a product to review, is that payola? Maybe. What if they get a lousy review? What if the journalist is transparent about the fact that they were sent a freebie?

What about book reviews? Publishers often distribute free review copies to news orgs and individual reviewers.

What about organizations who offer indirect compensation (such as, say, free attendance at a conference) not just for advertising, but for the hope of influencing/increasing coverage of and opinions on issues or events such as political hot-buttons, etc. That's what press passes are really about.

This is a pretty complex issue. Pay Per Post is only one small part of it.

To which Dan Gillmor responded:

"Amy, complex indeed -- and getting more so. I have no objection to sending a book to a reviewer (and we certainly sent out enough, with no apparent effect, to US newspapers); but I don't care for the practice I've heard of some reviewers then peddling the books on eBay. So I guess I'm arguing that some things cross the line, and that we should be fairly clear on what they are. So is there a way we can collectively bring to bear some intelligence (in several senses of the word) to flag the troublesome stuff?"

Today, I replied:

Personally I think in all aspects of conversational media, whenever you're not completely transparent, it can come back to haunt you. It's nearly impossible to hide any relevant information, and it's too easy for someone else to say things about you (true or false) that then become easily findable online.

It comes down to: Know yourself, and know your core community. What are you willing to risk, and what are they willing to accept?

I figure if you're going to stick your neck out and start publishing online, complete transparency is the safest strategy. Any level of obfuscation or concealment carries risks. Personally, I think it's up to each individual to decide which risks they're willing to take. Payola entails risks. So does blogging under a pseudonym. Or accepting a press pass.

It's all tradeoffs. But in my book, if you're not transparent then you're begging to be "outed" at some point. That's rarely fun or convenient.

IMHO, of course :-)

...What are your thought on this issue? Please comment below. Also, check out the conversation at the Center for Citizen Media -- several people besides Dan and me are talking this over.

Comments

[Cheryl Morgan]

Amy, you are quite right about it being much more complicated than it is. As someone who has recently given up a successful online science fiction book review site, at least in part because of the problems you've discussed, I hope I can shed some light on this.

Firstly I'd like to address Dan's point about reviewers selling books on eBay. The last lot of figures I saw said that US newspapers review around 1% of the books they are sent. They don't have room for any more. With web-based review sites the percentage is higher, but I still got sent way more books that I could possibly cover. One of the reasons I gave up is that I had trouble coping with the flood of books. I gave them away to Oxfam, and to a local SF fan club. Those I couldn't give away I sold to a second hand book dealer at well less than $1 per book. And I was still drowning in books. The publishers, it seems, either send you everything or nothing, there's no in between option.

So yes, I sold a few books. And of course I got lots of free ones, although most of them I didn't want. Fortunately for me it wasn't really a business. People for whom it is a business - I'm thinking mainly of paper-based small press magazines - do sell unwanted review copies because it helps them stay afloat. Does that make them corrupt?

The problem here is that even if you are as transparent as possible (and I like to think I was), the mere fact that you get free books marks you down as corrupt in some people's eyes. In a small community such a science fiction you also tend to know many of the writers and editors, which also makes you suspect. And if you have Amazon links on your site, that's another mark against you, even if your actual commission is only a few bucks a month.

We reviewers have got away with it up until now. But the growth of viral marketing and the existence of people like PayPerPost makes it very difficult to maintain a stance of independence. People know that the payola goes on. So if you write a review that someone doesn't like, the first thing they do is accuse you of having been paid to write it. You can be transparent until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't mean people will believe you.

[Amy Gahran]

"You can be transparent until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't mean people will believe you."

Excellent point, Cheryl! That's why I think it boils down to knowing what you're willing to risk, and knowing your core community and what they're willing to accept. And sometimes you can only figure out those boundaries when you bump up against them, of course.

However, it pays to be transparent about exploring where those boundaries are. And realizing that it's impossible to please everyone. So it's not a matter of "how do I avoid complaints altogether," but rather "how can I keep most of the people in my core community satisfied on their most important priorities?

- Amy Gahran

[DrumsNWhistles]

I've written so much on this over the past week that I'm probably going to be labeled the PayPerPost evangelista, but it's worth another go round.

I do agree about transparency, which is why my posts are either tagged or have a text disclaimer identifying them as PPP posts.

On the other hand, your description misses one key aspect of PPP. The blogger has the control and choice on what they choose to write. I don't write about any opportunity offered that requires that I be positive about the product or that I write anything other than my honest opinion. The fact that I'm paid anywhere from $4-10 for writing it isn't enough to sway me one way or the other.

Interestingly, the reason I decided to give PPP a try is because I'm lusting after a new Nikon lens that doesn't fit in the budget. If I were a so-called A-lister (particularly in the arena of photo blogging), Nikon might offer me the opportunity to receive that lens to test and review, free of charge. But I'm not an A-lister, just someone who is trying to figure out how to put my hands on that lens with a kid off to college and the need to replace both of our cars.

In the long run, reviewing a free lens is far more likely to sway my opinion than $10. But even then, I think I'd be honest, because that's what an advertiser is looking for. Dishonesty taints them, too.

DnW