Burt’s payperpost analysis.

Posted by stuart as

Burt’s written an interesting analysis of payperpost, and his thoughts on it.

I’ll be posting my comments on his post here. It’s a shame Burt won’t see them, as he no longer frequents here. That’s OK though. I’ll be writing this post, then will no longer be discussing the issue. You’re welcome to leave a comment on this post.

Firstly, Burts posting needs to be read in the context of this post here, and the ensuing bunfight in the comments section. Yes, Burts post is about me, and this blog (in part, at least, he could be talking about other bloggers as well, I wouldn’t know)
Burt lists the three main problems he has with payperpost, so let’s take a look at each of them individually:

1. You alienate your readers
   If you want to use PayPerPost on your blog, do it - but don’t be surprised if some of your readers decide not to read any more. - Fair call, but I guess you’re not going to please everyone, and who wants to read a sycophantic, warm and fuzzy blog anyway? This point probably has the most credence.
2. You are whoring yourself
   Even the skankiest crack-whore gets more than $5 a trick. - Hmmmm, ok. Even the skankiest crack-whore gets to make that decision herself, too. A blogger doesn’t have to take his or her pants down to earn their five bucks, either.
3. PayPerPost advertisers tell you what to write about
   Whether they say (or imply) you have to write good things, or whether they allow you to write your own thoughts, how do you, the blogger, know what to write about if you do not own the product or service that you are advertising - is this good for your credibility ? - This is where Burt’s confused. No-one at payperpost is telling you which opportunities you have to take. As far as owning the products or services? Confused again, sorry - A lot of the “opportunities” on the website go along the lines of “Take a look at our website, write a post in your blog telling your readers what you think of it” There’s no issue of owning a product, a blogger can look at the website, and write an honest review of it. If the blogger doesn’t like the site, and the “opportunity” requires a positive review, he doesn’t have to write anything. I’ve gone down this track plenty of times. If I can’t write the review within the advertisers guidelines, whilst remaining honest, I simply don’t take it. No harm no foul. If Burt actually used the service, he would understand this.

Burt then goes on to say:

What I cannot understand is why a person who is good at writing would spend an hour creating a blog post for a payment of $5. - There’s been no issue of taking an hour to write a post to earn $5. The posts I have made have involved spending twenty or so minutes taking a look around a website I probably find interesting anyway, and spending two or three minutes writing a post about it. Sheesh, I spend countless hours writing random thoughts here every month for absolutely no return, so half an hour for five bucks is like a goldrush for me! :-).

It’s quite sad, particularly when the blogger then goes to war with his readers - is $5 really worth it? - I haven’t gone to war with my readers Burt, I’ve gone to war with you, and had quite fruitful and animated discussions with Mark. No-one else has really had that much to say on the issue. I’m not saying I’m not disappointed with this, as the two of you are two of the bloggers I have the most respect for. This has gone way past the issue of the $5, this is an issue of blog ownership. This has become about me choosing to do what I like with my blog, and not taking orders from some guy on the other side of the planet, who I’ve never met before.

I’m sick to the eyeballs of this issue, so I won’t be writing about it here any more. I’m off to try to think up some nice, warm and fuzzy, positive things to write about. Hang around and read them if you like, but if you don’t want to, that’s OK too, it is, after all, a free world!

And no, I wasn’t paid to write this post.