Pay-Per-Post, Sponsored Posts, Sponsored Conversation, whatever you elect to call it, is the act of providing a blogger with something of value (paying them) in exchange for content.  Its a controversial subject and is now regulated by the FTC. The controversy stems from a fear that compensating bloggers in exchange for posts undermines the authenticity of their content. Thus, potentially leading to bias posts.

Bloggers are journalists in their own right, which leads to the concern that as members of the media, the blogosphere would stop regulating itself and instead become about as fair and balanced as Fox News.

In a 2008 blog post, The Future Buzz’s, Adam Singer posted, “Paid Blogging is Lose-Lose Situation” He noted that, “Bloggers are happy to write on companies from a natural angle if you use pull strategies instead of push. More than 80% of bloggers are already writing on products and brands, according to the 2008 Technorati state of the blogosphere. Be remarkable and have great marketing and you’ll be talked about.”

My argument is that consumers can tell authentic vs. influenced content. I can see where sponsored conversations would benefit everyone - the brand, the blogger and the blogs readers.

A widely discussed example in the debate of Sponsored Conversation is a campaign for K-Mart. The company issued $500 in store credit in exchange for bloggers to write about their experience. While risky for K-Mart, (what if the blogger’s have a negative experience) I don’t see any ramifications for the blogger nor the reader as long as

-the blogger has the freedom to write what they want (favorable or un-favorable).

-the blogger discloses when a post is sponsored and names the company sponsoring the post.

A Forrester Research report favoring Sponsored Conversation is available for free courtesy of the Pay-Per-Post company, Izea

What do you think?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

2 years ago