My wife sent me a link today from a site that talks about making money blogging.
A bunch of the sites that were suggested were these "pay per post" deals where a company contacts you and asks you to do a positive review of their website or business and in return they pay you some lump sum.
I'm guessing that a setup like that would completely knock away any neutrality or objective eye that the blogger had which means that it's a little misleading to do something like that (unless there were a clear disclaimer, or if the blogger TRULY liked the site, movie, or merchandise before being contacted about it).
Then again, if you're going to make money on the blogosphere, you've gotta have advertising, or a product to sell, or some sort of setup like this. Otherwise, you're just a "Free"lancer like me who blogs in his free time and doesn't actually have as much time to research and write as I'd like.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
8/3/2009 01:04:17 am
It's funny you posted this, considering where I work. I absolutely believe that there is a right way to do sponsored content (paid blog posts, paid tweets, etc), but many content creators (e.g. bloggers) and advertisers prefer to keep the fact that they were compensated for a review under wraps.
Jamie, I agree with you here!
"Sponsored content should always be disclosed. And the advertiser should not be able to dictate the tone (positive/negative) of the review, if there is opinion expressed in the content. I don't think that there is any other way to do a sponsored review and maintain an ethical standard or reader trust."
Comments are closed.
Nathan Key likes to think about faith and philosophy and talk about it with others. He lives with his family in New Hampshire. He doesn't always refer to himself in the third person.