But this annoyed me yesterday

Clickbank has required for some time (at least 2 years) that affiliates comply with FTC recommendations for WOMM. That could just be looked at as a legal “out” but it is there in writing.

There is lots of noise (and some signal) over the last couple of days about the FTC, so affiliates are using it in headlines for email promotions. I opened one and the link was a Clickbank promotion, I opened a second, and it was to a genuine blog post.

Here is what the person promoting an affiliate product sent

BREAKING NEWS: Making Money Online Illegal??

Hi,

It no longer matters if you are struggling to make your first
buck or if you are already killing it on the internet…

EVERYBODY is going to be effected by this…

This blog just broke the story and it is THE most important
information you will ever read this year…

[Go here now] and see for yourself:

No optin needed. This is a shocking blog video news post that
was just published a few moments ago.

It will change the way you look at your ability to make
money online…

[Find out here now]. Fast.

This is the scoop: There have been A LOT of changes
online recently and now the big question is “Has making
Money Online Become Illegal?”

The answer might shock you…

This WILL change everything. [Get the full story here:]

To your success,

• This was pre-written email copy supplied to JV partners as I have seen this email sent by 2 different unrelated email lists.
• The links in the email I added square brackets and are in bold like [this is a link]
• The deceptive headline did get me to open it, but a smart copywriter would have added some truth to the content
• The links proclaim a blog post
• You click the links and end up on a sales page
• The sales page itself is full of elements that are probably extremely dodgy now, and the biggest insult is probably the fake “trust marks”.

Fake Trust Marks

If someone is using fake trust marks, would you:-

• Believe their income claims?
• Actually trust them in any way?

Notice any similarities between legitimate trust marks provided by Trust Guard, and the fake ones?

That is an affiliate banner, and I have chatted with Garrett the affiliate manager in the past regarding my larger project. Trust Guard is one of the most affordable legitimate trust mark providers, and possibly the cheapest for things like PCI compliance though it has been a while since I did my research.
If you like what they offer, do your own due diligence and end up becoming their customer, there is a small chance if you haven’t cleared your cookies and the tracking works and countless other potential problems, that I might earn an affiliate commission.

Oh, and I have just lost trust in the people who sent me the email, and the chances of me promoting one of their products in the future, or even remaining on their email list are remote.

I wouldn’t want my readers to be sent dishonest emails if I referred them and they ended up on their list.

Real FTC Commentary From Marketers

There has been lots of coverage on technology blogs and “social media maven” blogs but I just want to highlight a few I have read you might have missed.

Michel Fortin has some great commentary about testimonials and vendor liability for the actions of affiliates.

The FTC’s Feebie Rule on Fashionista – included because sometimes I get free samples to review, and free samples I don’t end up having time to even look at, or find unsuitable. I also sometimes get free access to things based upon previous affiliate performance. I used to work in the games industry – do you think logos of hardware manufacturers end up on product boxes without some quid pro quo?

How much are PC adverts subsidized if they include Intel and Microsoft logos? How do they disclose the financial arrangements of pre-installed sample software?

Testimonials… does it really change how they look on a page to add disclaimers. Have a look at this sales page Howie just posted for one of his programs and look at all the disclaimers in the testimonial boxes. I am not using an affiliate link and am linking because it is the first example I have seen since the new rulings… I am not sure this is the best method – I think a “speech bubble” on mouse over might work better.

John points out us Euros have had to live with this quite a while (I have covered it a lot myself in the past) along with some sound tips – I suppose I should disclose that John leaves great comments and has been known to tweet my articles.

Don’t forget my old post defining 32 kinds of Blogging and Linking Payola – the FTC should really have addressed every form and more – I probably only covered half of them.

Lets finish up with a question… if I updated my old disclosure policy plugin to work with current versions of WordPress, would anyone actually use it? (well I know a few people who might for monetization as it was really effective)
I have had a few enquiries, and the download stats over the last few years suggest there may even be people using it still, though it only supported up to WP2.2 officially.
The plugin was contextual so now for instance Matt Cutts has a full disclosure policy finally he could add the plugin, and on every historical post where he mentioned Google, it could add a short disclosure with a link to a full disclosure policy, or even a specific disclosure policy about Google, both on the page and in his feed.

Regular readers however are going to be shocked about this but in my opinion…

Shoemoney’s Disclosure Is Better Than Rand’s

I am calling it a debacle rather than a debate, because in a debate there is at least a serious attempt to do some fact gathering. Maybe there were time constraints both in the planning and the delivery, and it is good to see disclosure being discussed, but I honestly expected after the previous round of blog and counter-blog for there to be a more in-depth look.

There Are Regulations For Bloggers

Major companies such as Clickbank require disclosure. As I pointed out in that article, they link through to the FTC regulations for Word of Mouth marketing.

How anyone can debate whether affiliates need to disclose without using the phrase “Word of Mouth Marketing” is just ridiculous.
There is a big difference between a recommendation and an advert in the sidebar.

It Is Not Who You Talk About, But Also What You Don’t Talk About

Why don’t you rip apart Google on their referral units, where they effectively prevent disclosure, whilst encouraging WOMM.
I mentioned this again recently in my post regarding the Feedburner acquisition.
People don’t criticise Google because it would affect their relationship with Google.

On the other hand, bloggers seem more than happy to jump on the bandwagon for linkbait talking about services that don’t pay the bills.

No Mention of Word of Mouth Marketing Association

I have had issues with the WOMMA and disclosure in the past, but at least I acknowledge they exist.

Disclosure Policy

It isn’t hard to do – Shoemoney now effectively has a disclosure policy, Rand doesn’t. All he really needs to do now is stick a link to it in his sidebar, or even better add it in some way to his feeds using something akin to my disclosure policy feedflare, and everything is 100% above board and he can drop as many affiliate links as he likes without feeling compelled by anyone to stick a little (aff) after links which not all visitors would understand anyway.

As I noted recently, John Reese is also using disclosure for AuctionAds affiliate links, follow his lead, as John rarely puts a foot wrong.

Shilling for Google and Yahoo? Grow Some Brass Ones

Maybe not, but I think the majority of people writing about SEO and the search engines in general need to grow some brass ones, such as Jack Humphrey has just demonstrated.

In fact lots of the blogs I have been reading up until recently on a regular basis seem to take no stance on major issues, and to just ask their reader’s opinions, or link out to people supporting their opinion, without actually stating it.

Payola

I deliberately didn’t link through to any particular article when I listed 32 kinds of linking Payola. It is interesting that the podcast highlighted at least one more form, and possibly more.

I actually like Dave Naylor’s take on this

I bet if I dig deep enough into any blog a can find a link out with a motive

How critical can you be of a company with whom you have an NDA, or with whom you might like to have a special relationship with in the future?

I have just read over on 10e20 a post by Tamar discussing how Twitter can be used for direct marketing, by creating a product feed of special offers.

Why is it OK on Twitter but not OK on a blog platform?

• Twitter is indexed by search engines
• Twitter content is syndicated as RSS
• Twitter is indexed by Technorati

The WOOT Twitter feed is effectively a splog by most definitions.

Why do it on Twitter? You could just subscribe to their RSS feed

There is a huge difference between this, and possibly commercial use of Twitter by their newly announced web services and command line, where you can request specific information, and have it sent directly back to you.

Lots of people are using Twitter commercially, pointing people in the direction of content on their blogs, or those of others. Twitter needs a way to handle disclosure.

Twitter is already ranking well in search engines, it would be so easy to create a linkfarm of Twitter Splogs.

• Disclosure in the Twitter Interface – currently impossible because there simply isn’t enough room in 160 characters.



• Disclosure Link – maybe an ethical possibility, but you can’t add anchor text, and not all the URL is displayed



• Disclosure In Content – it is hard enough already to say anything meaningful within the number of words allowed, there is no way you could add a disclosure to the content as well.

Signal To Noise Ratio

If you remove the business related content because you can’t be transparent, the noise factor makes Twitter almost worthless from a business perspective.

So what has your favorite A Lister been shilling on Twitter today?

Update

Mixed reactions so far to this “hot potato” and it was what I expected, because Twitter now has a fanatical following.

Karla came up with an interesting concept as a closing statement to what she wrote about Twitter, but it could have also been worded as a question.

Hmmm, I just hope that the candidates in this coming elections won’t use Twitter to campaign. OMG! What I have done?!? I just gave them an idea. Haha.

As happens quite often, I have been having a little discussion over on paul’s Blog regarding Twitter. He is wondering is Twitter somehow has built in trust, just like instant messaging, and is suggesting maybe some 3 letter universally adopted code might be the answer.

Does joining a Twitter feed class as opting in? If it does, does that mean it should comply with CAN-SPAM?

Paul is also trying to shoehorn me into doing a Podcast… the jury is still out

Update 2:
Steve Rubel has discussed the growing bills that Twitter are likely to be facing, unless they have something up their sleeves. As Endelman have a lot of experience with ethics issues, and disclosure, I would love him to address the disclosure problem on Twitter.

As always I am not a lawyer, and this is just for entertainment purposes. I am sure WOMMA have some lawyers though, so they really should take a lot more care with what they state and how they state it.

They were referencing the recent story in the LA Times about Pay Per Post and disclosure.

In the article they criticise the disclosure policy on Colleen Caldwell’s blog, which is fairly standard for Pay Per Post bloggers, a DisclosurePolicy.org badge “I disclose”, along with a disclosure policy based on their generator.

The “prominent disclosure” that PayPerPost purports? If you click on the icon in the sidebar it tells you:

The fatal flaw in their argument is that they are providing Jeff Jarvis and Jason Calacanis as examples of flawless business bloggers, and as I pointed out just a few days ago, and openly challenged, there may be no such thing as an A-Lister who has every legal and ethical concern covered.

Focusing on Orlando-based PayPerPost, Friedman notes concerns that such business models blur the ethical line between unbiased opinion and product placement. Jeff Jarvis and Jason McCabe Calacanis, two of the nation’s most respected business bloggers, are included amongst the critics.

You would expect these respected business bloggers who certainly earn a huge amount more than your typical Pay Per Post blogger, to have absolutely beyond reproach disclosure and other legal statements on their websites.

Please note that the WOMMA association and the LA Times effectively picked these two gentlemen as an example, effectively the pinnacle of excellence, because they are able to criticize Pay Per Post bloggers.

The LA Times

Why does the LA Times associate WOMM with paid reviews and not affiliate marketing. Where is all the coverage about Google Amazon or Ebay affiliates not disclosing, and not being required to explicitly?

How explicitly should sites like the LA Times declare their financial relationships with sister sites?

Smaller websites have to try to compete on a level playing field with sites that practice massive interlinking between their sister sites, and “partners”, they are all financial links.

I would link to the LA Times, but that is against their Terms of Service, which I would also link to, but again that would be breaking their terms of service, already broken by the WOMMA and Jason Calacanis (well unless they asked for specific permission)

Yes those terms of service are in the footer, but the LA Times obviously gets an exemption that work at home mothers don’t qualify for.

Jeff Jarvis

Lets take a look at Jeff Jarvis

Jeff does do a very good job of disclosure within posts, at least the few I looked for specifically about Daylife, I didn’t check all his content, it would have taken me a solid month.

Jeffs primary disclosure however is a link in his sidebar, that is only accessible from his homepage and date archives.
If you go to the “single” page of one of his posts, there are no sidebar links, and thus no link to his disclosure policy. There are also no easy to follow links from his single pages to the home page. You can follow a link to one of his tag pages (which he uses instead of categories), but that isn’t obvious.

In fact Jeffs blog layout is almost what I would regard as sacrificial SEO, intended to drive as much link equity to one particular URL.

I hope they are paying thousands for that sitewide link, certainly $3K+ a month based on the sacrificial nature of the site – I don’t know much about text link pricing in bulk, that is a guestimate, but the links are probably worth more.
I can understand why there is a WordPress sitewide link, most people publishing on WordPress give them a sitewide link, but very few would give their hosting company a sitewide link.
Jeff makes no mention of the hosting company anywhere on his site, such as saying how great they are to justify the link.

Jeff is collecting email addresses every time you place a comment, so you would expect some kind of privacy statement, especially with the amount of tracking going on.
You would also expect some kind of physical mailing address, because in some ways his blog is performing WOMM for the various businesses in which he has involvement.

Who has ownership of comments on Jeffs blog? Does he claim the right to republish or syndicate them? No comments policy in sight, though he does have an extremely limited rules of engagement, though not visible on single pages.

I didn’t look at his feed content, but most people don’t have a disclosure policy link in their feeds, and most people don’t have a physical address in case people read their feeds by email (CAN-SPAM).

Jason Calacanis

I can’t give you an example of Jason Calacanis’ disclosure policy, he hasn’t got one. In fact he has:-

I’m an “Entrepreneur in Action” at Sequoia Capital.

His about page is about his past, not about his current. It is well known that he has financial connections with www.ThisNext.com which is present all over his website without disclosure.
He is still running his blog on Blogsmith, yet supposedly he doesn’t work for AOL now, though he is probably still a shareholder… undeclared – he certainly touts everything AOL, specifically Netscape do right.

He also has tracking with Sitemeter and Google Analytics, plus more demographic data being supplied by Quantcast.
He collects email addresses, in fact you have to confirm that your email address is correct before a comment is posted. Great for spam control, but it is still personal information.
No privacy statement of any kind.

Jason’s ThisNext connection is also important, because in many ways ThisNext is a competitor to PayPerPost, and online reviews sites are not immune to problems with shilling reviews. A very recent example was the reviews Ben found yesterday on Home Depot. Disclosed paid reviews at least everything is out in the open.

When Jason attacks PayPerPost is it really just because of ethics and his concern?
He has a habit of making poorly researched statements for what is known as linkbait, another recent example was his attack on the SEO industry as a whole, which was thoroughly debunked by Danny Sullivan @ SearchEngineLand.

WOMMA Suggesting Regulation?

Now here is an interesting titbit from the WOMMA FAQ:-

5. Why aren’t there specific rules about what people say?
We work with real people, and the honest opinions that they form on their own. There is a fundamental complexity here — if you respect consumers and value their genuine opinions, than you can’t tell them what to say. We don’t script consumers; we ask them to share their opinions. Similarly, we can’t control the second- and third-generation conversations, what friends tell friends. But we can instruct them well about ethics, encourage them to be honest and open in all downstream conversations, and create a culture of ethical communications.
Some principles are absolute, however, such as our recognition that the consumer is fundamentally in control in this new environment and that marketers cannot lie or deceive.

This totally contradicts their recent statement

WOMMA will continue to monitor these issues, urging not only clear standards for ethical disclosure within sponsored blogs, but also strict guidelines on the method and mode of disclosure. Current guidelines are too weak and we therefore encourage their revision according to standards already set by the WOMMA Ethics Code.

Links Anyone?

What is with all these ethical sites and links?

The LA Times didn’t link through to Colleen’s site
Jason Calacanis quoted Colleen, but didn’t link through to her
Jason Calacanis did link to the LA Times, breaking their ToS
The WOMMA link through to a search result, and not a permalink.
WOMMA also link through to the LA Times, breaking their ToS

If you are quoting someone’s website, it is questionable practice not to link through to them with a followable link.

Conclusions

Everyone seems to be twisting stories to suit their own agenda, and no one in this discussion is 100% clean and free, and I am sure I have my own flaws. Everything I write has some level of commercial interest.

As I said just a few days ago, A List Bloggers in Crystal Palaces Shouldn’t Throw Stones, though the challenge in that post is still on if any A-Listers think they have everything covered.

I wonder if the LA Times charge more than Krak.dk for commercial deep linking without permission.

Thanks to Advertising for Success for the WOMMA link I followed.

Update:-

Dave Utter has just covered this story on Web Pro News, and I wish to thank him for highlighting the story to a more mass audience. It also shows how easy it is to make mistakes, and that maybe it is wrong to highlight a work at home mother for things that professional writers do by mistake on a daily basis. Dave though he quoted me extensively, forgot to link through to this post.

Though it is mentioned in the comments, I think it is important to highlight Ted’s recent post highlighting his discussions with the WOMMA.

Jason Calacanis continues to attack PayPerPost but have obviously read this post though wouldn’t link to it, because that would be balanced reporting, and Jason doesn’t really believe in ethical blogging, it is all just hype.

How do I know he has read this post but wouldn’t link to it?

Because he has added something to his sidebar

I would like to congratulate Jason on a minimal concession to ethical blogging, but how about some full disclosure at the head of every post about a competitor, PayPerPost, at the top of every post you write about them.
Also make sure you back date this disclosure through all the content you have previous written about them.
It is great you are going to have Ted on the Calacanis cast, but that isn’t enough to correct all the previous inbalances in your reporting.

Update2:

I have just left the following comment on Jasons most recent post regarding WOMMA. I am posting it here just in case it doesn’t appear on his blog.

I would like to congratulate you on your minimal concession to disclosure (the change in your sidebar disclosing ThisNext) but how about some unbiased reporting.
You should really include a disclosure in the first line of every post you have made about PayPerPost (a competitor), ThisNext, AOL, Weblogs Inc and Netscape (you no doubt have some financial interest still)
Surely you have the resources to do a better job of disclosure than a work at home mother.
A blogger with class, such as Robert Scoble, does link to people with differing opinion than himself, and has the balls to admit when he makes mistakes.
Where is your post stating why you changed your sidebar disclosure?

Update 3:

Just so there is no question that a change has been made, I just pulled this screenshot of Jason’s sidebar from the Google cache.

Just so there is no question that the comment I posted was posted, here is a screenshot of the results page after posting a comment. I assure you I am checking my email frequently, my emails are coming through with no problem (I use gmail), and the usual confirmation has not come through.

I would also love to highlight this previous post on Jason’s blog

Paying the top DIGG/REDDIT/Flickr/Newsvine users (or “$1,000 a month for doing what you’re already doing.”)

When Brian and I started Weblogs, Inc. the idea of paying bloggers–heck, even making money from blogging–was considered offensive to many. Blogging was, as the case was stated, a highly personal activity that should not be trivialized by the forces of commerce and greed. I don’t have a complicated relationship with money or capitalism: I love them both and see them as simply as fuel and the process by which fuel is produced. Money to me means time, time means quality, and quality means success.

Talent wins, and talent needs to get paid. I love paying talented people so they can sleep well at night doing what they love. That’s my biggest joy in business: gettin’ people paid.

The concept of “free” content producers, which I think WIRED called crowdsourcing, is going to be a short-lived joke. A loophole in the content business that will be closed by savvy startups which identify the top 5% of the audience and buy their time.

As we say in Brooklyn: everyone’s gotta eat

Update 4:

Tino Buntic has a thought provoking post on product placement, as long ago as the film “E.T.”
I bet they had some mention in the credits that it was a product placement, as films do these days, rather than a big warning sign on the screen whilst the product is visible.

Note to anyone linking through: don’t forget to use trackback, links are automatically reciprocated because I use the dofollow plugin.

I am going to highlight Matt Mullenweg in this post, but please understand that this isn’t a personal attack, it just highlights many of the problems that the A-listers wouldn’t recognise if they looked at their own activities.
Matt is recognised as a major influencer, and whilst it is hard to get exact numbers for various reasons, there is a good chance 2 million or more people might have had a chance to see the headline “Selling Links” in their WordPress account.

Selling Links

Links have value for as long as clicking on them will transfer visitors from one site to another, and for as long as they are used by search engines as part of their relevancy calculations.
(Links are becoming less and less relevant, especially in Google – I have seen hard evidence)

A disclosed paid link within a review is actually the most transparent link and ethically pure on the internet. Most other forms of linking do not have a disclosure of any kind, yet more often than not some kind of compensation has occurred that is not transparent

• Friends – you link to your friend, your friend might link to you
• Your employer – if your company does well, you benefit
• Promote a social media platform to your readers, and you suddenly get lots of friends on that platform, and possibly more prominence or authority.

Gone are the innocent days of the internet when people linked through to others purely based on it being good content, and that is especially true of the blogosphere. You link through to people and trackback/pingback because you want to express your views, and for other people to read them, and maybe respond in turn.

Gaming Search Engines?

The Yahoo directory has for years been a pillar of support for the Google algorithms. For over 5 years it has been paid inclusion only for commercial sites.

If I ran a blog on WordPress.com and tagged it “blogging” I would gain link equity from Robert Scoble, via the WordPress.com tagging system, whether Robert had read my post or not.

Thousands of affiliate programs gain link equity from affiliate links

WordPress.com is currently skewing Google’s index to the tune of 750,000 blogs, and thousands of tag pages.

Content Choice

People often choose content for financial reasons because they are controversial/topical and bring them more traffic and subscribers, or just to be evangelical on a particular topic.
Many sites were created to target specific subjects because they are lucrative.

Matt Mullenweg attacks PayPerPost >> Matt morally is on higher ground >> WordPress.com is an ethical service >> more WordPress.com users >> $$$

Matt doesn’t disclose that he is financially linked with WordPress in his blog posts – Who are the investors in Automattic? Does every employee at Automattic declare they work for Automattic within every blog post they write about WordPress?

Michael Arrington is at least blatantly honest that he often writes about Pay Per Post because it brings in more traffic and subscribers. The most valuable currency for Michael Arrington isn’t money, but access to information, preferably before anyone else.

Why don’t solutions to disclosure get more links? I have invested time and money into developing solutions for disclosure. I think my disclosure policy plugin site has so far generated approximately 10 links from bloggers, and 21 unique blogs according to Technorati, though some of it is syndication, feed errors or splogs.

People attack paid post companies because they have no intent to receive a pay check from them. In the same post Matt highlighted, a mother of 2 in the comments has technical problems using the Pay Per Post disclosure, and that is affecting the income she needs.

What a great gift to mankind, we have more pseudo ethical commercial blogs, but increase poverty by imposing ethical stigmas on services that provide income for people that need it.

Disregard for Legal Issues

In the wphackers mailing list a while back I suggested that WordPress should contain some boiler-plate legal terms, and the idea was effectively shot down. I know that legal jurisdiction would make them more complicated, but GPL seems to be usable worldwide.

WordPress.com didn’t even have a terms of service when it went live, let alone during beta, and how many bloggers have a privacy policy for all those email addresses they are collecting? In the UK there is the Data Protection Act, I am not sure of the US equivalent. Can you comply with that if you use a blogging service provided by a 3rd party?

MyBlogLog was recently attacked for not having a clear ToS and for cancelling the account of one person without warning. WordPress.com do that on a daily basis.

Who owns the comment content on a blog? How is a blog owner allowed to use the comment content? What rights to moderation?

There are blogs on WordPress.com that have been publishing content with affiliate links for over a year – I have even seen them listed on the front page.

WordPress.com uses a lot of tracking, not only on the main site, but also on the subdomains of blog owners. I have never seen a privacy statement on any wordpress.com hosted blog, then again I have never seen a privacy statement on blogspot hosted blogs either that gave details about what they were tracking. Does a blog owner have the option not to have all the demographic data of their blog visible?

Affiliate Marketing

Clickbank only recently changed their terms to include a mention of disclosure being required, but this is not the case for other affiliate program whose members practice word of mouth marketing. In fact they are not specific, they just require what is required by the FTC.
PayPerPost currently require more than is probably required by the FTC, and certainly much more than is practiced by 95% of affiliates.

Why are Pay Per Post getting a hard time over disclosure?

Examples of Ethical Paid Reviews

• I wrote a review for Arron Wall’s SEO Glossary – I have made as much from the affiliate links as from the review itself, and it got me a link from Aaron’s blog – how cool is that?
• Volusion Shopping Cart Review – In my opinion I went into as much depth as was possible for a service with so many features, and didn’t pull any punches about features I felt needed improvement.
• Review of the Sponsored Reviews Service – I tried to provide as much information as possible, and highlighted things I would like improved.

In every case the company requesting the review gained more than buzz or a link, in fact with all 3 companies the link they gained wasn’t even a concern, and a drop in the ocean.

Each one of these reviews

• Was on topic for this blog
• Unbiased
• Well received by my readers

It would be easy to point out that there are bloggers that will write reviews that are rushed affairs, and just mention the product in passing.
You get what you pay for, and in my case I try to make every review I write “cornerstone content”. If I can’t write something unique and original about a product or service, I generally won’t even mention it, no matter how much I am offered.
I actually turned down a $150 review yesterday for ethical reasons – I had received manual comment spam from people promoting the product.

There are also affiliates that write glowing reviews of products that they have only read the sales page for, but no one would dream of attacking Clickbank, Linkshare or Commission Junction over this. Google in many ways prevent disclosure for their referral units.
Have you seen fake book reviews with links to Amazon? That is obviously Amazon’s fault, and last time I looked Amazon didn’t require disclosure.

Would WordPress Exist Without Paid Links?

How many WordPress contributors make money for their contribution from paid links either in the sidebar of their blog, or within the content? 80%? 90%?
I am sure every single one of them makes more money from paid links than donations.

Suggested Reading

Seriously? Every single post on this blog tagged with Disclosure and a lot of the posts tagged nofollow

Personal Challenge

Give me any^[1] A List blog, and I will find problems with their disclosure or legal terms, on a paid post consultancy basis through either Sponsored Reviews or ReviewMe.
I should note that I am not a lawyer, so this is for entertainment purposes, and anything I point out could well be subject to interpretation and there is no guarantee. Also note that the review would be published on this blog without prior approval, and that rates will be increasing to $200 soon.

That is nothing compared to the hourly rate of many WordPress consultants. I can’t advise on code solutions for platforms other than WordPress. Review length will really depend on what I have to work with.

If I can’t find anything wrong, you will get a free review that I will publish anyway.

[1] I won’t link to content that is in my opinion inappropriate for this blog

Oh, and to make this really interesting, you don’t have to be the blog owner to order a review.

In closing, no one is perfect, and that includes myself – I have only just added a privacy statement and it is not formally worded.

Scandal

Write scandalous or convenient half-truths to fire up a link and traffic fest in the blogosphere, gain subscribers and push contextual or niche adverts at them.

Advertorial With Disclosure

In many ways a paid post or an advertorial is a more honest form of content monetization than conventional advertising. All the cards are on the table in clear sight.
As long as there is clear disclosure and the content is relevant and interesting to your readership, there is nothing wrong with the occasional paid post.

Paid Reviews

In fact paid reviews can be one step better than advertorials in magazines, because a blogger can choose to treat the review as if they were hired in a consulting role, and are publishing the results

Example of a Paid Review

Here is an example of a paid Review I have just written for Volusion

• There is not even a hint of the paid review affecting my opinion
• There is no question of bias towards the product
• I have provided what I feel is constructive criticism that will hopefully help improve the service for both current and future customers

They could always hire a “consultant” to tell them something similar for $2000 per hr, or maybe pay a marketing company to set up a focus group.

Why not pay a college student $20 to fill out a 1hr survey or questionnaire about a product they would never use?

Asking a blogger for a real opinion about a product, and being willing to pay them some compensation for the time invested is a very worthwhile method of gaining feedback, and is not buying opinion.

Please don’t give me the SEO argument either, Volusion have 1000s of links and the few they would receive from this review or any others are really insignificant.

Hmm, I think I might join up with Pay Per Post and with their new affiliate program get people to write reviews of the review I did of Volusion for ReviewMe.

Lots of controversy over V7N and their new contextual links program.

• Darren questions the ethics
• Matt Cutts has “Laid into Them“
• Graywolf Delves in Deep (read my comments there btw and the ones by Jeremy Zawodny)
• Carsten Cumbrowski has made a post I agree with on a link being a pointer, not a vote, or at least should be. I still don’t agree with him on the Wikipedia move as that punishes webmasters who deserve the “vote” as it is currently counted both for positioning and duplicate content. One option is for a couple of Google engineers to spend a week of 20% time fixing their software by adding a voting system for links.
• John Andrews gives his strong views on Matt Cutt’s current attitude:-

Today, Matt’s post was again in-your-face authoritarian. Matt is likely millions richer than he was when he started way back when I tussled with Google for the first time, but I’m not seeing as much “smarts” as I would expect to see. In Matt’s post, he speaks of V7N’s advertising system, and says things like :

• It seems this is what Matt was really up to at the last Google Whipping Session / SEO Convention

V7N Contextual Links

From what I have read so far, this service is very similar to using the alinks plugin for WordPress – that is used by thousands of bloggers with links to Amazon, Clickbank etc.

Here is what Darren wrote about Alinks last year.

Rachel also points out a helpful WordPress Plugin – Auto links which will automatically link to URLs when you mention certain keywords. This is especially handy if you find yourself mentioning site’s regularly. It also has the ability to turn keywords into Amazon searches (with your associate/affiliate ID) which some will find handy.

There doesn’t seem to be any moral problem with using it, and the V7N system is effectively the same, but rather than hoping for an affiliate sale, you get the money up front.

The requirements seem to prevent specific disclosure as Darren does on his blog, such as (aff)

As I wrote about recently, the Adsense Referral Link program effectively prevents you telling your visitors that you earn money if they download the software, but you are allowed to give a hearty recommendation.
As an example Darren now uses the phrase “Recommended Money Makers” for his affiliate links, but in the past I seem to remember he had “Affiliate Links” or something similar – that would indicate earning money from them, which would be against Adsense policy for the referral unit.

Thus the rules for V7N and Adsense are effectively the same regarding disclosure, but are for totally different reasons.

There is however a difference in regards WOMM (Word of Mouth Marketing)

Adsense allow you to express an opinion about the products, V7N I think would prefer you not to even mention them.

There is nothing within the V7N terms preventing you having a general disclosure policy for your blog, and even having a general disclosure with each piece of content you publish.
With Adsense Referral Units, the only way might be to have a general disclosure, and then not place them as advertisements. Maybe they will clarify that sometime.

Many might think that $10 for a link is not a lot of money, but it is just one text link on a page without having to do anything for it.

Google Situation

If Google really don’t like paid links of any kind, they should put their money where their mouth is and add a clause to the Adsense terms banning Adsense on sites which contain paid links.

Lots of web masters would probably react to that by removing…. Adsense, especially from large sites with horrible click-through rates.

Is it Worth Using V7N?

I noticed that they are mainly looking for blog inventory. They are going to get bundles of it – I am also sure lots of forums with 100,000+ pages are going to be pulling on the leash for this kind of offer.

I do foresee that this will also put pressure on other networks to increase their rates, such as PayPerPost. Sorry guys, but in many ways for most of your bloggers, this is a great deal.. but they do go hand in hand.
That being said, PPP is much better value for advertisers, as they do get a review out of it, which to be honest is part of the charm.

I have seen people state that this is too cheap – honestly by not having to do any work it isn’t.

You can buy up old domains that have a large number of content pages and just flog the inventory.

The funny thing is, for many bloggers, just like email marketers, search is not the primary source of traffic, and probably never will be.

I am sure a lot of people will be wondering

• Do they have negotiable rates for advertisers
• Do they have negotiable rates for people with lots of inventory
• Where is the affiliate program?

This video was originally posted on the Google Adsense blog, and the presenter is Laura from Adsense Support.

Now I should point out that Google have been very clear in their wording with all the recent correspondence relating to Adsense changes, which in some ways makes this even more extraordinary.

The interesting bit in regard to financial declarations starts 1min:30 from the start.

It should be noted that this wasn’t recorded live, as you can see from the out-takes at the end, is in response to reader emails, and it seems that the responses were prepared prior to recording.

Here are some quotes:-

You should feel free to recommend and promote a product you are displaying a referral button for, but please don’t use language that implies that users should visit your referral site, or benefit you financially.

A later example also allows you to use the word “click” and give a strong recommendation – Word of Mouth Marketing

I use Firefox and use it to browse the web

I love Picassa, click here to get this great software

An example that would not be appropriate would be

click on these links to help me earn money

Now it was only a month or so ago that there was a huge amount of blogger attention regarding a letter issued by the FTC in regards word of mouth advertising. Many bloggers directed their attention to various paid blog post monetization models and said that this legislation was directed at them.
Many lawyers however also pointed out that this affected various forms of affiliate marketing.

Adsense Referral Unit (potentially) = Affiliate Marketing = Word of Mouth Marketing

So based upon that theory, anyone using Adsense Referral Units, and who in any way reviews a related product, or encourages someone to use a product that is part of the Adsense referral program showing on a page, should make a disclosure of some kind.

How This Might Affect You?

This actually depends on how you normally declare affiliate links when you are recommending a product.

Some of the recommendation links are very normal looking such as

Firefox with Google Toolbar (btw that isn’t a referral link)

Now I know many bloggers who would write something like this. They do that with every other affiliate link, so they should do the same for a Google one.

I Love Firefox, Click this link Firefox with Google Toolbar (aff)

But their readers understand that any link with (aff) after it helps to support the blogger. It isn’t quite “Click on these inks to help me make money”, but it is very close to that situation I am sure on many blogs, forums etc which have a very honest and open disclosure policy.

How about if you have a more general disclosure policy such as I have, or maybe a statement that your site is advertising funded, or a visit our sponsors section?

Adsense referral buttons are fairly inviting

You can obviously refrain from writing reviews about Adsense products, but it seems Google want to encourage WOMM (Word of Mouth Marketing).

If Google want to use WOMM, they have to allow their affiliates a free reign to declare they are being compensated for any referrals, however they like with no restraint.

I am actually quite happy with many of the changes that have been made with the Adsense guidelines. The Adsense team have been very forthcoming with information

I also know that a little guy is going to be more worried about complying with the Adsense policies and terms that this could easily be a major stumbling block in widely adopted disclosure.

Remember, I have a toolbar buttons site. One of the ways I intend to monetise that site is the referral buttons, especially when the new Firefox Google Toolbar comes out of beta.

Update: Google’s Dan Friedman has written a clarifying post on referral units that I had hoped would clear up this issue, but in all honestly it makes things even more confusing.
Clickbank now require affiliates to disclose, and Google seem to prevent that.

It is five years, almost to the day that Yahoo started charging $299 per year for a listing in their directory as this article on Pandia clearly illustrates.

The main benefit of being in the Yahoo directory isn’t traffic, it is pagerank / trustrank. Who actually uses the Yahoo directory for anything other than listing their own sites?
It is many years since I went to Yahoo to lookup an entry for anything other than a competitor in a niche.

In all those 5 years, I haven’t heard anyone suggest that Yahoo should use “nofollow” for all the directory listings. All commercial websites don’t have a free option to get listed.

It is widely believed that a Yahoo directory listing is given a significant search engine weight.

Commercial Internet

Big business has a huge advantage over the little guy on the internet. Lets take Ebay as an example.

Many shoppers wouldn’t realise it, although the relationship is made very clear, that Epinions.com is owned by Shopping.com, which is itself owned by Ebay.com.
There is lots of interlinking between the different sites, though it could be achieved in a much more search engine friendly way. There is certainly no clear notification by every link that money is being made on every purchase.

Whilst reviews are user generated, there is certainly editorial control over which products are positioned prominently to maximise sales.

2006 in Perspective

Bloggers have been victimising PPP and to a lesser extent Reviewme.

Google, who claim to “do no evil” are actively discouraging paid posts and paid links from small services. They are suggesting that “nofollow” should be used to denote paid links, rather than their previous intent, untrusted sites (for various reasons).

Google unfortunately made paid links from Yahoo “saintly” since the beginning of their existence. It is only $300 and Yahoo receive payment even if they don’t include your site.
Google don’t regulate major corporations from cross-linking commercially.

During 2006 I have seen Google likened to God.

2007 A Reality Check?

My hope is that bloggers come down to earth a little, because the ranting and raving about paid posts is really displaying quite clearly how narrow-minded they are.

Paid posts and paid links give the little guy a chance to make some money writing about and linking to relevant content. They give the site linked to a greater chance of competing with the massive corporate machines as well as valuable feedback.

There is recent news that PayPerPost have acquired Performancing metrics. Nick at Performancing can be blunt, crude and highly opinionated. He is also a damn smart and ethical guy.
If you have been listening to his recent podcasts, you would know that he has been looking for someone to take metrics onboard for quite some time, as it was a money sink, and he was also talking to VC Dan Rua.
I have mentioned in the past that I have nothing but respect for the PPP guys. The PPP guys didn’t create any scandal, bloggers did it themselves. PayPerPost didn’t object to the free publicity, but in all the comments I have seen made by PPP guys in response to huge amounts of criticism, they have made some quite compelling counter arguments, and taken any criticism as genuine feedback.

I have seen people suggesting that they are going to be immediately cancelling their Performancing metrics accounts for ethical reasons.
Almost every advertiser and affiliate network you work with on your sites is gathering data. PayPerPost seem to have some smart guys backing them with VC funding.

PayPerPost are a business. With VCs backing them, they are not going to take risks in regard to personal data.

Why should PPP be compelled to enforce disclosure when Yahoo doesn’t proclaim “These are paid links?”

From what I have seen of PPP opportunities, they are in the main not for product reviews. It is quite possible they would be totally unaffected by the recent FTC / WOMMA discussion.

Create Great Content and Links Will Follow?

Give it time… maybe. Most websites don’t attract a lot of natural linkage. You can get a few links from various directories for free, though many more require payment – paid links are evil remember?

You can also gain lots of links from things like article marketing or press releases.

But that isn’t the natural linking Google say you should be looking for, to your great content, though I suppose a few sites pick up articles and press releases manually, most collect them automatically based by category of keyword searches.

# natural links per post = blog readership / 1000

That is a very rough figure because many blogs gain far more links, and many gain far less.

Techcrunch doesn’t gain 140 links for every post they make, and I gain more than one link on average for every 5 posts. Then again a large number of the links I gain are from splogs picking up tags used on Technorati.
There seems to be a critical mass for the number of links a single post can expect to receive unless it is exceptional linkbait.

Pay For Your Traffic

You can pay Google $0.15 for some traffic. If 1 in 1000 visitors decides to link to you then that link cost you $150. Hopefully you can convert some of the traffic into customers or subscribers because otherwise that is a horrendous cost, paid to Google as an alternative to natural search.

Who gains more money if paid links and sponsored content is condemned?

Trust and Duplicate Content

Linking through to someone is most of the time a statement of trust. You are sharing your visitors, subscribers, and maybe your customers with the other site. If you link through to them it should always be a followable link, unless you don’t trust them.

Google recommend always linking through to the original source if you syndicate content so they can determine the origin. The same would be true for any quotations. If you quote anything from a site, you should thus always use a followable link.