PayPerPost and "The Tragedy of the (Blogosphere) Commons"

The blogosphere is all abuzz right now over a controversial pay-bloggers-to-post  model by a company named (appropriately) PayPerPost. Before I add a fresh refrain to the growing chorus of opposition, let's first take a quick detour to Garrett Hardin's famous treatise, "The Tragedy of the Commons." Hardin, required reading while an undergraduate studying political theory, teaches us about the fundamental conflict between individual interests and the common good. He talks of a plot of land used by all livestock farmers in a village. Each farmer keeps adding more livestock to the common, lured by the fact it costs him nothing to do so. Meanwhile, he's blinded to the painful reality of overgrazing and depletion.

We're on the cusp of a tragedy of the marketing commons, and trust and credibility in the "oh so promising" consumer-generated media (CGM) space -- particularly the blogosphere -- are the rapidly depleting resources.  PayPerPost.com, which basically pays consumers to write reviews on blogs about brands, products, or companies, is far from the first or only online abuser of the "commons," but it's clearly the most audacious and outrageous.  It's also the most unrepentant -- what with the CEO seemingly relishing in every blog byte of negative publicity or criticism about his model.  Even a highly critical article entitled "Polluting the Blogosphere" by BusinessWeek's Jon Fine (who coincidentally tipped me off about this issue over a "meet and greet" breakfast last week) is proudly highlighted in "as seen on TV" style on the PayPerPost.com web-page. 

How it Works?  Here's how it works.  Consumers are invited to sign-up, submit PayPal information, and then review so-called "opportunities" established by advertisers.  Here's the specific language to the "advertiser."

Think of an Opportunity as a posting on a bulletin board specifically for bloggers who are willing to be paid for posting content. The Opportunity you create tells the blogger what you want him/her to post about. You can require the blogger to add photos to their post, write about experiences with your product; the possibilities are up to your imagination.

The short list of participating advertisers (so far) includes fast loan offers, credit score (DebtU), trading spouses (say what?), Bubble Wrap, Easy Image software, and of course..drumroll please... "Pay Per Post" of which the bounty is double ($10) and the shill requirements (link, photo) most aggressive. So much for subtlety.

Disclosure: Like others, I have many concerns about this model, but my biggest one revolves around the obvious: disclosure, or lack thereof.  There's nothing in this "pay to say" business model that requires even a modest courtesy "heads up" to the readers of this ostensibly credibly blog commentary that their comments are part of a paid advertising program.  There's nothing that says the comment, link, or photo included as part of the post (advertisers can set the requirements) needs to be "labeled" as advertising.  The lack of "disclosure" guidelines in programs this like as well as other word-of-mouth marketing programs is not only eroding trust in the so-called "conversation" but laying foundation for next-generation spam.

Spoiling the Commons...By the Numbers: By the numbers, these types of programs not only anger consumers, but elicits dramatic reactions like the urge to complain to the Better Business Bureau, or even the government.  This is a big reason the Word of Mouth Marketing Association has been so proactive on putting together ethical guidelines for companies and brands.  In a major study on "trust in advertising" I conducted last year, we probed consumer attitudes toward incented or non-disclosed word-of-mouth programs, especially where here was no explicit disclosure. In one question we asked about reactions to shilling on Amazon reviews.  60% said they would be disappointed, and 25% said they would contact the Better Business Bureau.  We saw similar results about "trusted recommendations from a friend" where a prior business relationship wasn't disclosed.  While teens (who are most trusting of advertising in general) had higher levels of tolerance of such programs, virtually every age-group, cohort, or segment had negative reactions to non-disclosed recommendations.  Remember, it only takes one or two letters to the BBB to have an impact.  Source: CGM Engagement Study 2005.

Cost, Consequences, and Complications:   As marketers look to enter or embrace "conversations," preserving the trust and authenticity that has made CGM so special and credible is getting increasingly difficult, and certainly more complicated.  Message boards, forums, and blogs are loaded with faux opinion.  Brands and companies are already engaging with bloggers in ways that have sparked some controversy and critical media attention.  Seach engine optimization firms have taught us that spiking blog entries, and blog spam, help game both ad clicks (via Google Ad Words) and search engine results. And there are so many brands and firms jumping into the word-of-mouth marketing space that you sometimes wonder how consumers will ever be able to vet out what's a 100% pure recommendation versus a subtle or mild-grade of company advertising.  Many of us are more complicit in these new conditions that we realize, as we don't even have a sense of how many cows can sustainably graze in the first place, or whether a cow is a cow. Indeed, is the word "conversation" merely a euphemistic run-around the more polarizing term "advertising"?

Drawing the Line: Where do we draw the line, or do we?  So much of our  "Web 2.0" talk -- from "conversations" to "citizen marketers" to "world is flat" frameworks -- romantically envision a self-regulating, well-nurtured, consumer controlled commons. I'm definitely in that chorus -- loudly, and passionately -- but I also can identify with our tendency (as marketers) to mess things up; to erode trust and credibility; and of course to spoil the commons.   Marketing associations (well beyond WOMMA...where's ANA, AAAA, IAB?) and even the Better Business Bureau (which established one of the first privacy seal programs to engender trust and confidence in online business practices, but is way overdue of "upgrading" it's "trust tent.") can help set the right conditions for a prosperous "commons" with better guidelines, roadmaps, and even -- ok, I'm saying it -- rules.  And of course, self-regulation amongst ourselves is an obvious starting point, since "peer to peer" is the de facto operating system of today's web.  Steve Rubel, for example, nicely preserves his "trust factor" with me (a regular reader) by consistently disclosing whether he has a business relationship with a company or brand he's blogging about; this is particularly important now that he's with Edelman, which has twenty times as many clients as his former employer, CooperKatz.  I do likewise in both this blog and my ClickZ columns, and especially now that my new "merged" firm has an even bigger client roster. Such disclosure should not only become standard, but aggressively enforced by peer review.

Final Questions:  PayPerPost raises many more questions than answers, and we all need a meaningful "conversation" on these topics. The CGM and social media space is still unfolding, so it's unrealistic to think we're going to resolve any of this immediately. Among the key questions we need to tackle:

• Transparency & Disclosure: What does "disclosure" really mean?  Is it enough to simply "disclose" a prior relationship, or in a world where word-of-mouth is on steroids, do we have an obligation to encourage or require "pass along" of the disclosed information.
• Trust: How fragile is trust in this environment, and at what point will consumers simply write off all ostensibly "trusted" recommendations as spam?  How much abuse can the commons manage?  Is there a point of no return?
• Authenticity:  How do we know what's truly authentic or genuine, especially as more marketers look to "influence" or "incent" CGM?  If a marketer sponsors a contest to "create the best CGM" on behalf of the brand, is it truly authentic? Equally important, if the content is shared for marketing purposes, how should the nature of the program be disclosed?  Openly? In wee-small fine-print?
  
• Compensation Versus Co-optation:   What's a legitimate "creative compensation" model for consumers who create content that other parties monetize (e.g. post original videos on video-sharing where advertising is sold), and how do differentiate this versus PayPerPost type-models where the marketer creates the mold and specs, and consumers are paid to meet the requirements. Revver provides compensation to consumers who "create" content?  That's OK, right?
• Credibility:  Lastly, how do we -- as brands or bloggers -- nurture credibility in an environment where trust and authenticity is constantly challenged?  What seeds can we plant to improve or replenish the "commons."  Better labels?  Trust-marks or the CGM equivalent of the "Good Housekeeping Seal?"

Relevant Reading: 

- WOMMA Ethics Code

- Wikipedia: Tragedy of the Commons

- WOM Marketing: Temper Your Enthusiasm

- Shel Israel on PayPerPost

- Seal Programs: BBB Online, TrustE, Good Housekeeping Seal

Extra Disclosure (for emphasis): The comments above are those mine (Pete Blackshaw). They do not reflect the formal position of organizations or businesses with which I am associated, including WOMMA.

Comments

[Kate Kaye]

Hey Pete: Regarding authenticity and spoilage of the commons, I analyzed and opined on these issues in depth in Sales Pitch Society II, using different terminology. It's worth perusing (even Walter Carl assigned it to his summer class.)