I found an interesting post a couple weeks ago that I just have to circle back on. Last month Steve Hall of AdRants.com, a long time paid posting critic, did a review of a Nikon D60 camera. A review in itself is nothing noteworthy, but this isn't an ordinary review. Steve explains that he was provided a free $750 MSRP Digital SLR camera from Nikon "As part of an outreach program where cameras are given to ... ahem ... those with an audience". Steve further commented, "Without sounding like some lame PayPerPost post, the camera is really great".

Apparently MWW Group, a PR firm representing Nikon coordinated the "loaner" camera as a spiff. Now, I don't have any problem with this exchange in concept, I actually applaud it. I am all for product sampling and blogger outreach, in fact MWW Group probably has a very happy client in Nikon. Not only did they get a post with a do-follow link, but Steve is helping to drive sales for D60 cameras via AdSense above his post.

What I do have a problem with is the supposed distinction Steve makes between a spiff and straight cash payment. The bottom line is VALUE. If Steve wanted to use a D60 for a few days he would either have to purchase it or rent it, both of which would cost money and have an associated economic value. Steve states "To be clear, for you transparency types, no money changed hands." But VALUE did change hands and that makes this a paid post. Paid posts aren't just cash based, you can be paid in goods, services or in this case rentals.

Think I am crazy? If Steve didn't feel this was a paid post why the need for the disclosure?

Value is value. The main difference seems to be that the "A-Listers".... those with... ahem....audience...get cameras, cars and computers as spiffs to "test drive" for free, while those participating in networks like PayPerPost and SocialSpark get paid cash. It's no different. The A-Listers engage in paid posting, they are just compensated in varying ways.

Why is this the case?
PR firms can't possibly afford to send cameras and computers to thousands of smaller bloggers for SpiffPerPost campaigns. It's just not economically viable given the cost to execute such a campaign on a large scale. The shipping costs alone would kill the ROI. That is why cash sponsored posts are such a powerful concept. Advertisers can still provide value and incentive to bloggers, but do so on a scale that is impossible with traditional blog outreach. It also allows those without a physical product or paid service to engage in the same type of marketing being used by the big boys.

What's funny in all of this is that the A-Listers are actually getting the short end of the stick. Sure, Steve Hall got a "loaner", but he could have probably made a $1000 or more for that single sponsored post based on his reach. He could have owned the camera and a new lens to go with it, all while maintaining disclosure, transparency and his real opinion per our code of ethics in SocialSpark. You have a great blog Steve, stop selling yourself short! 

Speaking of our code of ethics, we require that all links be no-follow. Being as value did change hands and this is a paid post shouldn't those links in that post be no-follow as well?

Technorati Tags: adrants, blogging, code of ethics, payperpost, payperspiff, socialspark, steve hall

Posted by tedmurphy at 02:41 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack (1)