Remember last year when the blogosphere was up in arms about Marquis? Oh, if you weren’t around back then that company paid bloggers to write about its company. Some bloggers got paid almost $1000 to write about them. Seemed sleazy, right?
But no one complains about bloggers taking a similar deal from advertising companies like Google and Chitika.
The funny thing is that Marqui was giving 100% of its marketing dollars straight to bloggers without any intermediaries. Now they can buy the same kind of exposure by using an advertising system like Google, Chitika, Yahoo, but only a percentage of their dollar spent goes to the blogger. The rest goes to Google or Chitika or Yahoo or, soon, MSN.
One advantage to the AdSense model is that bloggers don’t need to change their editorial, although there is a subtle effect there too (if you write about topics, like Camcorders, that advertisers are more willing to pay for advertising for, you’ll make a lot more money, so if you’re in it for the money there’s a pressure to give the advertising networks what they want).
Anyway, I just noticed that the blogosphere looked very critically at the advertising Marquis was doing, but hasn’t looked critically at the other advertising that is now appearing on blogs (and will intensify over the next year — Google is even paying a referral fee for bloggers to get their blogging friends into using its advertising system).
Scobleizer 
and the newest one is the Firefox/Google Toolbar “promotion” of paying a $1.00 per referral download of Firefox. Personally that kind of manipulation turns me off of even using Firefox.
LikeLike
and the newest one is the Firefox/Google Toolbar “promotion” of paying a $1.00 per referral download of Firefox. Personally that kind of manipulation turns me off of even using Firefox.
LikeLike
come on, Robert, stop whining and put some banners on your blog too! I have Yahoo banners (YPN) for example on my blog as you can see here:
http://blogs.msmobiles.com/mobilephonefan/
LikeLike
come on, Robert, stop whining and put some banners on your blog too! I have Yahoo banners (YPN) for example on my blog as you can see here:
http://blogs.msmobiles.com/mobilephonefan/
LikeLike
Give. Me. A. Break.
What’s hypocritical is you criticizing people about things that it sure doesn’t sound like you’ve thought through, or drawing analogies that simply don’t stand up.
How does someone being hired to write about a company on their blog get equated to something like Chitika or AdSense where you get payed for what your users click on?
The only way to game chitika or adsense and increase profits is to write about MORE things users want to read about.
Geeze louise mate, talk about stepping through a screen door on a submarine… Maybe talk to people who are making full-time salaries off these services before you call us hypocritical, eh?
LikeLike
Give. Me. A. Break.
What’s hypocritical is you criticizing people about things that it sure doesn’t sound like you’ve thought through, or drawing analogies that simply don’t stand up.
How does someone being hired to write about a company on their blog get equated to something like Chitika or AdSense where you get payed for what your users click on?
The only way to game chitika or adsense and increase profits is to write about MORE things users want to read about.
Geeze louise mate, talk about stepping through a screen door on a submarine… Maybe talk to people who are making full-time salaries off these services before you call us hypocritical, eh?
LikeLike
Jeremy: you’re absolutely wrong.
Here’s a question: which topic pays more from Google: talking about Camcorders or talking about Linux? So, if you are in it for the money, which one are you more likely to talk about? What kind of blog are you more likely to start?
Does this matter? Ask Jason Calacanis.
Yes, you must also write in a way that attracts readers. You’re right.
So, are you saying Marquis’s advertising model is evil but the Chitika one isn’t?
LikeLike
Jeremy: you’re absolutely wrong.
Here’s a question: which topic pays more from Google: talking about Camcorders or talking about Linux? So, if you are in it for the money, which one are you more likely to talk about? What kind of blog are you more likely to start?
Does this matter? Ask Jason Calacanis.
Yes, you must also write in a way that attracts readers. You’re right.
So, are you saying Marquis’s advertising model is evil but the Chitika one isn’t?
LikeLike
I think the only important thing, and one every blogger should respect, is the separation of ads and content and making this *explicit* on the page, e.g. by putting “Sponsored links” or “Advertisement” on top of every ad section. Not doing so is sleazy, be it Marquis — which would be incredibly sleazy when it’s not mentioned to the readers, but IMO is OK and can be easily ignored when every post is clearly tagged (Nathan Weinberg of InsideGoogle put a red border around such posts and said they were sponsored) — or be it any other kind of ad.
I used to have affiliate links when I was talking about books some time ago in my blog, but I stopped doing that after readers complaint. Now I think they were absolutely right. No matter how good your intentions, it’ll just look spammy (and often, is).
That being said there is a shady zone. Let’s say there’s a niche blogger who writes about a certain topic. Let’s say his ads are title “Ads” and his content isn’t affiliated. But let’s further say that blogger is talking about… viagra. Mortgages. Online gambling. I once interviewed a blogger — who some might call splogger, spam blogger — who did just that (Joe Harris, who’s very frank about it too). Is that right or not? I would never do such blogs, but this is where the borders are blurred…
LikeLike
I think the only important thing, and one every blogger should respect, is the separation of ads and content and making this *explicit* on the page, e.g. by putting “Sponsored links” or “Advertisement” on top of every ad section. Not doing so is sleazy, be it Marquis — which would be incredibly sleazy when it’s not mentioned to the readers, but IMO is OK and can be easily ignored when every post is clearly tagged (Nathan Weinberg of InsideGoogle put a red border around such posts and said they were sponsored) — or be it any other kind of ad.
I used to have affiliate links when I was talking about books some time ago in my blog, but I stopped doing that after readers complaint. Now I think they were absolutely right. No matter how good your intentions, it’ll just look spammy (and often, is).
That being said there is a shady zone. Let’s say there’s a niche blogger who writes about a certain topic. Let’s say his ads are title “Ads” and his content isn’t affiliated. But let’s further say that blogger is talking about… viagra. Mortgages. Online gambling. I once interviewed a blogger — who some might call splogger, spam blogger — who did just that (Joe Harris, who’s very frank about it too). Is that right or not? I would never do such blogs, but this is where the borders are blurred…
LikeLike
I’m not totally familiar with this Marquis incident, but I’m guessing they were paying bloggers to be positive about it. Now, if I talk about camcorders, I can say whatever I want about them. Even if I’m completely negative about a particular camcorder, others will likely show up in the Google ads as well and people can buy those and earn me some dollars.
In addition, I can even talk trash about Google’s ad service itself, which I have. Google certainly has its faults and I point them out publicly when I can, including its ad service. For instance, if you look at wikipedia’s entry for the Google Web Accelerator, you see a link to my site’s (gamesarefun.com) note to our members to not use it because of several critical flaws in it.
So that’s the difference I see. Having an automated ad service removes the PR aspect of it. Should people get upset over Marquis? No. If you don’t like a blogger who does that, go somewhere else. There are more important things to get upset about in this world than how somebody chooses to earn their money with their blog.
LikeLike
I’m not totally familiar with this Marquis incident, but I’m guessing they were paying bloggers to be positive about it. Now, if I talk about camcorders, I can say whatever I want about them. Even if I’m completely negative about a particular camcorder, others will likely show up in the Google ads as well and people can buy those and earn me some dollars.
In addition, I can even talk trash about Google’s ad service itself, which I have. Google certainly has its faults and I point them out publicly when I can, including its ad service. For instance, if you look at wikipedia’s entry for the Google Web Accelerator, you see a link to my site’s (gamesarefun.com) note to our members to not use it because of several critical flaws in it.
So that’s the difference I see. Having an automated ad service removes the PR aspect of it. Should people get upset over Marquis? No. If you don’t like a blogger who does that, go somewhere else. There are more important things to get upset about in this world than how somebody chooses to earn their money with their blog.
LikeLike
Marquis just made you write about them. They did not care if you said something positive or negative.
LikeLike
Marquis just made you write about them. They did not care if you said something positive or negative.
LikeLike
And who pays for this blog? (Hee)
LikeLike
And who pays for this blog? (Hee)
LikeLike
I think the real issue here is the degree to which the cash influences the content of the blog. Marquis may have been a couple years ahead of their time with their offer, but the way things are headed with the new-schoolers shouldering out the old-schoolers, their model may become a non issue sooner than later.
LikeLike
I think the real issue here is the degree to which the cash influences the content of the blog. Marquis may have been a couple years ahead of their time with their offer, but the way things are headed with the new-schoolers shouldering out the old-schoolers, their model may become a non issue sooner than later.
LikeLike
Nice anti-Google poke here. What happens when Microsoft’s AdCenter is doing the same thing? Are you going to ask people to look critically at them too?
=====
Anyway, I just noticed that the blogosphere looked very critically at the advertising Marquis was doing, but hasn’t looked critically at the other advertising that is now appearing on blogs (and will intensify over the next year — Google is even paying a referral fee for bloggers to get their blogging friends into using its advertising system).
=====
LikeLike
Nice anti-Google poke here. What happens when Microsoft’s AdCenter is doing the same thing? Are you going to ask people to look critically at them too?
=====
Anyway, I just noticed that the blogosphere looked very critically at the advertising Marquis was doing, but hasn’t looked critically at the other advertising that is now appearing on blogs (and will intensify over the next year — Google is even paying a referral fee for bloggers to get their blogging friends into using its advertising system).
=====
LikeLike
I’m “absolutely wrong”? Give me a break mate.
Being paid to write content is completely different from being paid because of the content you write.
It’s the difference between being a movie reviewer at a major newspaper and being a SHILL of the movie studio.
> So, if you are in it for the money, which one are you more likely to talk about?
The one you’re most likely to stick with over the long term. Sorry mate, but you’re talking to someone who runs a blogging network with 40 bloggers who all ONLY blog about what they love, and they make decent money doing it.
None of them sacrifice editorial integrity for their writing. To say they do is offensive and it makes you seem like a prick to them (I was pointed to this post from our internal list).
I could tear your post completely apart, but I won’t. You don’t deserve it. But you do need to step back, actually talk to people and get some serious perspective.
This is just as bad as a certain journalist bad-mouthing you, while lying, without contacting you in any way. After all, it was just his “opinion”, right?
LikeLike
I’m “absolutely wrong”? Give me a break mate.
Being paid to write content is completely different from being paid because of the content you write.
It’s the difference between being a movie reviewer at a major newspaper and being a SHILL of the movie studio.
> So, if you are in it for the money, which one are you more likely to talk about?
The one you’re most likely to stick with over the long term. Sorry mate, but you’re talking to someone who runs a blogging network with 40 bloggers who all ONLY blog about what they love, and they make decent money doing it.
None of them sacrifice editorial integrity for their writing. To say they do is offensive and it makes you seem like a prick to them (I was pointed to this post from our internal list).
I could tear your post completely apart, but I won’t. You don’t deserve it. But you do need to step back, actually talk to people and get some serious perspective.
This is just as bad as a certain journalist bad-mouthing you, while lying, without contacting you in any way. After all, it was just his “opinion”, right?
LikeLike
Here’s an easy one for even the over-educated, but under-learned to understand :
Paul Harvey get’s paid to tell us about nice mattresses and such. Nobody thinks he does it for free. Nobody.
Does anybody bash him for shilling stuff ? Nope. Why ? Because it’s a free enterprise type of world out there.
Radio…TV…Internet…They’re all media, just brought to the audience in different ways.
You don’t like the channel..change it. Boycott the station. It’s your only option, NOT bashing it because you don’t have the cajones to sell.
You don’t like the President, you got a vote, but to bash the President gets you nothing..and nothing is what you’ll make after you do it…ask the Dixie Dumbasses.
You high horse internet-heads need to go out and learn about the world and how it works before you bring your hippie ideas about a pure and ad free world to the masses. There’s no free lunch and there’s nothing wrong with getting paid to do ANYTHING. If someone’s willing to pay, someone’s gonna be willing to earn.
LikeLike
Here’s an easy one for even the over-educated, but under-learned to understand :
Paul Harvey get’s paid to tell us about nice mattresses and such. Nobody thinks he does it for free. Nobody.
Does anybody bash him for shilling stuff ? Nope. Why ? Because it’s a free enterprise type of world out there.
Radio…TV…Internet…They’re all media, just brought to the audience in different ways.
You don’t like the channel..change it. Boycott the station. It’s your only option, NOT bashing it because you don’t have the cajones to sell.
You don’t like the President, you got a vote, but to bash the President gets you nothing..and nothing is what you’ll make after you do it…ask the Dixie Dumbasses.
You high horse internet-heads need to go out and learn about the world and how it works before you bring your hippie ideas about a pure and ad free world to the masses. There’s no free lunch and there’s nothing wrong with getting paid to do ANYTHING. If someone’s willing to pay, someone’s gonna be willing to earn.
LikeLike
Jared Spool : “And who pays for this blog?” — Microsoft of course!
LikeLike
Jared Spool : “And who pays for this blog?” — Microsoft of course!
LikeLike
Yeah, the irony of someone with an “evangelist” title claiming that anyone who makes money off of something is effectively a shill didn’t escape me.
LikeLike
Yeah, the irony of someone with an “evangelist” title claiming that anyone who makes money off of something is effectively a shill didn’t escape me.
LikeLike
One place blogosphere is hypocritical? ONE PLACE? Oh I find a good good deal more than that.
“Conversations” until the critics start to sway public opinion, and gasp, become snarky, then “Mudpits”.
Irrational exuberance, praise, praise. Nicholas G. Carr, bash bash. Groupthink, praise, praise. Non-bloggers, bash bash. Start-up, praise, praise. Big ERP company, bash bash. Grassroots Web 2.0 venture, praise, praise. Same thing from a corporate company, that pays not attention to social software links or Technorati results, bash bash. Podcasting, praise, praise. Real radio, bash, bash. Jargon and Buzzwords, praise praise. Plain English, bash bash. Incestuous microcosms, praise, praise. People who don’t use RSS feeds, bash, bash.
Microsoft will do something, bash bash. Google doing a totally similar thing, praise, praise. Microsoft copies Google for what Google praised for, bash bash. Evil Google venture — praise praise as they share the wealth. Same venture from MSN minus the kickback, bash bash. Apple farts, praise praise. Microsoft gives back millions in a new deal, bash bash.
Granted Microsoft is totally impossible to love, but it’s still all hypocritical.
LikeLike
One place blogosphere is hypocritical? ONE PLACE? Oh I find a good good deal more than that.
“Conversations” until the critics start to sway public opinion, and gasp, become snarky, then “Mudpits”.
Irrational exuberance, praise, praise. Nicholas G. Carr, bash bash. Groupthink, praise, praise. Non-bloggers, bash bash. Start-up, praise, praise. Big ERP company, bash bash. Grassroots Web 2.0 venture, praise, praise. Same thing from a corporate company, that pays not attention to social software links or Technorati results, bash bash. Podcasting, praise, praise. Real radio, bash, bash. Jargon and Buzzwords, praise praise. Plain English, bash bash. Incestuous microcosms, praise, praise. People who don’t use RSS feeds, bash, bash.
Microsoft will do something, bash bash. Google doing a totally similar thing, praise, praise. Microsoft copies Google for what Google praised for, bash bash. Evil Google venture — praise praise as they share the wealth. Same venture from MSN minus the kickback, bash bash. Apple farts, praise praise. Microsoft gives back millions in a new deal, bash bash.
Granted Microsoft is totally impossible to love, but it’s still all hypocritical.
LikeLike
Scoble – You do realize that you are promoting someone making money from your Chitika link in your blog post, don’t you? Check out the last part of that link: refid=aglan
The affiliate “aglan” will be making money from those who follow that link and sign up. If you are so anti affiliate programs you might want to change that link to simply be:
http://chitika.com/index.php
Oh, the irony!
LikeLike
Scoble – You do realize that you are promoting someone making money from your Chitika link in your blog post, don’t you? Check out the last part of that link: refid=aglan
The affiliate “aglan” will be making money from those who follow that link and sign up. If you are so anti affiliate programs you might want to change that link to simply be:
http://chitika.com/index.php
Oh, the irony!
LikeLike
Publishing cost money. You wouldn’t expect a publisher in any other media to do it for free. In the real world you either pay a subscription for good content or you put up with advertisers. (or in some cases both!) Adsense, YPN and Chitika have allow for people to become independent publishers with no obligations to anyone except themselves. I think that is a good thing.
LikeLike
Publishing cost money. You wouldn’t expect a publisher in any other media to do it for free. In the real world you either pay a subscription for good content or you put up with advertisers. (or in some cases both!) Adsense, YPN and Chitika have allow for people to become independent publishers with no obligations to anyone except themselves. I think that is a good thing.
LikeLike
Damnit, he’s probably gonna become a problogger thanks to that link 😉
LikeLike
Damnit, he’s probably gonna become a problogger thanks to that link 😉
LikeLike
TDavid: fixed.
Jeremy: I’m sorry. But I do find it interesting that no one questions this new type of advertising but lots of bloggers questioned the Marquis type. It’s interesting that there’s been dozens of bloggers looking into the bias of Memeorandum but I haven’t seen one talk about the bias that this new kind of advertising could potentially bring to bloggers.
And, while you and your employees may be strong in resisting the temptation to write about high-payoff topics, I’ve had other bloggers tell me that they are, indeed, writing about certain topics to get better ads on their blogs.
LikeLike
TDavid: fixed.
Jeremy: I’m sorry. But I do find it interesting that no one questions this new type of advertising but lots of bloggers questioned the Marquis type. It’s interesting that there’s been dozens of bloggers looking into the bias of Memeorandum but I haven’t seen one talk about the bias that this new kind of advertising could potentially bring to bloggers.
And, while you and your employees may be strong in resisting the temptation to write about high-payoff topics, I’ve had other bloggers tell me that they are, indeed, writing about certain topics to get better ads on their blogs.
LikeLike
Is there a law against writing about high paying topics ?
Given the choice of working for an open source organization and one that can pay very well, it seems you chose pay over helping the world for free.
Should young people not go to law school because lawyers make good money and some of them are doing things not above reproach ?
Should they not go to medical school for fear of making above average salaries ?
Writing about high paying topics and getting people to read that blog and click on an ad are totally different actions ?
Where did this bias against earning money for your effort come from ?
Are bloggers the new hippies ? Are we supposed to live in communes and share our incomes and just love everybody ?
Blogging is work. Sometimes hard work, late at night, when I’d rather be sleeping.
Why should I have to save the world for free ?
Nobody has to read any of our blogs, nor do they have to click on any ads. If they choose to do either, it’s of their own free will.
LikeLike
Is there a law against writing about high paying topics ?
Given the choice of working for an open source organization and one that can pay very well, it seems you chose pay over helping the world for free.
Should young people not go to law school because lawyers make good money and some of them are doing things not above reproach ?
Should they not go to medical school for fear of making above average salaries ?
Writing about high paying topics and getting people to read that blog and click on an ad are totally different actions ?
Where did this bias against earning money for your effort come from ?
Are bloggers the new hippies ? Are we supposed to live in communes and share our incomes and just love everybody ?
Blogging is work. Sometimes hard work, late at night, when I’d rather be sleeping.
Why should I have to save the world for free ?
Nobody has to read any of our blogs, nor do they have to click on any ads. If they choose to do either, it’s of their own free will.
LikeLike
Scoble, the reality is that you’re like a year late to this debate. Nearly anyways. When I auctioned my blogging services on eBay is when it kicked into overdrive.
So, YES, this has been talked about. Well before Marquis. It’s been talked to death on 2-3 occasions since then (when high profile journalists jumped in and ripped bloggers to shreds for making money from blogging).
Just because you weren’t part of the discussion, doesn’t mean it didnt’ happen. Hell, I even write about it in the book (the transition from the purists to the capitalists). Chapter 11 I believe (seeing as how you’re likely getting a copy in a week or so).
The hard reality is that your point is a weak one.
Maybe 10% of bloggers have ads on their site. Maybe 10% of those have a serious desire to make money. Maybe 10% of those have a strong enough desire to make money that they’ll create blogs around specific content areas. Maybe 10% of those will actually have their editorial objectivity influenced.
So, what, 100 bloggers suffer through this?
The reality, though, is that EVERY Marquis blogger was influenced in their editorial, because they HAD to blog about Marquis.
Once again, this is the difference between a movie reviewer who gets free passes to the movies because they’re a reviewer, and a shill paid specifically by the movie companies to write positively about the movies.
Total difference.
And not recognizing it, not recognizing that you’re simply talking about the fringe in your made up scenario in your post and lumping together people who have AdSense on their site with the people involved with Marquis is not only beneat you, it makes it seem (to many people on the problogging and b5 lists) like you’re just doing this to cause a stink.
I know you’re not. I know you’re asking an honest question. And I’m trying to give you the straight honest answer. Having lived through this for the last year, having been a professional blogger and blog consultant for the last year, having spoken about this at half a dozen conferences, and having written a dozen articles and a couple of book chapters on it.
It’s not that I’m “right”, but I’ve put more thought, debate, time and effort into the question than you did. And to call me “absolutely wrong” just makes me smile and nod.
Do whatever you want with your blog mate, but calling out thousands of entrepreneurs without really thinking about reflects badly on you.
LikeLike
Scoble, the reality is that you’re like a year late to this debate. Nearly anyways. When I auctioned my blogging services on eBay is when it kicked into overdrive.
So, YES, this has been talked about. Well before Marquis. It’s been talked to death on 2-3 occasions since then (when high profile journalists jumped in and ripped bloggers to shreds for making money from blogging).
Just because you weren’t part of the discussion, doesn’t mean it didnt’ happen. Hell, I even write about it in the book (the transition from the purists to the capitalists). Chapter 11 I believe (seeing as how you’re likely getting a copy in a week or so).
The hard reality is that your point is a weak one.
Maybe 10% of bloggers have ads on their site. Maybe 10% of those have a serious desire to make money. Maybe 10% of those have a strong enough desire to make money that they’ll create blogs around specific content areas. Maybe 10% of those will actually have their editorial objectivity influenced.
So, what, 100 bloggers suffer through this?
The reality, though, is that EVERY Marquis blogger was influenced in their editorial, because they HAD to blog about Marquis.
Once again, this is the difference between a movie reviewer who gets free passes to the movies because they’re a reviewer, and a shill paid specifically by the movie companies to write positively about the movies.
Total difference.
And not recognizing it, not recognizing that you’re simply talking about the fringe in your made up scenario in your post and lumping together people who have AdSense on their site with the people involved with Marquis is not only beneat you, it makes it seem (to many people on the problogging and b5 lists) like you’re just doing this to cause a stink.
I know you’re not. I know you’re asking an honest question. And I’m trying to give you the straight honest answer. Having lived through this for the last year, having been a professional blogger and blog consultant for the last year, having spoken about this at half a dozen conferences, and having written a dozen articles and a couple of book chapters on it.
It’s not that I’m “right”, but I’ve put more thought, debate, time and effort into the question than you did. And to call me “absolutely wrong” just makes me smile and nod.
Do whatever you want with your blog mate, but calling out thousands of entrepreneurs without really thinking about reflects badly on you.
LikeLike
Thanks, Jeremy, for plainly explaining pretty much what I was going to say.
I’ve been making money from web advertising since 1996, and it’s been my primary income source for a while, so I’m familiar with all of the “grey areas” of morality and capitalism and editorial integrity that surround the whole field. They’re pretty much the same ones that magazines and TV stations have faced for years, but in realtime.
There are lots of grey areas, and no easy answers to any of them, but Marqui was so far over the line that most of us didn’t even consider it a grey area.
I even run pop-under ads on some sites, but I still bristled at the Marqui stuff. It simply didn’t have a proper separation between editorial and advertising. Even if you pay someone $1000 a month to post frequently about your product and “Say whatever they want” you’ve still got a HUGE editorial influence.
AdSense can certainly be pushed to the same extreme, as you’ve seen in spam blogs. But it’s a tool, which we can use appropriately or not, and most bloggers (as opposed to spammers) use it appropriately. Marquis’ program didn’t have that ambiguity.
You know, they could have done ALMOST the same thing, and it would have looked like a great example for Jeremy’s book instead of the trainwreck it was. If they paid the same money to the same bloggers, and each one started a NEW BLOG that was ABOUT MARQUIS. Nobody would have complained – the ground rules would be set from day one – and they’d create buzz (if the product deserved it) and they’d get lots of attention for paying bloggers. But they tried to co-opt sites that already had conventions, and audiences, and people didn’t like that.
LikeLike
Thanks, Jeremy, for plainly explaining pretty much what I was going to say.
I’ve been making money from web advertising since 1996, and it’s been my primary income source for a while, so I’m familiar with all of the “grey areas” of morality and capitalism and editorial integrity that surround the whole field. They’re pretty much the same ones that magazines and TV stations have faced for years, but in realtime.
There are lots of grey areas, and no easy answers to any of them, but Marqui was so far over the line that most of us didn’t even consider it a grey area.
I even run pop-under ads on some sites, but I still bristled at the Marqui stuff. It simply didn’t have a proper separation between editorial and advertising. Even if you pay someone $1000 a month to post frequently about your product and “Say whatever they want” you’ve still got a HUGE editorial influence.
AdSense can certainly be pushed to the same extreme, as you’ve seen in spam blogs. But it’s a tool, which we can use appropriately or not, and most bloggers (as opposed to spammers) use it appropriately. Marquis’ program didn’t have that ambiguity.
You know, they could have done ALMOST the same thing, and it would have looked like a great example for Jeremy’s book instead of the trainwreck it was. If they paid the same money to the same bloggers, and each one started a NEW BLOG that was ABOUT MARQUIS. Nobody would have complained – the ground rules would be set from day one – and they’d create buzz (if the product deserved it) and they’d get lots of attention for paying bloggers. But they tried to co-opt sites that already had conventions, and audiences, and people didn’t like that.
LikeLike
It’s the weekend here so I’m not going to spend long on this – trying to cut down on weekend blogging – but all I’ll really say is that I think the Professional blogging community can stand a bit of debate/critique – but that I don’t think there has been a real lack of it to be honest.
I’ve seen quite a few critiques of Adsense as an income model for bloggers ever since I started using it. The past few months there have similarly been a couple of posts about Chitika (although it’s pretty new). I think there has been numerous debates on the topic of ads on blogs of all kinds – but wonder if perhaps a lot of them have gone under the radar to people not in the scene.
LikeLike
It’s the weekend here so I’m not going to spend long on this – trying to cut down on weekend blogging – but all I’ll really say is that I think the Professional blogging community can stand a bit of debate/critique – but that I don’t think there has been a real lack of it to be honest.
I’ve seen quite a few critiques of Adsense as an income model for bloggers ever since I started using it. The past few months there have similarly been a couple of posts about Chitika (although it’s pretty new). I think there has been numerous debates on the topic of ads on blogs of all kinds – but wonder if perhaps a lot of them have gone under the radar to people not in the scene.
LikeLike
The line is where the ad *is* the content. For there to be professional bloggers there needs to be a way of funding the blog. We can’t all work for Microsoft :O)
LikeLike
The line is where the ad *is* the content. For there to be professional bloggers there needs to be a way of funding the blog. We can’t all work for Microsoft :O)
LikeLike
Well, I was one of Marqui’s paid bloggers, and I see a lot of misrepresentation of the program here.
Yes, we had to write about Marqui. No, we didn’t have any restrictions on what we wrote–it didn’t have to be positive, and often it wasn’t.
Yes, it had to be on our existing blog, but no, it didn’t have to masquerade as “standard” content–and most of the people who participated in the experiment were *extremely* transparent in their marking of the content–visually and verbally.
Michael, you say “Marqui was so far over the line that most of us didn’t even consider it a grey area.” I’d argue with the “most of us” part of that statement. Clearly there were people who saw it as a Bad Thing. But there were far more who saw it as an interesting experiment.
FWIW, here’s the post that Molly Holzschlag wrote when she decided not to continue with Marqui.
LikeLike
Well, I was one of Marqui’s paid bloggers, and I see a lot of misrepresentation of the program here.
Yes, we had to write about Marqui. No, we didn’t have any restrictions on what we wrote–it didn’t have to be positive, and often it wasn’t.
Yes, it had to be on our existing blog, but no, it didn’t have to masquerade as “standard” content–and most of the people who participated in the experiment were *extremely* transparent in their marking of the content–visually and verbally.
Michael, you say “Marqui was so far over the line that most of us didn’t even consider it a grey area.” I’d argue with the “most of us” part of that statement. Clearly there were people who saw it as a Bad Thing. But there were far more who saw it as an interesting experiment.
FWIW, here’s the post that Molly Holzschlag wrote when she decided not to continue with Marqui.
LikeLike
Robert,
There’s an even bigger scandal than Marquis that nobody seems to have picked up on.
I’ve been a regular reader of Gizmodo, the gadget blog that’s part of the Gawker empire. They have a very insidious practice of inserting “advertorial” content — bought and paid for by advertisers — and passing it off as genuine editorial material.
Case in point: Gizmodo recently had a series of posts about a “contest” to give away a Shure earphone. It invited readers to submit emails, and supposedly generated 10,000 emails from users begging for the pair of crappy headphones. Links…
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/contests/shure-e3g-earphones-giveaway-133913.php
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/contests/shure-e3g-giveaway-nonsense-133967.php
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/announcements/shure-e3g-giveaway-winner-david-k-134532.php
Now, they’ve started a similar “contest” for a pair of crappy headphone clips. (Basically, plastic paperclips.)
http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/announcements/earbudclip-giveaway-finalists-your-turn-to-vote-136148.php
The Sure people paid big money to Gizmodo for these inclusions. On the “for advertisers” page, it notes that it has conducted all sorts of stealth advertising, ranging “from exclusive sponsorships of categories to custom contests.” It cites a similar giveaway for HP iPods as a successful example.
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/announcements/advertising-with-gizmodo-008027.php
It’s insulting that they will attempt to pass these paid advertisements off as editorial content, without any notice to the reader. They’ve lost all credibility with me.
LikeLike
Robert,
There’s an even bigger scandal than Marquis that nobody seems to have picked up on.
I’ve been a regular reader of Gizmodo, the gadget blog that’s part of the Gawker empire. They have a very insidious practice of inserting “advertorial” content — bought and paid for by advertisers — and passing it off as genuine editorial material.
Case in point: Gizmodo recently had a series of posts about a “contest” to give away a Shure earphone. It invited readers to submit emails, and supposedly generated 10,000 emails from users begging for the pair of crappy headphones. Links…
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/contests/shure-e3g-earphones-giveaway-133913.php
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/contests/shure-e3g-giveaway-nonsense-133967.php
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/announcements/shure-e3g-giveaway-winner-david-k-134532.php
Now, they’ve started a similar “contest” for a pair of crappy headphone clips. (Basically, plastic paperclips.)
http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/announcements/earbudclip-giveaway-finalists-your-turn-to-vote-136148.php
The Sure people paid big money to Gizmodo for these inclusions. On the “for advertisers” page, it notes that it has conducted all sorts of stealth advertising, ranging “from exclusive sponsorships of categories to custom contests.” It cites a similar giveaway for HP iPods as a successful example.
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/announcements/advertising-with-gizmodo-008027.php
It’s insulting that they will attempt to pass these paid advertisements off as editorial content, without any notice to the reader. They’ve lost all credibility with me.
LikeLike
Liz, I don’t think anyone misrepresented the Marquis issue. Nobody said people had to write about it positively. But you DID have to write about it, which is more editorial influence than ANY ad network that Scoble linked to has over a blog.
LikeLike
Liz, I don’t think anyone misrepresented the Marquis issue. Nobody said people had to write about it positively. But you DID have to write about it, which is more editorial influence than ANY ad network that Scoble linked to has over a blog.
LikeLike
Jeremy, I would argue that since the posts about Marqui were clearly labelled as “sponsored posts” they actually had relatively little “editorial influence.”
I know quite a few people making money off of adsense who carefully select their titles and vocabulary for posts to maximize their revenue. It’s disingeuous to say that’s not editorial influence. And it’s significantly less transparent.
My 11-year-old son got advice from a number of bloggers making big money in the “I blog about things I love and make money doing it” space–some of those folks sent him ebooks on maximizing your revenue with adsense. Both the advice and the books were filled with suggestions for how to craft your content so as to increase your adsense hits. He chose to ignore the advice, because he didn’t want to change the way he wrote…but it’s clear that not everyone makes that choice.
Whether the advertising network is dictating content is a red herring here, I think. That wasn’t the case in either scenario. The bigger question is “did the blogger’s content change because of the revenue generating activity”–and I think the answer is yes in both cases.s My argument is that in the case of Marqui bloggers that influence was completely transparent, whereas in the case of Adsense-supported blogs it’s far more insidious.
LikeLike
Jeremy, I would argue that since the posts about Marqui were clearly labelled as “sponsored posts” they actually had relatively little “editorial influence.”
I know quite a few people making money off of adsense who carefully select their titles and vocabulary for posts to maximize their revenue. It’s disingeuous to say that’s not editorial influence. And it’s significantly less transparent.
My 11-year-old son got advice from a number of bloggers making big money in the “I blog about things I love and make money doing it” space–some of those folks sent him ebooks on maximizing your revenue with adsense. Both the advice and the books were filled with suggestions for how to craft your content so as to increase your adsense hits. He chose to ignore the advice, because he didn’t want to change the way he wrote…but it’s clear that not everyone makes that choice.
Whether the advertising network is dictating content is a red herring here, I think. That wasn’t the case in either scenario. The bigger question is “did the blogger’s content change because of the revenue generating activity”–and I think the answer is yes in both cases.s My argument is that in the case of Marqui bloggers that influence was completely transparent, whereas in the case of Adsense-supported blogs it’s far more insidious.
LikeLike
While most of the Marqui bloggers were pretty transparent about it, I for one found their *RSS feeds* confusing, there was usually little but a category name to indicate I was about to read a Marqui post.
Most of the Marqui bloggers did a fine job separating things, other than that. I’m glad most of them stopped, because Marqui doesn’t interest me, but I wasn’t ever offended by any blogger. In particular, I found Molly’s comments throughout very interesting.
I apologize for saying “most of us” considered them far over the line, there was actually quite a bit of debate and my “us” was a rather biased group.
Most AdSense users don’t bend their content to fit the ads, but I’m sure some do. Heck, I’ve done it – I have 20 or 30 weblog ideas, and the ones I am actually starting first are those that can make money. If that’s insidious then call me insidious.
The important thing is that ads are clearly marked as ads. I don’t think Marqui did enough to mandate that (although most of the bloggers did it themselves) and I think that was the core of the issue.
There’s lots of anti-advertising sentiment out there, and anyone with a new advertising idea needs to tread lightly. It reminds me of the dreaded “commercialization of the internet” years ago and of the complaints I got when I added ad banners to a site in 1996.
At any rate it’s an interesting world of grey areas, which makes it harder to divide the world into good guys and bad guys. Maybe we’re all good, except the spammers…
LikeLike
While most of the Marqui bloggers were pretty transparent about it, I for one found their *RSS feeds* confusing, there was usually little but a category name to indicate I was about to read a Marqui post.
Most of the Marqui bloggers did a fine job separating things, other than that. I’m glad most of them stopped, because Marqui doesn’t interest me, but I wasn’t ever offended by any blogger. In particular, I found Molly’s comments throughout very interesting.
I apologize for saying “most of us” considered them far over the line, there was actually quite a bit of debate and my “us” was a rather biased group.
Most AdSense users don’t bend their content to fit the ads, but I’m sure some do. Heck, I’ve done it – I have 20 or 30 weblog ideas, and the ones I am actually starting first are those that can make money. If that’s insidious then call me insidious.
The important thing is that ads are clearly marked as ads. I don’t think Marqui did enough to mandate that (although most of the bloggers did it themselves) and I think that was the core of the issue.
There’s lots of anti-advertising sentiment out there, and anyone with a new advertising idea needs to tread lightly. It reminds me of the dreaded “commercialization of the internet” years ago and of the complaints I got when I added ad banners to a site in 1996.
At any rate it’s an interesting world of grey areas, which makes it harder to divide the world into good guys and bad guys. Maybe we’re all good, except the spammers…
LikeLike
Let us think in theory:
If I was getting into the megazine business and I had a choice of starting Robb Report or Third World Review, assuming, in theory, I would get the same number of subscribers for both, which would I choose?
If I want to develop a charity magazine, I’ll go with the Third World Review and call up Bill for a donation.
But if I want something that makes money, while informing my readers about the latest and greatest luxury, so I can continue doing so every month, I’m going with Robb Report.
LikeLike
Let us think in theory:
If I was getting into the megazine business and I had a choice of starting Robb Report or Third World Review, assuming, in theory, I would get the same number of subscribers for both, which would I choose?
If I want to develop a charity magazine, I’ll go with the Third World Review and call up Bill for a donation.
But if I want something that makes money, while informing my readers about the latest and greatest luxury, so I can continue doing so every month, I’m going with Robb Report.
LikeLike
Hey-
Hasn’t anyone really read about why the heck any of these companies are doing this. Google, Yahoo, Chitika, Kontera, and everyone else plus their momma that has an affiliate style program wants a piece of the traffic *YOU* can get *their* advertisers in front of. It’s that simple, no smoke and mirrors. Google and the other companies would rather throw folks that get traffic a bone and not the whole meal rather than spend the time and *more* money to dig it up themselves.
No need to call folks hypocrites or anything like that. Everyone jumps on something that makes money. It’s just common sense.
LikeLike
Hey-
Hasn’t anyone really read about why the heck any of these companies are doing this. Google, Yahoo, Chitika, Kontera, and everyone else plus their momma that has an affiliate style program wants a piece of the traffic *YOU* can get *their* advertisers in front of. It’s that simple, no smoke and mirrors. Google and the other companies would rather throw folks that get traffic a bone and not the whole meal rather than spend the time and *more* money to dig it up themselves.
No need to call folks hypocrites or anything like that. Everyone jumps on something that makes money. It’s just common sense.
LikeLike
Robert:
Thanks for raising the topic, but I must disagree with you that the blogging community has not looked critically at this issue. Since I began blogging a year ago, I’ve watched this debate grow with each passing month.
At times, it’s taken the form of a debate between “making money with a blog” vs “making money because of a blog.” In fact, here’s a ITConversations link dated nov 2004 which speaks to that debate: http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail284.html.
More recently, people like Seth Godin have raised the issue more specifically related to Adsense here: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2005/11/monetize_this.html and Ramit Sethi here: http://www.iwillteachyoutoberich.com/archives/2005/10/heres_a_pattern.html.
And I’m sure there are plenty more. Lately, it seems to be the hot button issue around the blogosphere.
Whether we as the blogging community look at this issue critically or not, I believe, is irrelavant. You know as well as anyone else that if a blog is poorly written or written without passion for the subject, people won’t read it, and the blog won’t survive. It doesn’t matter if the the blogger runs ads on their site or not.
But the other fact is this. Blogging has more than one business model. And those bloggers who provide
*valuable* information on a topic about which they’re passionate deserve to be compensated for it if they so choose. Just like you.
You can’t expect to create a medium like blogging, evangelize it far and wide and expect millions of people to use that medium only in the way you see fit. That’s just arrogance.
Yes, it’s great to express a sense of responsibility for how the medium develops, but in the end, it all comes down to the realities of the content market. If Jeremey and the crew at b5media start writing to *primarily* sell ads rather than writing to *primarily* serve readers, where do you think they’ll be in a year? They know that. Still, it’s not why they blog.
They blog, I suppose, because here’s a business model that allows people to do something about which they’re passionate AND be compensated for it. Is that not the holy grail of human existence; to do what you love and earn a living at it?
LikeLike
Robert:
Thanks for raising the topic, but I must disagree with you that the blogging community has not looked critically at this issue. Since I began blogging a year ago, I’ve watched this debate grow with each passing month.
At times, it’s taken the form of a debate between “making money with a blog” vs “making money because of a blog.” In fact, here’s a ITConversations link dated nov 2004 which speaks to that debate: http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail284.html.
More recently, people like Seth Godin have raised the issue more specifically related to Adsense here: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2005/11/monetize_this.html and Ramit Sethi here: http://www.iwillteachyoutoberich.com/archives/2005/10/heres_a_pattern.html.
And I’m sure there are plenty more. Lately, it seems to be the hot button issue around the blogosphere.
Whether we as the blogging community look at this issue critically or not, I believe, is irrelavant. You know as well as anyone else that if a blog is poorly written or written without passion for the subject, people won’t read it, and the blog won’t survive. It doesn’t matter if the the blogger runs ads on their site or not.
But the other fact is this. Blogging has more than one business model. And those bloggers who provide
*valuable* information on a topic about which they’re passionate deserve to be compensated for it if they so choose. Just like you.
You can’t expect to create a medium like blogging, evangelize it far and wide and expect millions of people to use that medium only in the way you see fit. That’s just arrogance.
Yes, it’s great to express a sense of responsibility for how the medium develops, but in the end, it all comes down to the realities of the content market. If Jeremey and the crew at b5media start writing to *primarily* sell ads rather than writing to *primarily* serve readers, where do you think they’ll be in a year? They know that. Still, it’s not why they blog.
They blog, I suppose, because here’s a business model that allows people to do something about which they’re passionate AND be compensated for it. Is that not the holy grail of human existence; to do what you love and earn a living at it?
LikeLike