Should Bloggers Disclose That They Are Compensated?

There is a substantial amount of debate that spread through the blogosphere recently about how much disclosure blog writers should provide to their readers about compensation bloggers receive and who they receive it from.  All this disclosure would serve a presumed goal of allowing readers to make an independent decision as to whether this compensation may in a way influence the blogger to be biased in his or her post.

This debate was sparked by PayPerPost.com, an Internet startup that has developed a broker network between marketers who want to grow sales of their product/service and bloggers who would like to monetize their blogs.  Certainly, many other networks give bloggers an ability to monetize their inventory, but what makes P3 unique is that they may be implicitly encouraging bloggers to offer positive commentary in their posts because they are being compensated for their writing.

Michael Arringon of TechCrunch expressed in strongest terms that P3 is a "virus" in his post titled PayPerPost Is Now Officially Absurd.  In his perspective,

PayPerPost bloggers should also be disclosing the fact that they are being paid for their post prominently within the post...

Another post by a notable Internet analyst, Dave Taylor, titled PayPerPost creates DisclosurePolicy, TechCrunch calls it absurd?, questions Arrington's tough stand:

Exactly where is this a problem? The fact is, PayPerPost has no responsibility to enforce any sort of disclosure policy nor is there any requirement that bloggers be transparent.

This pretty much sums up the current Internet controversy.  This is just the latest bout between Internet puritans and Internet marketers and that their conflict will not be solved any time soon.  I see this as another evolution of the same old debate between Open Source backers and Microsoft backers as to whether companies should charge for software and enforce their intellectual property rights.

I will be upfront in disclosing my bias here: if someone believes that it is possible for someone's commentary in an Internet posting to be absent of bias, this someone was probably born yesterday.  We all have our biases and everything we do in our lives and say in our blog posts reflects those biases.  I have little doubt that Arrington, Taylor, and I have our biases, whether financially motivated or not, for our perspectives.

In the offline world, there is little expectation on our part that NBC's Apprentice will disclose that their episode where contestants market Domino's pizza is actually sponsored by Domino's.  One rarely expects that your financial planner who offers you a life insurance policy to disclose that he is being paid by the policy provider.  A writer in New York Times writing a story on the race for Congress is certainly not going to disclose his personal voting record.

In the online world, on the other hand, somehow there is this tendency to assume that we are living in a more refined world where "public trust" as Arrington describes it rules. There is no more public trust in the online world than there is in the offline world and expecting the online world to somehow take the high road is unrealistic.  We should all take everything we hear on the Internet and cross that information with the credibility value we implicitly assign to the source of the information.  Basically, it's the eBay seller model applied to the blogger -- we observe the credibility value assigned to the blogger by other bloggers and readers and if the value is high, we can assign more trust to their posts.  If the blogger is fairly new, we take their message with a bit more grain of salt.  If a blogger pushes a "broken" product or service simply because he or she is being sponsored, blogger's credibility will permanently suffer.  On the other hand, there is absolutely nothing wrong for a blogger to comment on a product he or she believes in, despite being compensated for it.  At the end of the day, we have to trust those we read and follow regardless of whether they are or aren't being paid for their communication.  Considering how easily and irreparably trust can be broken, no reputable blogger will be quick to alter his or her perspective on an issue solely based on the value of compensation they receive.

Would love to hear your thoughts.

Gene Kavner, Former World-Wide Director, Amazon Associates Affiliate Program, 2005-2006.

Comments

[Durk Price]

I am so in agreement with your statement: "I will be upfront in disclosing my bias here: if someone believes that it is possible for someone's commentary in an Internet posting to be absent of bias, this someone was probably born yesterday. We all have our biases and everything we do in our lives and say in our blog posts reflects those biases." I am a fan of TechCrunch but I see PayPerPost as "you get what you pay for". If the blog goal is to provide good and relevant content and even if it is sometimes biased (I like to call it "shamelessly flogging") then PayPerPost is not really going to affect most good long term Internet marketing producers.

Keep up the great work on the blog. I read about you on Shawn Collins's blog and have plugged you into my daily feed.

[Dave Taylor]

"may be" is a bit weak as the basis for an argument, Gene, but I think you peg it here: public trust is ephemeral at best and illusionary at worst. I think we can certainly encourage bloggers and everyone else to do the best they can, act reputably, be ethical, etc, but as I've written about before, it's awful hard to disclaim all possible bias in a world where I can't know your family, friends, enemies, companies you love, organizations you despise, and on and on.