Comments on: LoudLaunch to Launch and PayPerPost Accused of Manufacturing Controversy

By: Paula Neal Mooney

Paula Neal Mooney — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 01:14:45 +0000

They are launching Tuesday, Dec. 26th according to LoudLaunch.com site. I just registered. Hope I get approved.

By: BillyWarhol

BillyWarhol — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:43:53 +0000

i was actually interested in using LoudLaunch! is there any info out there on them or when they plan to Loudly Launch??

;))

By: Mohan

Mohan — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:17:30 +0000

Hey,
Im a blogger using the PPP service as well. As of yet, I havnt done any posts which are outright against my blog, and I dont think its such a bad idea to pay bloggers to post paid posts. But I guess there should be some limitations to the general quality of the blog….

Anyway, I have often wondered whether the critics of PPP were generated by PPP. Many critics actually taunted “Are we mad, or are we getting paid by PPP to criticize them?” etc.

But whatever the case, who cares? I made a pretty buck using PPP the last month. But I hear that PPP isnt such a glad experience for low cost advertisers… Anyway, you’ve got to agree, PPP has got the best damned clientelle out there – with even Adobe and Nike advertising using PPP(I guess they might have been referred from MindComet)… And I think that PPP is a lot less likely to fall out due to competition or criticism, because -
1) They are extremely well established
2) They have loads of money
3) They have a great backing from MindComet
4) I see scandals everywhere about PPP, but extremely few about ReviewMe etc…
5) Ted’s a genius! He’s a mastermind! He has ways and methods to pull PPP out of any kind of crisis….

:) Well, cheerios for now :)

By: Jim Kukral

Jim Kukral — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 03:54:21 +0000

I know how we can officially end this Darren. I propose the following for all bloggers like me who need to continue to speak out against PPP, yet don’t like giving them the publicity anymore.

1. PPP will now officially be called “the paid to blog system that should never be named”

2. Never again link to the site, ever.

Now that reviewme is out (which makes sense and is honest), “the paid to blog system that should never be named” has become irrelevant. Let’s leave it be and watch it fade away.

By: VC Dan

VC Dan — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:34:58 +0000

Thanks for the PayPerPost coverage Darren…wouldn’t it be cool if PPP could generate controversy about generating controversy ;-)

By: jhay

jhay — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 12:18:02 +0000

It’s linkbait all over. Negative or positive blogposts about PPP will help them rise in the rankings and generally make it in the headlines so to speak. Still, this is a sign that either they are desperate to increase their members or their PR team was well schooled in Machiavelli’s thoughts.

By: Darren Rowse

Darren Rowse — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 05:46:32 +0000

“I’d be very interested to hear if you can back up your claims by substantiating at the very least the connections your ’sources’ have with PayPerPost. Are they employees? Investors? Other bloggers wanting to create more buzz for their own sites by jumping on the PPP bandwagon.”

Peter – I’m sure you’d love a little more information on this but unfortunately I was specifically asked by each of the three people who shared information with me not to reveal information about them or how they came by the information. All I’ll say is that they have a variety of connections with PPP.

“The fact is nothing was ‘manufactured’. Feel free to email Michael Arrington at TechCrunch – I’m sure he’d be more than happy to even threaten legal action at the insinuation that PayPerPost in any way manufactured something with TechCrunch.”

By no means was I suggestion that TechCrunch was playing a part in manufacturing anything. However they bit at the controversy (as did many many others including myself on a number of occassions).

I’m not even suggesting that on your launch you set out to create controversy as a strategy initially – however my sources say that it’s not something that you’ve shied away from and went so far to say it’s something you fuel along the way as a way to create buzz.

As others in this thread have said – in some ways I don’t blame you for this – it’s not a new tactic and not one that’s foreign to the blogosphere (I’ve lost count of the number of blogs launched on the back of controversy!)

By: Duncan

Duncan — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 05:29:07 +0000

“told me that the ‘controversy’ that has surrounded them has actually been manufactured as a strategy to cause buzz.”

No sh*t sherlock :-)…and they’ve done a real good job of it as well. There’s no such thing as bad publicity

By: Vincent McBurney

Vincent McBurney — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 05:24:36 +0000

I think it will be increasingly common for businesses to launch with some type of blog controversy to get a lot of free publicity. The Australian blog site whitepage used this method by cybersquatting on the whitepages domain and then launching a “David v Goliath” blog war when they were told to move on.

By: PimpMyPageRank.com » Blog Archive » Payperpost manufactures controversy - well duh!

Thu, 09 Nov 2006 03:02:40 +0000

[...] Darren at Problogger’s written how the light has dawned on some in the blogosphere, that payperpost inc. has actually cultivated the controversy surrounding their blog advertising service to their own benefit. [...]

By: Peter Wright

Peter Wright — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 02:10:39 +0000

It’s a common tactic, even among real so-called-journalists, to fuel a conspiracy theory with statements like “a reliable source inside the company”, etc etc.

I’d be very interested to hear if you can back up your claims by substantiating at the very least the connections your ‘sources’ have with PayPerPost. Are they employees? Investors? Other bloggers wanting to create more buzz for their own sites by jumping on the PPP bandwagon.

The fact is nothing was ‘manufactured’. Feel free to email Michael Arrington at TechCrunch – I’m sure he’d be more than happy to even threaten legal action at the insinuation that PayPerPost in any way manufactured something with TechCrunch.

We launched a service. It was a controversial service in some ways (we’ve addressed them with DisclosurePolicy.org) and as a result ‘news’ sites jumped on it because nothing generates clicks more than controversy. The resulting backlash against those sites (you’ve read the WSJ article on Arrington for example admitting his biases subsequent to our release of disclosurepolicy.org) has actually damaged the credibility of many of those bloggers and sites as a result, in many people’s opinions. Sure the press, good and bad, generated a lot of traffic to PayPerPost, just as the good and tremendously bad press about Google Ad-Sense generated traffic for them, and Calacanis’ recent attempts to buy off Wikipedia generated traffic for him. Orchestrated though? Manufactured? Nope, just people doing business.

So seriously, care to add some substance to your somewhat wild claims?

Kind regards,

Peter Wright
Director of Software Development, PayPerPost.

By: TechSpot » Spawners Nov06

TechSpot » Spawners Nov06 — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 01:51:47 +0000

[...] LoudLaunch to Launch and PayPerPost Accused of Manufacturing Controversy [...]

By: The Zero Boss

The Zero Boss — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 01:43:49 +0000

Sounds like clever spin by PPP to me. But maybe they’re right. The initial, hearty denunciations by people like (ahem) me probably served to alert people to their existence.

By: George

George — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 00:36:08 +0000

I had been wondering about the link bait idea for them, because all the press about them has actually made me consider using them to advertise one of my sites.

Very interesting news.