As I am now starting to build my own experience with advertiser campaigns in the PayPerPost marketplace I have realized some important guidelines I thought I would share with PayPerPost advertisers, from time to time. This is one of those times!
My first post is concerned with "comment spamming," a practice whereby advertisers contribute unsolicited brand dialog within a Blogger's post. Even when the post is sponsored and paid by the Advertiser, Bloggers typically do not appreciate advertiser comments within their comments section. Advertisers may sponsor the post, but the post's comments are for the blog readers and the blogger, themselves.
So remember, the comments section is typically reserved for a natural discussion of the blog post by blog readers, not advertisers. In fact, advertiser comments in a sponsored post may serve to defeat the intended purpose of creating a discussion about the brand. Although there may be some appropriate instance when advertisers may decide to utilize the blogger's comments feature, advertisers should be highly selective about when, where, and how they post a blog post comment.
The PayPerPost Tack rating system is the best resource for providing feedback to Posties, or if you want to contact a Postie directly for an opportunity, look for the Blogger's PPP Direct badge!
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e00991f57a883300e54edac7358833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Comment Spamming: Not a Good Thing:
Comments (RSS)
Kat said...
You mean like this one on my irobot roomba post?
"to get roomba visit
http://store.irobot.com/home/index.jsp
This is the best consumer robot ever made !!!"
I moderate comments, and did not allow this one to be published.
I'm pretty sure I did a really good job linking to the stores products twice, and to the iRobot homepage as well.
You can read my post to see that I did.
The comment from the advert, telling my readers where they could buy the iRobot, was un-needed, and actually looked very tacky.
I totally appreciate winning the roomba, and I thanked iRobot at the end of my post, so this extra bit, was not necessary.
Sep 10, 2007 5:00:25 PM
VC Dan said...
I think this is very comment-specific. A polite advertiser comment saying "thanks for the great feedback/review" can actually be appreciated; whereas a link-filled, sales-pitch comment is a problem.
Sep 10, 2007 5:04:47 PM
Kat said...
Dan, I totally agree with that. If they had thanked me for the review, I would have published, no problem.
But that comment was a sales pitch.
A reader asked where they could get one, and I added an edit to their comment to tell them where they could. I even linked directly to the store in the edit.
Sep 10, 2007 5:09:08 PM
Colleen said...
Thanks for addressing this Robb. Several of us got very enthusiastic comments from "fake" people when we wrote a recent movie opp, and the IP traced back to the entertainment company. It doesn't feel right. I'd rather the advertiser simply say well done then to mislead my readers.
Sep 10, 2007 6:37:55 PM
herbgirl said...
I agree with all the comments so far. As with any other comment, if it has something to add to the conversation, I will leave it. If it does not, I will remove it. So far, I've been very lucky, and all advertiser comments have not crossed the line.
Sep 10, 2007 6:58:51 PM
Andrew Ian Dodge said...
Yes, this is a bloody annoyance and thank you for addressing the problem. I don't mind a thank you but not extra plugging.
Sep 11, 2007 1:07:20 PM
VC Dan said...
I'm going to go out on a limb here because I think the broader concept of sponsor/blogger/reader relationships will get even more important as the industry matures. I'd propose this hierarchy of sponsor comments:
1) sponsor truly engages blogger's post, with honest interest in learning more about blogger's product/brand feedback;
2) sponsor reads blogger's post and provides polite comment of appreciation;
3) sponsor leaves no comment;
4) sponsor leaves spammy, link-filled comment (DO NOT DO).
I worry that this post makes it sound like 3) is the preferred route, but do readers really want sponsors buying posts and quickly moving on to the next blogger/campaign. Call me an idealist, but the best result is an honest dialogue that benefits blogger, sponsor and readers.
Of course, it might help sponsors to start with 2) until they learn a blogger's style. A simple step towards 1) might be for a sponsor to ask "how could we make the product better for you?" and then focus on listening instead of rebutting any feedback. This approach can enhance reader value, particularly if the post was largely positive.
Just one guy's thoughts...
Sep 11, 2007 9:41:02 PM
Peace said...
This is absolutely true!
Sep 11, 2007 11:16:01 PM
Jenny said...
So true! I haven't actually had that done to me, but I wouldn't be too happy if it did either. Great post.
Sep 11, 2007 11:49:54 PM
Tim said...
Sorry I'm getting in on this late. I actually did a post about the movie opp where we got spammed. It felt really fake, and I made a point in my post of saying my preferred option is #1 on Dan's list - I'd love for an advertiser to openly and transparently engage in a discussion on my blog. It helps my traffic, and may even get some additional links from other blogger that might see the post as "authoritative" thanks to the advertiser's participation.
Anything less than transparency, though, is unwelcome. I left the first two fake comments on the movie opp out of respect for the advertiser, but deleted a follow-up comment a few weeks later.
Sep 12, 2007 9:38:41 AM
Andy Beard said...
Coming in a little late, but I actively encourage constructive discussion from all stakeholders, though I would possibly be concerned about competitors jumping in on a review and not offering something very substantial in their comments.
As an example when I was paid for a review by Sponsored Reviews, through their service, Dan commented extensively, so did Jarrod Hunt.
I believe it was a real quality discussion, and added an immense amount of value to everyone involved.
Yes I was a little cheeky and even linked through to a 3rd competitor in that review, ReviewMe, but I used
strikethroughon the link.I really needed the link to provide a comparrison
I have had great discussion on other reviews, and I would hate anything that would actually detract from the discussion.
If an advertiser comes into the conversation and drops some more links, they have to be relevant just like for every other commenter.
Ideally I want my content to be only 1/3 of the content around any particular article. If something I write doesn't attract interesting discussion, I feel I have failed in my goals.
Oct 5, 2007 4:10:47 PM
fdsa said...
入党申请书
八荣八耻
Oct 5, 2007 9:50:56 PM
Best Results said...
Please help me...
1. Can Google recommended companies that offer to make my site Google-friendly?
2. How to Choose a SEO Search Engine Optimization Company for Best Results at Search Engines?
Thanks
Best Results
Nov 23, 2007 2:46:25 AM
Dnebiviza said...
Break the suitable meal did spit jigsaw puzzle had later <a href=http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/85112.php>premarin</a> like twisted and earth small ornate jewel set structions without <a href=http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/85108.php>vaniqa</a> two rays membranes and her ribs hat meant better foil <a href=http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/85104.php>zestoretic</a> ada went her was counsel could know that yellow gl
Apr 1, 2009 11:39:50 AM
Dnebiviza said...
Chex looked made sleep olph hissed help him had later <a href=http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/85116.php>diltiazem</a> like twisted and earth that fell riene couldn wood with <a href=http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/85109.php>seroquel</a> was alert two branches hey walked person has and recesses <a href=http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/85106.php>psilocyn</a> ada went
Apr 1, 2009 11:40:03 AM