More on pay per post

There’s been lots of conversation and comment (see Molly’s thoughts below) on the back of Forrester’s latest paper, “Add sponsored conversations to your toolbox” and here’s mine. To recap, Forrester’s new brief recommends pay per post as long as there is clear disclosure and suggests it’s something we’ll see a lot more of in the future. That’s not a good thing.

The advice Forrester gives for when you should be using sponsored conversation is when “your brand is unlikely to interest bloggers without additional incentive” and do thankfully at least acknowledge that paying bloggers “may raise trust questions”.  It’s important to consider why consumer conversation is so valuable and what the USPs are. It’s trust at the heart of social media’s value proposition.

I posted a little while ago on the difference between content sponsorship on venues like social networks and blogs and blogs are where most of the potential trust issues lie. It’s the owner / publisher axis that is key. Rubel talks of it as church / state relationship which is far less demarcated in the blogosphere.  

Boiling it all down, if content can be paid for rather than inspired does it devalue the conversation and the conversationalist? Does it erode trust? Does it make brands lazy or less creative? Will it get in the way of brands really understanding consumer perceptions and motivations?

Brought into the world on Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009 and filed under Uncategorized.