Blog News Watch, part of 451 press, has a post up discussing the always controversial concept of being paid to post. The post is rather interesting and takes an interesting stance on the issue. Essentially it focuses on the differences, if any, between a sponsored blog and a sponsored post:
"When a blog get sponsor (most of the top blogs have sponsor, whether they say it or not), they provide links back to sponsors site and as well as display ads of sponsor, that means directly or indirectly they are advocating that sponsor."Now I don't know if I necessarily agree with their opinion that most blogs have sponsors but just don't disclose them. I haven't been blogging from the beginning but I think most bloggers who have a sponsor reveal it. Still this doesn't change the discussion the post is sparking over why paid posting has such a bad wrap:
"So as you can see the problem is clarity, in sponsored blog readers can identify which one is sponsored and which one is blogger suggested, but in sponsored post mostly don’t."Give the post a read and tell me what you think: Is paid posting as bad as it sounds? Do you think paid posting and a sponsored blog are the same or is there a difference? Should bloggers be legally required to disclose affiliations?
Tags: blog, blogs, web log, web logs, blogger, blogging, 451 press, payperpost, paid posting, sponsorship, sponsored blog, blog news watch, clarity, disclosure, money, make money