We’ve previously asked for your input on product reviews here at 40Tech. Now, we have a similar question. Specifically, when a blog publishes a sponsored post, does that affect how you view that blog? By "sponsored post," I mean a post similar to what Mashable and Lifehacker sometimes run, where the post is a paid advertisement, but clearly marked as such. We are asking, because one type of advertising inquiry that we have received concerns sponsored posts. We asked the same question on our Facebook fan page, but we get much more traffic here on the site.
While we’d like to pay the bills here, we are interested in knowing whether you feel this comprises a blog’s credibility, and whether you are less likely to read a blog with sponsored posts. We know up front that we would establish a few ground rules with any sponsored post. First, we would need to feel that it would be of some interest to our readers, and in good taste. Next, we would have the final edit on any post. Also, any sponsored post would be clearly marked as a sponsored post or an advertisement, and the number of sponsored posts would be very limited.
So, fire away – what do you think?
Larry says:
Sponsored posts are fine as long as their labeled as such. Readers expect you to work on the blog, I don’t see the issues in getting paid for that work.
Congrats!
Larry
http://www.poordadtech.com
April 29, 2010 — 9:34 pm
Maarten says:
What is important for me about a website is it’s content. If the content is good enough, I keep coming back as long as it is worth the visit.
This means that I will tolerate advertising (everybody understands it is the advertising that pays for a website) as long as it does not get too much in the way. More usefull websites get away with more obtrusive advertising.
For me, as sponsored posts are becoming more common, this does not have any effect on a websites credibility – as long as I understand it is an advertisement.
April 30, 2010 — 7:18 am
flippertie says:
For me the key points are –
– Be very clear about labeling the content as sponsored
– Continue to produce your own content – don’t just re-package press releases from the sponsors
– Be honest in your reviews – no whitewashing please
I come to your site because I like a lot the software you review and your reviews generally match my experience using the stuff. As long as that remains true I’ll keep coming back.
If people want to pay you to leap the queue and get their products onto your site – congratulations! Just try not to review stuff that wouldn’t previously have made the cut…
May 3, 2010 — 2:50 am
Daryl says:
Evan – flippertie states my point of view perfectly, so there’s no point me trying to make the same point in a different, original, way. Treat this comment as a “+1” ! Daryl.
May 4, 2010 — 4:52 am
Evan Kline says:
Thanks, Daryl, we appreciate the input.
May 4, 2010 — 9:36 am
Evan Kline says:
Thanks everybody for your input. It seems like your thoughts here are similar to what was expressed over on our Facebook page, and echo what we’ve been thinking.
May 3, 2010 — 7:25 am
Dawn says:
I would agree that sponsored posts – clearly marked – are fine. If the information those posts provides helps me make a decision about something or understand something better – that’s great.
So I say – go ahead – make some money!
May 5, 2010 — 10:59 am
Evan Kline says:
Thanks Dawn! Based on comments here and on our Facebook page, we have accepted our first sponsored post, which should run in the next few days. Our plan is to run sponsored posts on our “off days,” so that sponsored posts aren’t a substitute for our regular posts.
May 5, 2010 — 11:08 am
Paul says:
Having now seen said ad, I have one suggestion. I read your articles mostly through your RSS feed. The post was tagged with a bracketed notice of [Sponsored Post], but since it was at the end of subject and not at the beginning, I didn’t notice until today. I would prefer it if that tag was at the beginning of the subject and not at the end, so that it is very clear what it is. Chances are I will still read it, but I won’t feel duped when I see the tag later.
I’m also curious as to who wrote the post. The tone and third-person way of referring to the sponsor contributed to my confusion. If the sponsor came up with that copy, then it actually does have an effect on my perception of this blog’s credibility.
I feel I’m least offended by the way John Gruber (Daring Fireball) handles his sponsors. The [Sponsor] tag always comes first, and the copy is clear that it is coming from another party and not his voice. He appears to be selective as to who advertises on his blog, and he chimes in when he can add his personal opinion about a product. I have a lot of faith in his advertisers, and I have purchased more than a few products and services that have sponsored his feed.
I hope this helps. I like your blog and am all for you getting some revenue from it!
May 11, 2010 — 1:30 am
Evan Kline says:
Thanks for the suggestions, Paul. I like the idea of moving the bracketed part to the front of the title.
We do spell out in the Sponsored Post guidelines, linked from the article, that the posts are written by the advertiser, as we thought that was better/more credible than us being paid for our opinions. I’m not sure about other sites, but I know Mashable does the same thing. We’ll take a look at it, but it does make me feel a little uneasy about how we’d be perceived if we were getting paid to write the copy ourselves. Maybe the answer is to move the explanation about who wrote it from the Sponsored Post guidelines page (which is linked to in the article), right into the article header itself.
Anyway, some great points! Thanks for the input.
May 11, 2010 — 6:45 am