It looks like Robert Scoble got sucked into the PayPerPost machine by accepting their offer to pay him to speak at a conference. I applaud that he disclosed this, but his instincts were off when he accepted the payment itself. Since Podtech’s business model is based largely on producing content for companies in exchange for payments from them (infomercials), their integrity is already an issue. Robert should be the squeaky clean poster boy of podtech, not the one taking payoffs.
PPP very nicely asked to sponsor TechCrunch a month or so ago. We didn’t accept even though they have made improvements in their product recently. The way we see it, PPP is on one side of the fence, and we want to stay firmly on the other side.
I don’t have any isues with Robert doing a paid gig for PPP. He was very open about it, and as you say - he’s doing work for an Informercial company. And I can always change the channel. Especially since I know what at least some of what is beyond his decision (money).
Had he done it without disclosure I would have been very disappointed.
Rob
I’ll paraphrase what I posted on Scoble’s blog. Why is this an issue? Speakers are conferences routinely accept speaking fees. That’s what this is. A speaking/appearance fee. It’s no different than Tiger Woods taking $3 million just to show up at the Dubai Desert Classic. The only way this would be a big deal was if Scoble was appearing at this conference to tell everyone how wonderful PayPerPost was and then saying it wasn’t a paid endorsement (nothing wrong with paid endorsements either, by the way, as long as you don’t try to pass them off as unpaid or imply that in anyway).
But there is no indication that this is (or was, since he ultimately declined the payment) a speaking fee.
Why are bloggers getting their panties in a bunch over this?
You can certainly disagree with PPP’s business, and take exception to anyone doing any sort of business with them… but I keep seeing people writing about the money he was offered. That’s not an issue (or shouldn’t be).
I don’t really think it’s about the payment, which, btw. Robert has declined in the meantime.
I think it’s more about what conference do you want to endorse by your speech, whether paid or not.
Mike: our integrity is not an issue it never has. Robert isn’t taking payoffs. A very weak post on your part.
Clarification: I meant to say, “no indication that this was anything but a speaking fee” in my previous comment … I left out some key words there accidentally.
I guess this pot doesn’t like it when the kettle is equally black.
I think, all in all, credit to the mob at PayPerPost on an extremely cheap credibility buy, with some great publicity thrown in as well, after all, what better way than to gobsmack your critics than to pay one out, trade on his name as the keynote speaker at your conference. Whether you like PPP or not, you’ve got to give the marketing side a pile of credit.
Exactly John, thats the point, by speaking there, payment or not, Robert is validating and endorsing PPP. PPP is a deceptive company and now Scoble and PodTech are associating themselves with PPP. And alot of people are judged by the company they keep. This certainly changes my view about Robert and PodTech because he is your posterboy. I enjoyed some of his interviews quite a bit, but now I am left to wonder if they are paid advertisements or actual interviews. Bottom line associating with PPP is bad for Scoble and bad for PodTech.
Tony: >>Robert is validating and endorsing PPP. PPP is a deceptive company and now Scoble and PodTech are associating themselves with PPP.
And the reverse is also true. PPP has paid people to attack me in the past. It’s a company I don’t agree with (at least I won’t until they require per-item disclosures, just like I did with my disclosure).
But, I disagree with you that this is an endorsement by me. Anyone who sees it as such really hasn’t done their homework.
That’s like saying a politician or a business leader who goes to China endorses China’s human rights policies.
Robert, I still think you are great, I just hate that you are associating with such a deceptive company as PPP.
And I would say that a politician or a business leader who goes to China endorses China’s human rights policies, maybe not directly, but by doing business with China, they are at least giving indirect approval to the fact that it doesn’t prevent them from doing business with China. They are associating with a government that doesnt value human rights and that would make me question the integrity and character of said businessman or politician. And I would have an issue doing business with this businessman. Politics is a shakey ground because there could be other agendas like trying to encourage change in those polcies.
But hey you could always go to the conferance and just rip the heck out of PPP and everyone will love you again. Just don’t waste any of your video interviews on these people.
And please don’t take this as an attack, it truly isn’t, I just thought John’s comment really made it sound like that you speaking at the conference was also an endorsment of it.
If I disclose that I’m sleeping with your girlfriend, does that make it OK?
You have such a twisted and biased view on PPP. Get over yourself. What is wrong with putting and post which is clearly advertising into a blog. You do it on Techcrunch. If you dont know that a PPP isnt advertising you also probably couldnt use a computer….so whats the problem.