While Marketing Pilgrim has never accepted direct payment for a blog post review, it seems enough other bloggers have done so to convince investors to plough $10 million into PayPerPost.
The Orlando Sentinel covers the story and provides a good recap of the company’s stormy launch–when it didn’t insist on blogging disclosures–its growth to 50,000 bloggers, and its constant criticism by TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington.
Interestingly, the adage “all publicity is good publicity” seems to be true for PayPerPost.
There’s no question the negative publicity helped the company. The popular technology blog TechCrunch, with more than 650,000 readers, has written about PayPerPost more than a dozen times. The headlines included “PayPerPost.com offers to sell your soul,” and “The PayPerPost Virus Spreads.”
Still, any other startup probably would kill for that many mentions.
“The naysayers were a godsend for the company,” said Dan Rua, a managing partner in Inflexion, a Florida investment firm funding PayPerPost.
The article mentions you can buy “positive, “neutral,” or “negative” reviews. Most opt for “neutral” but I wonder who would select “negative?” Maybe someone buying negative reviews of their competitors? That’s just evil. >:)
Lastly, they allude to a new product launching soon called “Argus” with no further details of what it is.
(Note: Not that it matters a hoot, but you should note that PayPerPost competitor SponsoredReviews is an advertiser with us.)