PayPerPost has really big PR problems. They’ve been going on for a long time now and don’t particularly seem to be getting any better. The one thing they had going for them was a community of advertisers and bloggers that were both happy with the service and enjoying the fruits of their collective labours. I’m one of those bloggers who has taken advantage of a novel opportunity to monetize my blog and have done so with what I consider to be a great deal of success.
Up until now they’ve stirred the pot a little with things like segmentation, but have largely kept both groups content. A few days ago came an e-mail that irked me a little.
Thanks for your post!
Unfortunately, however, there were two problems with the post. First, the second link does not work correctly. Please fix it or remove it entirely. Second, there are google ads within the post. This violates our Terms of Service, and need to be removed. Please take care of these two issues and resubmit.
thanks!
dp
I fixed the bad link, which was indeed a mistake on my part, but I had never been questioned about my Adsense ads, so i just resubmitted and thought that I might just have been dealing with someone who was new. Then I got this:
Thanks for the post!
Unfortunately, there are still advertisements within the post, which make it ineligible for the opportunity. Please remove them and resubmit.
thanks!
dp
I thought this really strange since I’ve been using PPP and Adsense simultaneously for months now and have never had a post rejected for this reason. So I sent the following to try and find out what the heck was going on. (note that I had sent a previous e-mail that I thought didn’t get through, hence the “once again”)
Once again, when did the rules change? I’ve had 118 posts approved with this layout. There has never been a mention of this being an issue? I’ll have a hard time continuing to use PPP if the rules have changed in this manner. Could you please clarify as to why the 118 previous submissions are ok, but this one is not.
Marc Comeau
To which I received the following reply:
Hello Marc,
Thank you for contacting us. The reason that you may just now be seeing rejections for this is because we’ve updated our training recently. The reason that we do not allow other ads within PPP posts is in consideration of the advertiser’s interests. We feel that it’s not unreasonable for the advertisers to expect no other ads in the posts that they pay for. I hope that clears up the confusion on this issue. If you have any other questions, please submit a ticket to www.payperpost.com/support .
Thank You!
PPP
Well now I’m just flat out upset because I just re-read their terms of service to make sure I wasn’t crazy when I signed up. You see I doubt that I would have gone with any program that made itself exclusive. At the time of writing there is absolutely no mention of any exclusivity in the post. No reference to the fact that you can’t have Adsense on the page. The only thing that could remotely come into play is the obstruction clause, suggesting that the post must be unobstructed by anything in your layout. Anyone who’s been to my blog knows that the Adsense ads weren’t obstructive in the slightest. So I’ve sent a further inquiry to try and find out what the heck is going on. Changing terms of service without notifying people is pretty well flat out wrong, if not short of illegal.
The main complaint against PayPerPost over the many months they’ve been operating has been the fact that other people believe they have questionable ethics. Well now I am also starting to believe they have questionable ethics. My situation is still ongoing so I haven’t made up my mind yet. This might all be a mistake of some sort, I don’t know. But in the meantime if you’re looking for a similar program that has fewer public relations and customer relations challenges, I can certainly recommend ReviewMe.com and Blogsvertise.com.
VC Dan // Apr 18, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Can you point me to the post in question? I was confused by the rejection email saying you had “AdSense in the post”, but your later statement that you can’t have “AdSense on the page.” Those seem like two different things and I could understand advertisers having an issue with the former.
Marc // Apr 18, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Excellent point Dan, those are two different things. My previous layout had an Adsense Link Unit in between the title and post. I’m not sure whether or not that is considered within the post or not. As mentioned this had been fine 118 times previous and there is no reference to this in the ToS.
I won’t link to the post because the layout change was global and therefore no longer shows on that post. I also feel it unfair that the advertiser be associated with PPP’s change in their Terms of Service. They just happened to post their op at a bad time and I don’t think they should be tarnished due to bad timing.
“Second, there are google ads within the post. This violates our Terms of Service, and need to be removed.”
This is where the issue lies. This, quite simply does not exist within the terms of service that I agreed to when I signed up and have since re-read today.
To cover all bases, there was also no reference to other advertising in the op either which further exonerates the advertiser from this specific issue.
Karen Allen // Apr 18, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Hi Marc,
Just a quick ditto on Dan’s note – the rejections are for any obstructions to individual *posts* that are being sponsored by the advertisers. We most certainly are not asking you to remove ads from your page beyond that. This has been explained in our forums as well, but I realize not all of our customers are out there. And you are right – not a change to ToS, simply an uptraining to the Reviewer staff. If you had similar posts approved in the past, we also certainly would not go back, due to our prior oversight, and reject those.
I see you’ve already linked to the ToS above – that helps!! For reference, the specific ToS under which this falls is: Elements on a page must not obscure any portion of a blog *post* pertaining to an opportunity and the posting must be visible, readable and reasonably coherent.
If you happen to receive any rejections mentioning your page, rather than the post, please do let us know. Thanks!!
Karen Allen
Director of Customer Love
PayPerPost.com
Marc // Apr 18, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Fair enough, and you are correct, not all users are on the forums, I’ve only been there once or twice many months ago.
So at least now we’ve got it pinned down to which Term of Service I was breaking. Now I would ask how? The ads were in no way shape or form obscuring any portion of the blog post (see this cached version of a sample post), and all my postings are visible, readable and hopefully a bit more than reasonably coherent.
Perhaps there are some definitions that could be elaborated upon in the ToS? For starters where does a page end and a post begin? Also if I’m wrong then that means I’ve mis-interpreted one of the words in the ToS. Whichever word that might be would probably need to be elaborated upon.
As things are currently worded I still don’t see where the problem lies.
I’d also like to point out to my readers that both Karen Allen and Dan Rua have been very civil and constructive here and I appreciate that. I try my best to do the same. While I’ve disagreed with Dan elsewhere, he’s always there to stand up for PPP. While he obviously has a very specific vested interest in the company, I do find his hands on approach to engaging the community very unique and positive. The one or two times I did venture into the forums, I found most problems ended with a post saying, “Just e-mail Karen, she’ll take care of it”. I think it’s great for a community to have a person like that to work with.
My complaints here have to do with the specifics of rules & policies and not with the people involved.
Marc // Apr 18, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I just edited your link Karen. I assumed you wanted your name to link to
http://www.payperpost.com/. It was only readinghttp://www.pay/for some reason. Let me know if you had meant for it to link somewhere else.VC Dan // Apr 18, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Thanks for the good words Marc. I rarely have the answers, but I try to help out where I can.
I agree the TOS could benefit from clarification/examples, in a number of areas. This is good input for that improvement process.
Kudos to Karen for extending customer love all the way out to a Postie’s comments…it still amazes me how open PPP runs their business vs. other businesses I’ve built. There are definite benefits, but I just hope such commitment doesn’t create unrealistic customer service expectations.
Thanks again Marc for trying to make PPP even better!
Marc // Apr 18, 2007 at 3:38 pm
With respect to the customer service expectations, I have submitted my concerns via the PPP ticket system and have been in queue awaiting a response. I was as surprised as you were to see Karen comment on the issue over here.
I have previously resolved a few technical issues already through the ticket system. It’s a decent system when the queue moves. Unfortunately to date, I’ve been attempting to resolve this particular issue through e-mail and tickets for a smidgen over 2 days and despite some amount of back and forth, I’ve not been able to even begin to understand the issue at hand until Karen explained the above.
I still don’t understand, but at least I’m getting some small pieces of the puzzle as I wait for the ticket system.
Ian // Apr 18, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Advertisers can already set restrictions on their opportunities, if they were concerned about other ads on the page, couldn’t they just make that one of their requirements?
Marc // Apr 18, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Yes Ian, Advertisers can set restrictions beyond what PPP offers them. I’ve seen some post with things like, “UK bloggers only” or “also include these links”, followed by a list of additional links. From what I’ve seen it seems like they can add any reasonable extra restrictions they like.
If it had been an advertiser specific thing, then I suspect that they would have just added it in. It’s a PPP wide issue for some reason. Some flak and frustration seems to be flying about on the PayPerPost message boards though.
Karen Allen // Apr 19, 2007 at 1:10 am
Hey Marc,
Check on your tickets in the morning. Remember the ticketing system is replacing email so if you did submit an email, we have an auto-response going out that directs you to tickets. The tix allow you to track status of your issue, and reply to us more directly. We like it! We think customers will, too
And don’t forget to include as much detail as possible in those tix. Makes for much faster resolution!
Thanks for the kind words
I can’t express enough how dedicated the entire team here is. I’ve never worked with a group of folks where so many were so engaged and committed to the tasks at hand. We understand being pioneers in an industry brings with it growing pains, and we do apologize when those are felt by our customers. We look forward to consistently providing improvements based on feedback like yours.
But Dan’s right – please do not take it personally if you don’t find me commenting on your posts.
The fastest way to the Customer Love team is tickets – we’re there for you! Thanks again!!
K
HelloWorld // Apr 28, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Peace people
We love you
Marc // Apr 28, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Well that was odd