Jeff Jarvis ways in on Pay Per Post via Jason Calacanis, who brings it up (yet) again. I know Jason has called Pay Per Post a cancer, and whilst I’ve previously disagreed on some levels (essentially I’m not against others using it, but they should force disclosure), if it is indeed cancer, Jarvis and Calacanis writing about it is like continuing to smoke when you’ve got lung cancer, it only makes things worse. Every single time Pay Per Post gets mentioned as a company, it’s free publicity for them: there is no such thing as bad publicity really, sure a few people might decide that they don’t like you or your product, but statistically more people will actually discover the product for the first time….and are more likely to use it, after all, people do tend to be able to make their own decisions of various products, no matter what I, or any one else for that matter has to say about them.
Now here’s throwing something to the wind: even the fake blog/ astroturfing scandal surrounding Eldeman at the moment is actually going to HELP Eldeman write more business. The fact that they did the wrong thing is pretty much a given, but the publicity and name exposure Eldeman has received as a result of it is something that even money would find difficult to buy. How many firms out there looking for PR advice now know the name Eldeman as a result of whats occured? How many potential clients now know that Eldeman can and does delivered strategies that include blogging? Sure, a whole pile of people already did before the scandal, but chances are a lot more do now…and trust me, 99% of the time the net result is positive long term even when the publicity is the result of a scandal, not negative. Indeed the only real negative scandals are those that either result in the company closing down (there can be no positives from ceasing to trade), or it’s directors facing legal threats, including jail.