There's yet another service joining the rapidly expanding paid-review market pioneered by PayPerPost. [SponsoredReviews][1] is a new site designed to help bloggers get paid for writing reviews of advertiser's products and services. SponsoredReviews isn't publicly available yet and but their blog [promises][2] a beta test phase is coming soon.

SponsoredReviews offers a few clues in the their FAQ. Disclosure is required, though I can't find any specifics on what sort of disclosure, and payments will range from $10 to a whopping $1000 per review. 

The Blog Herald thinks that with price tags of up to a $1000 SponsoredReviews is poised to introduce [a new ethical dilemma][3] for bloggers. Dave Winer on the other hand, [believes][5] that these services are simply a more transparent version of a very old practice. TechCrunch's Michael Arrington has long held that PayPerPost and its ilk [are a modern-day payola][4]. 

Payola is a term describing a practice in which record companies paid radio stations to play whatever tracks the companies wanted to promote without reporting that the spot was paid. The practice is illegal in the United States though it's common in other parts of the world. The reasoning behind the U.S. law is that since radio stations report and publish their playlists and those publication in turn influence other stations the record companies could gain an unfair advantage in the market place.

A similar argument could be made against PayPerPost services since links from prominent blogs can raise the Google rankings of advertisers participating in the service.

I tend to agree with Arrington, though I think that Winer has a point too. Ultimately there is probably no such thing as a truly unbiased review, but if a blogger discloses that they were paid to write a review how useful is that for the discerning consumer?

Call me paranoid, but I probably wouldn't make it past the disclosure sentence in a paid review. Of course SponsoredReviews doesn't have specific guidelines available for disclosure, the site merely says blogger should "state the words 'Sponsored Review' or you can integrate it into the content." Okay, but would a style sheet rule like this be okay?

p.disclosure { font-size: 1px; }

Hopefully not. The FTC recently said word-of-mouth advertisers and reviewers [must disclose their relationships][6] which even includes things like products that have a MySpace page.
	
Interestingly, while SponsoredReviews claims negative reviews are okay, the official guidelines on the site read:

>*	Reviews must be written according to the terms set by the advertiser.
*	Constructive criticism is encouraged, however, reviews that are hateful or non-constructive will not be accepted.
*	Reviews must be permanent and archived.
*	Disclosure that the review is sponsored is mandatory.

What constitutes non-constructive from an advertisers point of view? Would a review like "this service is an adware-ridden nightmare best avoided at all costs" be considered non-constructive? As a reader I might consider that informative, constructive and good to know, but the advertiser would likely have a different opinion.

At this point it looks like these services are here to stay so, while the ethics may be debatable, the real question is what will the long term effect be? Will blogs featuring paid reviews be shunned, is the whole blogging realm doomed or is this much hoopla about nothing?

[1]: http://www.sponsoredreviews.com/ "SponsoredReviews"
[2]: http://www.sponsoredreviews.com/blog/?p=7 "SponsoredReviews Launching Soon"
[3]: http://www.blogherald.com/2007/01/15/sponsoredreviewscom-jumps-into-the-pay-per-post-fray-introduces-new-ethics-quandry/ "SponsoredReviews.com Introduces New Ethics Quandry"
[5]: http://www.scripting.com/2006/10/02.html#whyPayperpostIsBetter "Dave Winer on PayPerPost"
[4]: http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/01/15/another-payperpost-virus/ "Another PayPerPost Virus"
[6]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121101389.html?nav=hcmodule"

Pull My Strings