Despite literally hundreds of bloggers regularly deriding the entire concept of sponsored reviews or “paid to blog” companies, PayPerPost got an excellent write-up in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal which focused on how online marketing company Apogee Search has found success using sponsored reviews from PayPerPost–
More than half of the traffic on Apogee’s Web site now comes from blogs, compared with about 10% before the paid-posts campaign began. The number of site visitors who complete online-inquiry forms is now in the low hundreds each month, the company says, up four- to fivefold.
The article also contained some excellent news for those who have been holding back on being critical in their reviews when they’re being paid to write –
Some bloggers say the need to preserve their credibility may be the best defense against superficial reviews. “Fluff posts, or posts that are purely promotional, don’t do anyone any good,” says Ben Cook, a blogger in Belleville, Ill., who says he has not written about Apogee. “Blog readers will see right through it and lose respect for both the blogger and the advertiser.” Mr. Cook says he posted about a dozen critical paid reviews in the past year, and only one advertiser complained.
. . .
By not requiring positive reviews, Apogee also hopes to get useful feedback. “Many people told us there were things wrong with our blog,” Mr. Combs says, like layouts or writing. “It’s wonderful feedback, if you’re willing to go back and correct things.”
For those like me who are always interested in how much the companies we write for make off of us the article also gives a little insight into this area – “In January, it agreed to pay 20 bloggers a month around $10 each — plus a fee to PayPerPost of around $2.50 per blogger — to write a review about Apogee’s blog.“