I’ve been thinking of doing a post about what I call “grey-area paid links” for some time, so when John of Eggrage wrote a post yesterday slamming Chris Garrett for blogging about a Supercar driving day my interest was piqued. Now, first of all let me say that there’s been a lot of…um… “rage” flying about because of this (but no eggs for some reason) and I get the feeling that by writing about this I might be opening myself up for some of it. But whatever, it’s a hot topic so here goes.
I think the point of John’s post was to say that he doesn’t agree with bloggers using their blogs to promote things outside of their ‘genre’. In his book it’s tantamount to spam. So Chris Garrett ‘ruined’ his internet marketing blog, because he wrote a post about a Supercar day and linked to the supplier, Supercars having nothing whatsoever to do with internet marketing. John goes on to say that it’s hypocrisy because Chris and the other bloggers who wrote about the Supercar day preach good SEO practice and then create ’spam’ on their own blogs.
So far so good. John’s angry that these bloggers got something for free and then wrote about it and of course there’s an argument to say that he’s right. After all, this is a prime example of my grey-area paid links. If someone sends you a free product and you write a review of it and link to the supplier, is that a paid link? Well sort-of, yes! You’ve been given an incentive after all!
On the other hand, bloggers write about stuff all the time. My mum wrote a book for example and I did a post about it. If she sold it online I’d have linked to her, and yes I had an incentive to write that post (she gave me a book). Pretty much everyone with a blog has written about a product or service, but John seems to be arguing that it’s only OK if you didn’t get it for free. Otherwise it’s just spam.
The trouble is, this is a HUGE grey area. In the case of the Supercar day, it was a genuinely great experience and of course people wanted to blog about it! The same goes for loads of other products that bloggers get. Bloggers also totally pan things if they don’t like them – if someone sends you a free camera and you write a post saying “it’s shit”, would you still be guilty of paid linking? John makes the point that he hates ‘paid positive reviews’ whether they’re online or in magazines or whatever. Well, what if the review is negative but you still get paid?
I think that bloggers have been writing about stuff for years, and linking to stuff for years, and in the world of marketing sending out products and getting user feedback on blogs is an established technique. If the reviews are good then that’s great, and if they’re bad then you know you have to work on your offering. The fact that you have to send something out to get a review in the first place just goes to show that people won’t do something for nothing. So when John accuses the bloggers of arranging a free day out so that a client would get some links…well, yes that was the end result but as Patrick pointed out in the comments, the bloggers did what bloggers do and blogged about their experience. Grey area!!
The trouble with the whole Eggrage post is that it pretty much started out as a personal attack on Chris Garrett. Then when people inevitably started commenting, John used phrases like “Patrick, you are clearly just a pathological liar” and “You are what I like to refer to as a “scumbag”” and my personal favourite “I am flattered that you girls are calling each other to come help”.
Dude, girls rule.
Any point John was trying to make was overshadowed by the militant way he went about it. Dave Naylor wrote his own reply which has been described by John as nasty and libelous…which sounds a little like pot-calling-kettle to me.
To wrap this all up, I have to say that John’s managed to create a lot of interest in his blog thanks to this fiasco and if that was the motivation then bravo. As I said above though, this could have been a good debate about bloggers being paid for links…but it’s not. It’s just a big mess, and the author of Eggrage has come out with egg on his face.

“and the author of Eggrage has come out with egg on his face”, you couldn’t resist could you
This whole topic is a dodecahedron of valid points, from all sides. Sometimes bloggers could be accused of taking advantage of their online power but in this case, John has misjudged the situation and chosen a bad case study in which to make his point, leaving himself wide open to an offensive defensive onslaught from the blogosphere.
Bloody hell, that guy needs to get… well… out more!
Does he live in a cave or something? Does he not know life is full of this sort of thing… media get invited to gigs, first showings of movies, openings of restaurants, VIP suites at events all the time… what’s so wrong with that?
It is absolutely not spam… you know why, because people read it and people enjoy it… if people read it, hate it and think it is nonsense then they will leave and not come back… that is the definition of spam.
Of course the blogger needs to have the integrity to say it is crap if it is crap, not just advertise for the sake of it, but those sort of events are always great fun, so everyone’s a winner!
Love your comment “Dude, girls rule.”. You’re so right… and I think if ever a guy in need of a woman’s influence, it’s young John O’Nolan
Hi Jim,
You’re right, it’s such an established part of blogging and people enjoy reading it! My only problem with it is that I wish people sent me free stuff to review
I hate it when online forums/blogs whatever just descend into petty insults! There’s no point being mean in real life or on t’internets!
I always find it sad when someone’s gargantuan ego gets in the way of writing an interesting post. Panning people is such a cheap and easy way to drive traffic…
Hi there, great post (apart from the last sentence) – I get very bored of accusations flying around about posting stuff ‘for the sake of traffic’ doesn’t everyone post everything for the sake of traffic? It’s a pointless argument, but no I didn’t set out to slam chris for the sake of skewing my monthly stats!
Anyway, I hope you also saw the follow up post after I’d spoken to Dave directly!
@John, I did and I’m glad the matter has been cleared up. Dave is a great mediator between parties and I’m glad he was the catalyst in remedying this ‘misunderstanding’. All friends again