Is Pay Per Post Wrong?

There recently was a twitter poll that asked "What do you think about the concept of a 3rd party charging a pay per post as a business model?"

As of March 10 2009 the results for the "Pay Per Post" Poll stats are:

• It's not a problem as long as there is full disclosure 17%
• Yuck. I don't like this concept at all 53%
• The jury is out on this one 14%
• I don't care either way 3%
• It's already happening or I think it will happen soon 14%

So the poll favors -- Yuck. I don't like this concept at all.

I'm realist and logical at times, so my view on paid post is -- why not. What is the difference between paid post and ads on TV. Nothing! It is up to the reader or viewer to follow the "Call to Action".

Furthermore, what is the difference between adsense and paid post. As long as the blogger has to right to write what they want -- I don't see a difference.

Let's look at an example:

Example 1 - I'm writing an article about U.S. Foreclosures.  Within the article I link to a debt solution company (which paid me).  What's wrong with that?

Example 2 - I write the same article as about, however I do not link to the debt solution company.  Instead I use adsense.  What's the difference?

In both examples I will earn revenue.

The key to the paid post debate for me is the value of your article "Good Content".  If you are just simply linking to a sponsor without offering informative content, then your post is worthless -- regardless if you are paid or not.  However, if you are providing usefully information -- that is usefully whether you are paid or not -- then what is the problem?

Here are some comments from the poll:

StandingFirm CM: "This will result in an unbalanced social structure.  The poor won't have a voice in the social forum"

Danhowarth: "Wouldn't this reflect negatively on the 3rd party?  They'd lose integrity with their readers"