Payola and the iPhone App

The word payola traces back to rock and roll’s early days, back when the only large-scale way new acts could get their name and music out was on the radio. Deejays in the 1960s controlled their own playlists much more than today, so a band could drive into town, play a few concerts, and pay off a few deejays to get their songs into the rotation. When they rolled out toward the next stop, they left behind the impression that they were the next big thing.

It’s not illegal for a deejay, radio station, or anyone at all to accept money in exchange for playing someone’s music, but US law does make pay for play illegal if the sponsorship isn’t openly divulged, if the song isn’t treated, in other words, as a commercial.

Today’s media world provides almost infinite ways for musicians, video commentators, moviemakers, and iPhone app developers to get word out about what they’re doing. Anyone can post a video on YouTube or give away software on a web page. Payola is still out there, though. Wired magazine ran a story about it in the world of iPhone apps.

It works like this. You invent an iPhone app but can’t get anyone to notice. What do you do? One possibility is offer money to one of the well-known iPhone app review sites in exchange for a review of your creation. That gets the word out pretty well, so developers are starting to pay up. This modern payola scheme is enraging the iPhone community, however. Jason Snell, who works for Apple’s own app-review website complains, “Readers need to know that true editorial reviews are fair, and aren’t the product of any quid pro quo involving money or any other favors.” Brian X. Chen, “Fallout from Wired.com’s iPhone App Payola Story,” Wired, Gadget Lab, March 24, 2010, accessed May 19, 2011, http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/app-review-payola-reaction.

Michael Vallez, owner of the app-review site Crazy Mike’s Apps, disagrees. He charges for reviews without disclosing that to his readers, but he doesn’t guarantee a positive report. If he thinks the app isn’t worth buying, he sends the money back and cancels the review.

The Wired article concludes with an opinion from Kenneth Pybus, a professor of journalism and mass communication: “Undisclosed paid reviews are indisputably unethical because they manipulate the public. That’s an easy call to say it’s ethically wrong because that is a disservice to readers. It ought to be information that applies to readers and not information that advances yourself financially.”

Question

1- Professor Pybus believes there’s a conflict of interest operating when Vallez accepts money to write reviews for his website Crazy Mike’s Apps. What, exactly, is the conflict?

2- Vallez says that his actions do not cause a conflict of interest, only the appearance of a conflict.

· What’s the difference between a conflict of interest and the appearance of a conflict of interest?

· How could Vallez argue that in his case there’s only an appearance, and, on close inspection, there really is no conflict here?

3- Three standard strategies for alleviating ethical concerns surrounding conflicts of interest are

· Transparency,

· Recusal,

· Organizational codes.

How could each of these strategies be applied to the conflict of interest issue at Crazy Mike’s Apps?

4- You develop an iPhone app and you pay Vallez to review it. He tries the app, likes it, and writes up a positive paragraph.

· Make the case to defend the payment as an ethically acceptable gift. Are there limits to how much you could give before it would shift from a gift to a bribe? If there is a limit, how was the number chosen?

· Vallez says that if he doesn’t like an app he returns the money and refuses to review it. Does this fact interfere with the possibility of justifying the payments as a standard, business-type gift?