If you follow the blog advertising scene, chances are you have already read the article about Nuffnang on TechCrunch. I am not going to link to it as I won’t dignify its lack of credibility. It’s pretty normal to come across blog posts that are written with no depth or research, after all the blogosphere is a massive sandbox. Anyone can play in it and there will always be kids with no manners trying to spoil everyone’s day. Just another day on the blogosphere.
But when such a blog post appears on a supposedly credible website, it becomes a question mark. The author claimed to have used a credible source in his comment section, but whether it’s credible or not is entirely up to his interpretation. The article, among others:
1. Claimed that Nuffnang DID NOT INFORM Singaporean bloggers about imposing $1 Sing cheque processing fee.
FACT:It is a fact that before ANY blogger cashed out his/her earnings, there was a clear notice that the transaction fee will be deducted from the cashout amount. Nuffnang has also sent an e-mail to EVERY blogger in Singapore in addition to their announcement in the Nuffnang blog.
But the complainants are saying that if Nuffnang had informed bloggers MUCH earlier, then they would have an option to switch advertising network as the other network does not charge $1 Sing. So let me get this straight…
I’d imagine that these people who decided to sign on with Nuffnang had obviously calculated in their own ways and have decided that Nuffnang would be the better blog advertising network.
Does that mean, to these people, losing 1 dollar from a cashout with a blog advertising network that they themselves chose in the first place is enough of a reason to switch to another blog network, that mind you, has not even started earning money for them yet? The answer is this: It’s not even a valid reason to begin with.
Sound like shooting one self in the foot twice….replacing an opportunity to earn money with definite uncertainty because of 1 single dollar.
The fact remains, Nuffnang did inform all of its Singaporean bloggers about the fee, and did not sneakily deduct 1 dollar from their earnings. I must applaud Nuffnang for delaying the deduction anyway for the few bloggers who felt that they were robbed off an opportunity to replace Nuffnang with the “are-you-sure-it’s-gonna-perform-ad-network”.
2. Claimed that a number of “prominent bloggers” are unhappy with the fees imposed.
The number, ladies and gentlemen, is three. I have not heard of either of them. Two blogs have traffic of average 87 – 91 readers a day. The other one has 874 on its counter (for all time). I have 400 readers daily on a very bad day. I rest my case.
3. Posted a link to a Nuffnang hate blog and connecting it with the $1 dollar fee.
Firstly, the site was obviously set up by someone with a personal grudge against Nuffnang. For what reason other than pure jealousy or Schadenfreude, I have no idea.
Hate site over $1 sing? I have stronger faith in people than that. That hate site has no place in TechCrunch’s article and it baffles me as to how it ended up there. It not only belittles the intelligence of TechCrunch’s readers, also the intelligence of all three “prominent bloggers” who are resting on the same line with the hatesite.
Will you believe the words of people predicting the downfall of a company over one buck? I’m sorry but even I have more faith in Singaporeans than that! You know what they say, you know you’re there when you’ve got a hatesite.