The Dangers of Quid Pro Quo

Quid Pro Quo means, “You do for me, then I do for you.” There are several badges out there that promise returned behavior. I personally find nothing bad with badges, but I did joke about them on a recent post when I said I was going to make a badge that said, “I Post, U Comment.”

Quid Pro Quo does have a negative connotation, but if done correctly, it can add value to both sides. Here are some of the dangers of Quid Pro Quo.

A Reader Might Feel Tricked or Manipulated

When I described three ways to manipulate readers, one of the ways I pointed out was Quid Pro Quo manipulation. The problem with requiring a reader to do an action first is that the reader might feel gamed. And the amount of effort the reader puts into the initial action might not justify the return.

One recent thing that’s happened lately is the negative backlash over John Chow’s link-building campaign where if a reader wrote a review of John’s site, John would provide a link back. How much time does it take to write a review vs. a blogger providing a simple link back to a site? In this case, the amount of effort by the reader is significant compared to the return.

It Creates an Atmosphere of Obligation

I believe there truly is something called blog debt around the blogosphere. Some of the debt is self-imposed, but some of it is what others “expect” of you.

There are some people out there that truly believe that if he/she comments on your site, then you should comment on theirs. If he/she stumbles or diggs your posts, you should stumble/digg their posts. If he/she writes a guest article for your site, you should write a guest article for their site.

I despise these types of obligations in the blogosphere. I am grateful for the comments/diggs/stumbles I receive, but I refuse to be obligated to reciprocate.

The Tactics Could Be Unethical and Diminish Value

Some might perceive certain link-building tactics as being unethical or close to “black hat” techniques. While link-building is not bad from a blogger’s point of view, it might have negative consequences on a reader trying to find out legitimate information. For example, if someone increases their Google ranking somehow for a keyword and the reader does a search, will the reader find the most highly relevant information, or go to a site that has “gamed” the system?

Readers generally do not care how high you rank on Google or Technorati, so the link-building campaign should not be obvious to the reader.

An Example of Quid Pro Quo

Here’s an example of Quid Pro Quo I discovered this week. On Untwisted Vortex, I came across this post that promises a digg for a comment. At first I thought that I didn’t like the technique because a comment is a lot harder to leave than just digging a post.

While reading further on, however, the blogger is saying to his readers, “Post a link that you want me to digg, and I’ll digg it. I’ll even review it.” I’m thinking, “Wow.”

Now if the blogger required a comment on a post that had to be well thought out and researched and then would digg a post, I would question the blogger’s motivation. However, in this case, it seems that the return to the reader outweighs the reader’s initial effort.

Conclusion

What do you think about Quid Pro Quo? Do you see any other dangers in the technique? Also, can you think of any more positive or negative examples?

Thank you for reading.