It may be a little early to measure the success of the payperpost experiment, but this is what I have so far:
10 links for $100.
Summary of average link value:
Average Number of Google Backlinks on blogs: 108.36
Average Number of Yahoo Backlinks on blogs: 774.7
Average SEOMOZ Ranking: 1.9
Average Google Pagerank: 1
Average Relevance: Poor (1.7/5)
Google Blog Search Links: 4
Technorati Links: 6
With a small sample of 10, this is slightly skewed. There was really only one blog that stood out. It had high relevance, pagerank, SEOMOZ ranking, and a lot of backlinks. If I took that one out of the above, the average would have been really poor.
Out of the 10 links I'd say one was really worthwhile, two were mediocre, and the rest were a waste of money.
The content written by the bloggers was better than I expected. I'd say the entries were 50% good, and 50% crap. Although I had the option of requesting only positive reviews, I decided to leave that up to the blogger. I expected neutral or good reviews, and would say that all the reviews were somewhat positive.
I did request relevance in the posting, and 2 of the 10 blogs had fairly high relevance. 4 of the postings had absolutely no relevance, and I have no idea how they passed the criteria.
Traffic generated from postings: Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
In summary, I'd say that payperpost does have some value. My recommendations for using them would be to stipulate:
1. No myspace blogs.
2. Pagerank of 2 or higher (be realistic... most of the bloggers have no pagerank)
3. Be specific about relevance (ie. I only want marketing blogs)
Tips on campaign setup:
1. Pay more for higher quality links rather than low for bad links.
2. Set a short run for the campaign. There shorter the campaign length, the more likly to get pushed through the approval process.
3. Do not request tracking. Tracking just takes the value of the link away. Nobody is going to get traffic from these postings that pays for the cost of the link.