There is an interesting thing about the following bit of news, which in-and-of-itself matters to almost nobody: "Jason Calacanis has offered $12,000/yr to up to 50 people in return for their 'social bookmarking' rights."

Jason is offering to pay (formerly volunteer) critics for their work, and hire them away from his competitor. Both of which are smart. You can read the details elsewhere, but if he's right about the impact the ROI will make this one of the least expensive marketing programs in internet history. It's interesting because of how it continues to blur the line between amateurs and professionals, the step it takes towards valuing 'user generated content', and the formalization of buying friends to influence people. Despite all this, it's hard to see a rational argument against it.

Think about some simple related actions. For example, how much would it cost to get the Quarterback, Prom Queen, Top Geek, Biggest Pot-head, School Wierdo, Debate Team Captain, Girl-most-likely-to-become-a-porno-star and 10 other influencials at every high-school in America to move their MySpace pages to a new service? Wouldn't that be a great investment? Would MySpace make a counter-offer?

In recent years we've seen all kinds of bribes go directly to consumers - cash-back sites, free-ipods, point-programs of all flavors. Why shouldn't influencers share in the bounty? As a marketer, there's an acceptable cost of customer acquisition - who cares where the money goes?

Of course, there are serious implications in terms of trust - which is a frequently discussed topic in the world of word--of-mouth marketing. But in any case, the pace of radical changes in the roles, rewards, and power-base of nearly every player in the marketing sphere continues to accelerate.

>>> Some good posts on the Calacanis offer and its ramifications : Rough Type, Thomas Hawk, Read/Write, TechCrunch, Business 2.0, HMM