Ask HN: Was Scoble compensated for blogging on G+?

I've been following tech industry for a while now. And the growth of new social networks interest me as they face an increasingly difficult problem - User Acquisition.

So in keeping with HN's interest, I chose the example of Robert Scoble. He figures prominently in most startups' launch plans. And thanks to the fact that he reviews "Upcoming cool startups/apps", he commands a legion of followers on the web.

When G+ launched a while back, It was easily the last thing one would use (as avid Twitter/FB users, it seemed like a duplication of existing networks). And Google seemed to lack one thing, User engagement. Even after they launced Games on G+ it still seemed plain. But I did notice a new trend on G+, Scoble was blogging about new startups/apps on G+, Photographers (Trey Radcliffe) were using G+ to post high-resolution pictures, and unsurprisingly Google employees (Steve yegge, etc) were ranting on G+ (most of which went viral).

This led me to suspect that there was a strategy to improve user engagement by having original content over there by Photographers, bloggers, engineers, etc to attract and retain users.

My question to fellow HN readers is this, do companies mandate employees to use their own products over their competitor's offerings. And if there exists a User Acquisition team that deals with getting interesting content over to that platform (Eg: Twitter's early high profile users) and engage them enough for them to stay over there.

My question stems from the fact that there was a conscious decision to give out invites to people producing content (Bloggers/Photographers/etc.) and there could've been some cajoling (monetary or otherwise) in some cases to get them over to a new product. Scoble and Trey Radcliffe (just two examples I know of) attracted huge amounts of traffic to Google+, a lot more after the public launch.

G+ as a new product was under pressure to attract traffic/users as it could've possibly impacted employee morale. Also this is something other companies could learn from.

Scoble seems to be pretty open with such things so why just not ask him?

Though I am not a fan of Scoble I do not think that Google made Scoble and other to use the platform. Why? Two reasons:

1.) Scoble interest is to get traffic from everywhere. Raising awareness, brand recognition, etc. Google+ was skyrocketing at the beginning and for already known Internet celebs an opportunity to easily scale on another platform because at that time they were the first on Plus and quickly got traction through existing fans. And as known Internet addicts they cannot just ignore a platform. So it's a mutual and balanced relationship reach (for Scoble) vs content (for Google). Compare also other bloggers/publisher who spammed from day 1, e.g. Pete Cashmore from Mashable.

2.) There are lots of high, high level Google execs who never used Google+

Sorry for pointing this out, Orkut*.

Also, a lot of things have changed since then with Larry at the helm. He is focussed on eradicating bloat (tons of Google products that were recently culled), and making sure whatever exists, succeeds.

And the article that colinsidoti posted seems to have brought a paradigm shift to employee bonuses. Dog fooding is directly tied to your bonueses now. A financial motivator definitely changes the game.

In regards to Google's relatively new strategy of getting high quality content on its products represents a paradigm shift from an Engineering-oriented company to a well-rounded company which understands other domains for it to succeed.