| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: Pay-for-Performance Journalism |
Topic: Pay-for-Performance Journalism
| Author | Message |
| westsidestory | Posted – 5/31/2006 9:08:36 AM | show profile | email poster Who has had experience with this? I see more and more web sites offering to pay writers per page views, per number of postings, or by revenue percentages based on traffic or Google ad returns. Aside from "networked" Gawker-wannabees, here are two coast-to-coast examples: cribstown.com, sbs-world.com. For emerging writers wishing to specialize in a topic area, is this a good way to gain a fan base, experience, or clips? Or is yet another generation getting suckered into being literary lettuce-pickers -- just like back in the ol' pay-per-column-inch days? |
| maphop | Posted – 5/31/2006 9:23:26 AM | show profile While I hadn't heard of this within the e-zine or web writing world, it sounds like a trend that popped up within PR a couple of years ago and which has been discussed (with disgust) on this board; pay for placement either being offered by PR firms to clients eager to see their stories in the media or PR firms hiring freelancers to write stories about their clients and then "paying per placement" and counting on multiple placements to keep their client happy. In some regards, it's the PR/Media equivalent of a Ponzi scheme... |
| flipflap | Posted – 5/31/2006 9:45:42 AM | show profile Aren't about.com guides paid based on per page views? Or is that that added onto a gurantee? Not sure because I never looked into it. Anyway, as I recall the about.com model was the first instance of writers being paid per page views that I heard about. |
| westsidestory | Posted – 5/31/2006 9:58:53 AM | show profile I wasn't referring to pay-for-placement by PR companies (which does still happen, I understand). I mean real reporting compensated on the basis of traffic, such as click-throughs or page-views. The advantage to the content site is easy to see: they get up-to-the-minute content rather cheaply, and when the writer burns out they can just get another. The question is, is there any benefit to the writer? Can participating result in what Galleycat notes is called "platform?" Surely the money can't be that wonderful. |
| belinda | Posted – 5/31/2006 10:05:23 AM | show profile What you describe is not journalism. It's sales. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 5/31/2006 10:09:54 AM | show profile Only a very very very small percentage of writers who do this sort of thing develop any real following or develop a platform. Sure, you may be one of the lucky ones, but you probably won't be, and I wouldn't go into this based on the expectation of that happening. . < |
| westsidestory | Posted – 5/31/2006 10:51:24 AM | show profile anybody write for About? belinda, all journalism is "for sale." The question is whether the effort to create content for sites (instead of writing for a magazine, for example) is worthwhile as a gig. I'm not talking about pay-for-placement. Has anyone written for About.com? Or Gawker, and wants to weigh in? |
| questoo1 | Posted – 5/31/2006 10:54:37 AM | show profile im not a writer, so pardon my ignorance here...does writers pay have anything to do with the circulation of a publication in general? |
| westsidestory | Posted – 5/31/2006 11:28:59 AM | show profile (sigh) I'm beginning to dispair that no one knows what I'm talking about (except flipflap and dribble). To answer your question, youngster, a freelance writer's compensation from a publication is generally based on whim rather than circulation, and that's pretty much been true for print, and for publications that are print-and-web. Now, there are web-only "publications" that offer a different model: the freelance writer gets paid depending on how popular his or her material is. Online, it's trackable -- easy to see how many people have clicked on a news item or a feature. In this model, if four people click on the story you wrote, you get paid X. If 10,000 people click on the story you wrote, you get paid many times X, and a bonus if you hit the million mark, or something. The idea for this came from web advertising: advertisers pay not just to post an ad, but based on click-throughs or page views -- how many people actually "saw" the ad or clicked on a link to the sponsor site translates into how much the sponsor will, at the end of the week or month, pay for that ad. Since content sites are often supported by advertising, someone got the bright idea that content could be paid for by the same way. Some pay-for-performance deals give the writer a share of the ad revenue. Or allow the writer to sell ads around his or her content. Hopefully there are some pioneers out there who have run through the model and will share their information to us. We're all trying to learn -- and learning from other's mistakes (or triumphs) helps us all. |
| chucho | Posted – 5/31/2006 12:22:49 PM | show profile It doesn't sound like an accurate indicator of a specific writer's talents to just by how many people "click" your story. There are lots of factors that come into play, most notably the subject matter. (Since pornography seems to be the world's most popular web "content" I suppose the "pay for performance" thing would be good if I was writing about being "barely legal" or something, hopefully with pictures (which boosts page clicks automatically because the page shows up on image searches). But I'f I'm writing some arcane article about the Hohokam culture for Archaeology magazine, well then the "click through" standards better be relative to that specific area of content otherwise I'm going to porbably be paid LESS by that standard.) Besides, what makes you think "pay for perfornance" isn't just another way to get "suckered into being literary lettuce-pickers"? That makes no sense. You can be "picking lettuce" under that pay scheme, too. Money talks, period. I've had great per-column-inch gigs. I would be skeptical about being paid based on how many people Google the key words that appear in my story. I suppose it could be crafted to some logical system -- but, again, I think it would result in a subject-driven popularity contest that has little to do with a person's individual talents or merit. When I click on a story about Jennifer Aniston, I couldn't care less about what usually ends up being some schlocky puff piece of journalism that goes with the picture. I just wanna see what she's wearing in the accompanying pic. I think the Internet is a Big Thing -- but I think people are making it out to be the end of media as we know it, which it ain't. It's just anoter medium with (hopefully) many of the same rules -- particulary in terms of accuracy and sourcing and being paid a fair wage instead of thinking bloggers are going to make paying for quality work obsolete now that anyone can say anything and have a cheap way to publicize it. There's a lot of CRAP on the Internet. I still read "old school" forms of journalism to get facts. |
| SFElisaW | Posted – 5/31/2006 1:06:36 PM | show profile Paying for writing this way exists in a few other formats. Authors get a cut of their book sales through royalties. Resale outfits make revenue through sales of specific articles. If there was some way of ensuring that writers got the money for their work, I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing for service pieces -- ie travel, personal finance, how-to where online research is taking sales away from books. BUT I suspect that cheap web sites are using this as a carrot to dangle before writers to get them to contribute without them having to front the money. |
| Village Gal | Posted – 5/31/2006 1:35:52 PM | show profile But book authors at least get advances, so it's not the same thing. This pay per hit sounds like a dreadful idea from this writer's POV, but then again, I'm not starting out. The way I see it, takes the same amount of time to write the piece whether it gets 10 hits or 10,000. I would not work this way. |
| belinda | Posted – 5/31/2006 1:45:55 PM | show profile >>westside: belinda, all journalism is "for sale." << Journalism is journalism, and sales are sales, and ne'er the twain shall meet. Good journalism isn't a popularity contest. |
| df | Posted – 5/31/2006 1:46:54 PM | show profile I find it very dangerous. In any case, it doesn?t matter if it is PR, Writing or marketing pay linked to sales. In all cases the contractor doesn?t really get paid for his work, but for his performance which is influenced by factors the contractor doesn?t control. (e.g. how good is the web site marketed, google placement etc). In essence anybody who agrees to that kind of deal in any industry takes on the entrepreneurial responsibility without being able to participate in the gains, e.g. company gets bought by time warner, will that be shared with you too? The best example for the great unfairness of any of those deals is he marketing scenario: were people get paid if sales increase or get paid by a percentage of the sales. But: even the best marketing plan and execution doesn?t help, if you sales force is not up to speed. So one could do a great job, but never get paid. For the writer: if your article gets buried in the 10th sublink ? you are not getting any money, but the owner of the site gets content. So as long as you are not allowed to control the marketing of the site, the linking, the placement of you article and the surrounding (lead/in-out), don?t accept a deal like this. And if you are allowed to do all this, and you get millions of hits, why not open your own site and make ALL the money? |
| westsidestory | Posted – 5/31/2006 2:44:38 PM | show profile Platitudes are pleasant, but they don't pay the rent...belinda, forgive me, but it doesn't sound like you've ever worked in trade magazine publishing ;) Industry jokes aside, having to quantify one's audience might embolden some writers, and drive others to dispair. One of the reasons print media is struggling is that advertisers now balk at circulation claims that can't be backed up the way click-based web advertising can. Journalists who want to keep on getting paid have to at least be aware of trends. The posters who mentioned book sales and book royalties made some good points. Book publishing is very much a popularity contest these days, and navigating that environment isn't easy, either. |
| questoo1 | Posted – 5/31/2006 3:03:18 PM | show profile paradigms shift...just because this is not how you are used to working doesn't mean it can't or won't happen . If you were the one writing the checks I think your attitude would be a bit different. |
| activeverb | Posted – 5/31/2006 3:06:00 PM | show profile True. But with a web site you have to look at a lot of things. Have they created an audience awareness that will drive people to the site? (If not, why bother with them). Is there audience a good match for you? Is the cut they are offering reasonable? The trouble with this sites is there isn't a good business model yet. Magazines make money off ads and subscriptions. < If there was some way of ensuring that writers got the money for their work, I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing for service pieces -- ie travel, personal finance, how-to where online research is taking sales away from books. BUT I suspect that cheap web sites are using this as a carrot to dangle before writers to get them to contribute without them having to front the money.>> |
| chucho | Posted – 5/31/2006 3:35:38 PM | show profile >>> One of the reasons print media is struggling is that advertisers now balk at circulation claims that can't be backed up the way click-based web advertising can. <<< No offense, but you sound like a "new media guru" -- and I don't mean that as a compliment. I understand that Newsday ran into some trouble recently cooking its circulation numbers out on Long Island, but we know this happened precisely because in the US there is a reliable system on circulation stats, especially for subscriptions. I don't think you know what you're talking about. One of the reasons why I suspect this is because you don't seem to realize that it possible to cook web stats, too. In fact, I would argue that's it even easier. The web clearly plays a very important role in this industry, no doubt, but I'm skeptical about this thing about paying freelancers based on "clicks". For one thing, web stats aren't necessarily public information. Less scruputlous publishers could do all kinds of crap to shave points and shaft freelancers if it's all based on web marketing. It's not as democratic as you make it out to be. I can boost web traffic to any page of my website by simply posting more pictures of New York City and manipulating metadata and other stuff most freelancers don't want to know about. Also: I expect to be paid upfront, not later based on somebody's judgement on the popularity of the page that has my article on it. That reeks of an amateur's game. If you can lure quality work with this ponzi scheme go right ahead. Meanwhile, the rest of us will focus on getting into GQ and being paid like we've always been paid, and maybe getting a little extra for web re-publishing rights. |
| westsidestory | Posted – 5/31/2006 4:24:02 PM | show profile chucho, you make good points -- and I am well aware of how easy it is to manipulate traffic and even click-throughs (and I'm no guru at this). Unless one could view the web log stats, it seems impossible to me that a contributor could get an honest tally from their online publisher. Maybe that's why some let writers sell their own adspace -- but the downside is having to do the job of hustling their own sponsors. As for being paid up front, the only model that does seem to work is like Gawker's, where the writers are paid a base rate, then bonused on traffic. |
| cmohney | Posted – 5/31/2006 5:26:58 PM | show profile Years ago, I believe Salon was paying columnists based on pageviews. No idea if it was a straight calculation or a base/bonus model. Ultimately I think they backed off, but I have no idea if it was because the system failed or due to Salon's larger problems back then. Perhaps someone hereabouts was writing for them at the time and can comment. After I wiped all the moral indignation and pulpit-pounding off the screen, I noticed that no one apparently has any experience with any such pay system currently. If you can ease back on the reflexive freelancer paranoia and suspicion -- hey, I know what it's like, man -- I'd be curious if anyone out there has actually worked the pay-for-traffic angle. The obvious way to make a system more meaningful and fair would be to make it proportional and historical -- i.e., what traffic did your article attract vs. the rest of the site, and what traffic did your article attract vs. similar articles in the past (or your own work in the past). Thus, you don't compare the apples of Jennifer Aniston naked with the oranges of churcho's Hohokam archaeology. We're assuming for the sake of argument an honest site operator and verifiable numbers, of course. Personally, I suspect many writers hate this idea because they don't want to be confronted with stark, numerical proof of their work's lack of appeal. If there was a magical way for such statistics to be available for magazines, you can bet they would figure very heavily into editorial management and pay structures. Anyone who still thinks sales and journalism are separate should consider a (spiritually) rewarding career in philanthropy. |
| df | Posted – 5/31/2006 6:05:45 PM | show profile eventually everyone faces his/her work performance - if you don't attract readers you are not getting another gig. But the risk of trying a topic should be the publishers and not the employees. And I am the one who's writing the checks, and I have worked for trade magazine and I have accepted (and regretted) pay per clip deals for PR. And please: let's not even discuss selling ad space around your story. It is like a pyramid scheme. You want to write here? Bring all your friends and make them pay for ad space. Not to even talk about the separation of church and state or content and ads. So if I were a publisher I would be careful. Maybe one writer will have the brilliant idea of pre selling his piece to a major sponsor and then that corporate sponsor blasts the link to thousands of his clients and all click on it. hehe nice scheme, should try it myself. |
| cmohney | Posted – 5/31/2006 7:00:25 PM | show profile df: "But the risk of trying a topic should be the publishers and not the employees." I don't think this necessarily need be the case, especially if it makes publishers willing to try more topics and run more material. On the flip side, I wouldn't be happy to get paid zero, either. Perhaps a further tweak to an ideal system would be payment along an acceptable range. That is, based on historical traffic data, you're paid along a curve -- if your story craps out, you get a minimum amount; if it blows up huge, you get a commensurate bonus; if it does typical numbers, you get typical pay. Such a scale would cut off the bottom end (zero pay), but to be fair, would also need an upper limitation (so the publisher doesn't go broke paying your bonus because one of Matt Drudge's interns linked you). All this remains in the realm of pure speculation of course, until someone weighs in with real experience with a publisher paying (or not paying) according to traffic. |
| zinny | Posted – 5/31/2006 10:55:19 PM | show profile This doesn't make real sense as a business model--aren't the websites most interested in return visitors than people who click on and off one second later? So the devotees would sign up for the RSS feeds, and voila, you can no longer see how often those avid readers are reading...right? Maybe I'm missing some obvious tech aspect. I don't see how this could work to the writer's benefit--I mean if they're really that hot that they could make a living posting, they should just start their own blog and charge other people to advertise on it. |
| 101FENGSHUI | Posted – 6/1/2006 1:24:39 AM | show profile | email poster ALOHA WRITERS, WILL YOU BETA TEST FOR US DO YOU WANT TO TRY FENG SHUI? IT CAN IMPROVE YOU CARRER, WEALTH, FAME, AND GENUINE GOOD LUCK. THE DREAM JOB WILL COME IF YOU INTEND FOR IT TO HAPPEN AND ALL OF THE ELEMENTS IN YOUR ENVIRONMENT ARE IN PROPER ORDER. FENG SHUI WILL TEACH YOU THIS. WE ARE CURRENTLY SEEKING BETA TESTERS TO HELP UP REFINE OUR SITE. YOU WILL RECIEVE GOOD LUCK JUST BY REVIEWING WHAT WE WILL HAVE YOU TESTING. AN INTERACTIVE BLACK HAT FENG SHUI WEBSITE THAT WILL PRIVATE RELEASED IN JUNE. YOUR OPINION ON THE USER INTERFACE WILL BE RECOGNISED, AND WE THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR IT. YOU ARE THE 4TH PERSON WE HAVE INVITED TO OUR BLOG (POSTED LAST NIGHT) WE HOPE YOU HAVE THE TIME TO REVIEW, IT HAS BEEN PROOFED PROFESIONAL FOR PROPER ENGLISH. ALOHA FROM MAUI, HONG AI LI http://101fengshui.blogspot.com/ |
| flipflap | Posted – 6/1/2006 8:48:49 AM | show profile Ohmy news It was a toss-up whether to to post this here or on the future of the profession thread. There's a link on the morning newsfeed to a Guradian piece about IHT's deal to publish stories from Oh my, a citizen journalism site. I posted here because it says in the piece: "Contributors are currently paid small sums depending on the popularity and prominence of their article, but it is not yet clear whether those who are more widely syndicated will be paid more. It is believed that the Korean company is also in negotiations with a number of other media groups, and staff say it could help companies to achieve a wider geographic reach or cover subjects outside their normal area of expertise." "The Herald Tribune will also be able to use our stories from the World Cup," said Todd Thacker, senior editor. "We have citizen reporters in 89 countries, and we're expecting a mini tidal wave of stories from fans." I read an ad for this S Korean co- OH MY- awhile back. Basically it said they were going int'l and were looking for professional journos to edit the citizen journos. Now I guess it had something to do with this deal. Is this the tidal wave of the future? |
