Currently, the vast majority of people who post content to blogs, blogging communities and websites don't get paid. The owners of the site make the money from ad and sales commission revenues.
It could be different. Without losing much revenue, website publishers could share the wealth. Big sites like google.com, amazon.com, yahoo.com, ebay.com and others could help.
As a publisher of a website that publishes 300-400 articles a week, with plans to open more websites, my current model is, like most community websites, to not pay for content.
As a person who has made his living as a freelance writer, I know how tough it can be. As a publisher, when writers ask if I pay, I regretfully inform then that there's no money to pay them. But I wish I could and I've had a few software ideas that might make it viable without giving up much on my part. It might even help grow my site(s.)
So here's a suggestion to google, yahoo, ebay, and other web advertising sellers and vendors. I'm going to discuss it from the point of view of adsense, since I have adsense ads on my sites and since it is the biggest current ad program that I know of.
Make a version of adsense that allows sites with lots of members to share the wealth-- to let content contributing members earn part of the money earned by at least some of the google adsense advertising.
I've been wanting to this with the 8000+ members we have on our site, www.opednews.com,, and I would imagine that a lot of other sites might also be interested.
The idea is to reward users who provide content. I think this will build user loyalty and referrals. Even if content contributors don't make a lot of money, at least they know that they are honored and respected and valued enough to share revenues. And with the "long tail" of the web, they will know that their efforts will continue to reward them.
I assume this would work best with larger sites with a minimum number of page views and or users. But then again, with the sheer massive numbers of the web, it may just work for smaller sites too, especially if users can have accounts that pool revenues.
The way I envision this would work is a member who submits content is offered an opportunity to sign up with google adsense (or comparable yahoo or amazon or other programs.) Then, a second google adsense ad will be designated on the pages with content that member submits (diaries, articles, polls, events, quotations, etc.-- whatever creates a unique page. Comments probably could even have ads too.
The website owner will continue to reap revenues from the usual ads that have been on the site, but one ad (or more) on the page will be designated as a shared revenue ad, and when the java code is generated for that ad, it will grab the code for the partnership between the member and the website owner. An advantage for website owners is that revenue report stats can show the website owner which members/writers generate the most revenue, in terms of page views and income per click and per thousand pages.
My guess is that to make this work, google will provide code for website owners so they can sign up for the program. When they sign up, they'll get some code that enables new members to sign up for the program. And they'll get some code for putting the "member partner" ad into their page generation code and to be associated with each member's user ID, so members get credited by google (or whichever ad company) uses this model.
For any company that develops a project like this, it will probably mean millions of new partners, with a lot more user demographic information. It will also provide reasons for contacting those millions of new relationships, even if they don't get paid until some minimum payout fee (probably $25 or $50) is reached. It might work to offer payout in credits for buying digital items like advertising or added storage for email, etc.
While it might cost owners of websites some percentage of revenues, I think it will be made up for by member loyalty, and new member signups. To make it more interesting, add referral fees, so site owners and even members make a percentage from new sites and members they bring in.
It might be appropriate to reward publishers by setting things up so if an article is crossposted, on another site, there's a way for the re-printer to incorporate the user ID of the partner account of the original site the article was posted on, so cross posting pays the author, the first site publishing the content and the reprinter.
This seems to me to have the feel of web 2.0 or maybe even web 3.0.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
Yes, Rob, not only do you not pay, you regularly beg us to send YOU money. Being an amateur, and having a day job, I'm okay with not getting paid. I'm not sure I fully understand why professionals give their stuff away. The other advantage of paying is that attracting more articles would raise the bar and improve the level of content.
by
Robert Sargent (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 302 comments)
on Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 9:55:17 AM
We all know what Jeff Gollblum's character in Big Chill said about rationalizations.
Free is the price I pay for the privilege of opining through a letter to the editor.
After mulliing it over, I concluded that even though my local daily occasionally pays me for an op-ed, I also pay them $58 a year for their newspaper, and it's that reasonable/cheap, because I conned them into a discount because I pay in advance instead of monthly. The L.A. Times is a lot more expensive, so I read it for free online except for Sundays when I have it delivered.
It took a while before deciding to now and then make one of my hugely fabulous donations to the cause.
I prefer to think of it as being an investor, and if someday I get a dividend, it will be worth it.
S
by
Sandy Sand (133 articles, 0 quicklinks, 170 diaries, 1276 comments)
on Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 10:50:47 AM
begging if you like. I try to be very clear that we are a community that must be supported, just like a local fire department, where the fire fighters are also volunteers. The analogy is actually, quite apropos.
The problem is, the financial models for most sites do not include payment for writers. I'm trying to do something about it, trying to change the model, so writers are treated better. I haven't seen any other articles like this. And I published it with the hope that the idea will actually reach decision makers who can make it happen.
So go ahead, bitch about me asking for money to support this experiment. No-one has to give and giving doesn't curry favors. But, if we don't ask, (you call it begging) and if we don't do it repeatedly, the money doesn't come in. And we surely don't want to charge for access to the site. So I'll put up with being called a beggar. And yes, some of the people who work hardest on this website, as volunteers, give the most, even though nothing is expected of them, of anyone really, except those who are persuaded to support us.
At least I'm trying.
by
Rob Kall (762 articles, 3850 quicklinks, 321 diaries, 1642 comments)
on Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 10:05:23 AM
which is why I have not, yet, donated.. However, I look at it this way... If I, as a writer, want my writing to be seen, and the most widely viewed place for my writing to be seen is having financial trouble, then I would take it upon myself to ensure that my venue remains available..
In so much as I am able to do so... it is NOT JUST contributing money.. It is contributing the best, most interesting, most thoughtful commentary that separates quality from trash... It is up to us to ensure that we have the most thoughtful commentary that we can... this means we should always have thoroughly researched opinions... or at least be entertaining... ;-)
ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 511 comments)
on Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 10:27:53 AM
I've never made a cent as a writer, probably because that isn't my vocation. I'm an ex sales manager/trainer and Computer Technician. I've only received a GED, so I am self-taught - and write because I believe it is a necessity to get the word out to the world and country at large. None of my advertisements have ever placed a penny in my hand to date, and I pay for my own site with an income of $849.00 a month - the wonderful proceeds from Social Security Disability.
Ive noticed a terrible trend. The Smirking Chimp was running a banner that they were broke just a couple of days ago. People that are donating to Presidential Campaigns had better think about "how" we get their message out to the people - and start supporting the sites that have the courage to tell the truth - knowing that if things go the wrong way - we all face an uncertain future. And yes, that includes your personal liberty to those who have been as out-spoken as I and many others who contribute to your site.
The idea may work, but I believe targeting people with deep pockets is the only way to go, because from my perspective, it's appears that the average Americans who read these sites are experiencing financial difficulties themselves. Hell, I've had to pawn the title of my vehicle and my laptop is in the pawn-shop, soon to be lost -and I'm only disclosing this to present a point. Higher fuel costs have raised the prices on everything and people are experiencing hard times. If we don't keep these sites open, and rid ourselves of Bush and Cheney, god know what the future will bring.
William Cormier
by
William Cormier (117 articles, 5 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 292 comments)
on Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 10:45:33 AM
Don't ask me to repeat the details (wherein the devil always resides), but the idea of upping the ante for quality content and ideas grabs me by the... um... wallet.
You would definitely see more from me. Good writing and research takes time, and while some of have to write something now and then, for apparently genetic reasons, we also have to work at something else to keep body and soul in a unified condition.
If writing even helped to do that, and particularly if it generated that infamous artifact called "royalty," the quality of all websites would be greatly enhanced. We all worship the same god, and I'm afraid it's not necessarily The One they taught me about in Catholic school.
Thanks for thinking of us, Rob
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 58 quicklinks, 121 diaries, 681 comments)
on Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 10:50:45 AM
Dear Rob,
Your contribution in the field of journalism will be remembered forever as you have introduced new trend in the field. You have given voice to the poor people living in this world. You have a kind heart and this can be judged from the fact that you have been thinking of making payment to the writer. I prey your organisation may grow as this is in the interest of the whole community particularly the people living on Pak-Afghan border. Thank you very much Mr. Rob.
by
Muhammad Khurshid (286 articles, 31 quicklinks, 178 diaries, 145 comments)
on Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 10:54:23 AM
for scroll ability as we discussed. So, while adding features...how about popping for spell checking on comments and message center, especially comments. Possible?
Sandy
by
Sandy Sand (133 articles, 0 quicklinks, 170 diaries, 1276 comments)
on Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 11:02:51 AM
You have an amazing site here. Money will forever be a problem, regardless of the steps taken to solve it. Just look at the Federal Government.
You already have too many contributors to pay. It will be huge waste of time. Maybe if you could pay a select few, and then highlight them, and then rotate people in and out of the featured highlight, but I wouldn't bother.
The money system is broken, and it isn't going to be fixed with advertising revenue. In fact, advertising is a major part of what is wrong with the system. There is no room for thoughtful free speech because there is a glut of commercial speech. To pay people you have to take the money from somebody else. It's better if we all lived frugally instead.
Just focus on what's important, which is building a community with one vision.
The problem we have is that there is no one vision, even on this site. While you give a lot of people a voice, many of them are not listening, only speaking. The "neo-cons" etc will never be defeated unless their is a coherent intellectual rebuttal to the toxicity of fear and pride that they spread. They will not be "defeated" with a left-wing version of fear and pride, although they may be "replaced" with a left-wing version of it.
It would be far better if you could forge a coherent vision from this site, sans hate; at least that is what I have always hoped it would be. The easiest away to attract money is to give people what they want. Sex and hate sells best. Don't go there. Money is the pollution, not the solution.
peace
steve
www.behappyandfree.com
by
Steve Consilvio (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 75 comments)
on Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 11:22:17 AM
I've made enough off of writing to pay for my used computers over the years. Since you do not pay for published articles, then, by rights, an article still belongs to the writer. For those of us, who really don't write for room and board, then there are other motivators. I like your set up, because I don't have to worry about archiving my material.
You can copyright your entire site and the site arrangement, but you can't copyright a single, submitted article without paying a royalty. Without purchasing a first publishing rights, a writer can submit his/hers article to several sites at the same time.
I need to sell some more, old computers I have hords of, so I can donate money through PayPal.
ccharpman
by
Dale Hill (58 articles, 0 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 347 comments)
on Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 11:44:28 AM
I have very much appreciated the opportunity that opednews has given me to write edgy and truthful pieces. After I started here I adopted the model used by syndicated newspaper columnists used to reach the largest possible audience: they sell to as many newspapers as possible. On the Internet with a near infinite number of sites that fragments the viewing public it is necessary to publish on many sites to maximize readership. One site I discovered some time ago is associatedcontent.com; they publish a huge number of people on virtually any topic and THEY PAY. They clearly have revenue from advertising; they have two payment options: a small amount for exclusive articles (a few dollars) or a cumulative performance bonus for nonexclusive pieces that reflects the amount of readership of the articles - which I have found to be the better option; they pay monthly, but the amounts for me have been relatively small, less than $10 a month. They also run special promotions that provide an opportunity to make more money; I think I probably have received between $100 - $200 in the past year. WHAT I HAVE FOUND SATISFYING IS THAT I USE THIS INCOME TO GIVE DONATIONS TO WEBSITES THAT I FIND ESPECIALLY GOOD FOR WRITERS AND/OR THE NATION - including opednews. Clearly, Associated Content is a for profit business and I assume is making money despite paying writers.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (118 articles, 22 quicklinks, 54 diaries, 472 comments)
on Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 12:01:18 PM
I think Rob does a great job and understand how much time and effort he spends on this site. I make my living writing mostly for newspapers and a few books, and am fine with occasionally contributing something to this site without payment.
This concept Rob details is interesting. Perhaps it could be something like the ebooks do as a pay per view effort for the well-researched, standout articles that breaks something no one else has, making it a real small sum to view such an article that is really outstanding. But I'd suggest keeping most free.
by
Jackson Thoreau (25 articles, 0 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 21 comments)
on Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 12:02:46 PM
Rob, I’m going to repeat some of what you’ve already read.
First, I don’t understand the plan as well as I’d like to understand it. I’m 5’2” tall, so it isn’t difficult for something to go “over my head”. As was mentioned, however, maybe I’ll understand it better as time goes on.
I’ve been paid for some of my writing and my music, but my wife is still working to put food “on our family”.
I, too, am disabled so I appreciate the fact that you allow me to spend some of the time when I’m actually useful to help with editing and to write an opinion piece that I know will be published. I can’t ask for anything more of you.
I’m sort of old to become rich and famous with my opinion pieces and being a teen-age rock n’ roll star would involve yet another sequel of “Back to the Future”.
So I write to help people who, as you said in one of your articles, are “suffering from lamestream media addiction and chronic true media dietary starvation”.
There is a contractor doing some upgrading of my humble abode and he’s sort of a redneck type, or he was, at least. He’s a busy man and barely has time to get home and watch the lamestream media. But that’s where he was getting his news until he started working on my home. That’s just one person, but it’s one person who’ll start reading OpEdNews and getting alternative angles on the official stories (and so many truly are stories).
If I do that with my writing, if I change one mind or even enable a mind to allow alternative input, I’ve done my job.
I bet that contractor will now approach his dialogue with his buddies in a different way and, if someone reads my stuff, that person my also talk to friends and relatives.
One last thing. I’ve submitted articles, mostly opinion pieces, to CommonDreams and Antiwar.com. Neither has ever accepted anything I’ve written and CommonDreams doesn’t even take the time to acknowledge that they received my submissions.
I’m not the 21st century’s answer to Bill Shakespeare, I realize. But I’ve seen writing on CommonDreams.org by people who have become well known, I won’t mention any names because I actually admire some of these people, that wouldn’t pass a middle school composition test. It’s grammatically horrible. Some of these people are very passionate and don’t ever come close to breaking new ground. They bitch and moan about the same things, over and over again, and they do it poorly. They obviously have personal agendas and their writing surrounds those personal agendas each and every time. However, CommonDreams will automatically print what these people write because of who they are.
You accept almost anyone with an opinion piece, maybe a piece that exposes in a new and refreshing manner what’s been hashed and rehashed over and over again. Maybe this op ed piece will create epiphanies in the minds of readers.
I’m with those who say keep doin’ what you’re doin’. People need to read stuff by good writers even if those writers happen to be their neighbors. Maybe especially if those writers happen to be their neighbors.
To friendship, Michael Bonanno
by
Michael Bonanno (72 articles, 18 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 123 comments)
on Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 12:39:19 PM
Interesting article, Rob, which addresses a fundamental problem of Internet freelance writership: websites cost money and little is left over to pay authors. However, it's not as bad a deal as you might think, because the tremendous opportunity for exposure which the Web gives you makes up in large part for the dearth of compensation.
This does require patience; after having published a dozen articles in more than 100 locations online, I am still waiting for one of them to catch the eye of a prestigious editor or publisher.
I deal with this issue by using a combination of free-market intelligence and wide web exposure: I prefer to first sell my newly written articles to high-quality paying magazines and websites, then republish them for free on sites such as Political Cortex and OpEdNews. Another thing to think about is that the particular outlet in which your work appears can be as important or more important to your future career as a handsome check.
Rob, your article certainly proposes an interesting idea, but something tells me the big website and advertising corporations are not going to go for it. For many years now, the unfortunate trend not has been in the direction of sharing wealth but of concentrating more and more of it in the bank accounts of mega-corporate leaders. The big companies won't do anything that might chip away at their income--and if they tried the scheme you propose, they could very possibly find themselves losing billions of dollars as millions of people around the world jump at the opportunity to earn a few bucks (Euros, yen, rupees, etc.) by writing about whatever they want to.
My opinion is that, by how well we write and strategic marketing practices such as selectivity in choosing outlets, we average American freelance writers more than magazines and website developers should determine the future of the profession. In other words, let's use the free-market to undermine the control of the mega-corporations.
by
Justin Soutar (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 25 comments)
on Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 1:04:07 PM
I agree with Rob Sargent that this is a clever, if unreliable way to generate revenue for writers. But, in the final analysis, the only way to lose weight is to push the plate away, and the only way to pay writers is to open your checkbook, and write a check. All major newspapers distinguish between "staff" or regular contributors, and those who contribute the occasional op-ed piece. Writers who regularly publish on a Web site deserve compensation... period....there are no shortcuts, or ways to evade that. Maybe some writers will get clever enough to develop their own Web sites, and grow rich off the labor of others.
by
Jayne Lyn Stahl (168 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 64 comments)
on Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 2:03:51 PM
As always you speak the truth. What's most amazing is that there's one site on the web - some kind of search engine - that takes my writing (probably yours, too) and then attempts to charge me to read my own work. They're housed in DC. I don't remember the site right now. I'd have to google myself to find it again. I contacted them to find out why I had to pay to read MYSELF and why they had the right to charge others to read my work with NO compensation to me. They cut me off. I'm still investigating.
These are issues that need to be addressed more at writers' conferences. Right now, internet writing is like the wild wild west. Lots of unchartered territory. Lots of unanswered questions.
