|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: January 27, 2003 Briefing for a descent into heck (v-2.org) -- "if you're writing for the Web, there will sooner or later come a time of reckoning. Very, very few people are capable of cranking out insightful, articulate, even moderately well-researched prose without some return on the investment in time and effort. Sooner or later, many of us are going to have to pass the hat."
Reader Comments...
v-2
I have made direct donations as well as gone out of my way to make amazon-affiliate purchases through various sites. Donations I remember: I remember having made amazon purchases through Tomalak's Realm, useit, and Talking Points Memo. (Sometimes this is significant -- I bought >$300 in DVD's through the last site.)
That's right, you asked about non-profit sites. Blogs are not non-profit. That term has legal meaning in the United States. If you're really asking about freebie sites, the answer is still "no." They publish for free out of their own self interests. We tag along. That's the deal. If you want money for your blog, you're mutating into a different beast. Posted by: Simon Says on January 27, 2003 11:38 AM
Personal blogs for a fee? Let's take this senerio here... we have all walked the streets of downtown and at some point or another were handed some flyer by someone who may have even appeard less then presentable... you do one of a few things: What's the difference between all of these? #1 says it's not worth even your time, #2 says it's not worth your thought, #3 says it's not worth thowing away, #4 says it'snot worth keeping, #5 says it's worth keeping until you get home and empty your pockets... then you throw it away. When is the last time you have seen an artist properly respected and compensated for their work? I am not talking about the kind of artist that can afford space at a gallery. In a way, words are like art if not one of the same. You can get art anywhere you want, some places don't even charge you... beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it's up to you to determine what is worth it. Posted by: Nick Finck on January 27, 2003 03:53 PM
Most of the people who hand out flyers are paid to do so, or are tied to their promotion through family, friend or religious affiliation. A better example is a street performer playing a banjo. 1) Walk by and smile or make eye contact Do bloggers see themselves as money-driven street performers? Or are they more like Mr. Suburb, who covers his house and front yard with a wild Christmas light display for the mere pleasure of creating the presentation and knowing people will see it? (and with no expectation that people will give him money for his presentation) What drives bloggers? Instead of paying street performers, I give to a local food/housing non-profit organization because it does the most good in the most efficient and effective manner. Likewise, if I ever give money to a blogger, it will be a major web site that provides an outstanding (well above and beyond the call) service to me or my community. So far I have not encountered a worthy blog.
Wedge, that's a nasty case of cynicism you seem to have contracted there. What drives *this* blogger - assuming I meet your definition of same - is the wish to make connections between folks who might not otherwise be aware of each others' work, and occasionally to make some small contribution to the evolving user-experience discipline. That's it. The positive feedback, the raised personal profile, all of that stuff: it's truly wonderful, and I admit to enjoying it greatly, but it's not why I do it. I doubt it's why Christina Wodtke does it, or Fabio Sergio, or Dan Hill, or any of the people whose work has been so influential on me. And money? I'll tell you what, Wedge, me boyo: when servers are free, and UPS's come in cereal boxes, and bandwidth is given away, and oh yes, when my time no longer has an opportunity cost, well then, I'll take that whorish, unworthy "Support" page down. Posted by: Adam on January 27, 2003 06:55 PM
Would you blog alone in a forest with no one around -- ever -- to read your blog? If not, then you're #2, influenced by the fact eyeballs see your blog. As for money, the trade-off in asking for money in exchange for your blog is that you alter the entire dynamic of the experience. Which one are you? A) Playing a flute in the park B) Playing a flute in the park with a hat out for accepting money C) Playing a flute in a concert hall If you're A) playing flute in the park (presumably for your own enjoyment and/or those around you), well... you paid money for that flute, and spent a lot of your time to learn and practice the flute, maybe even paid for flute lessons, and your time spent in the park certainly has a cost. Blogger A) eats the personal cost out of personal interest. You are not A). You are like the street performer. Don't try to sounding lofty. If you ask for money, you are asking for something in return for your time and expense. Your hand is upturned as I pass you on the street. Your hat is on the ground asking me to toss coins inside. If you truly are lofty, then espouse a philosophy such as careware.
FWIW, the approach at This Modern World to those who want to give to the site was to link to a genuine charity (a pet shelter in Park Slope). Posted by: Frank on January 27, 2003 09:20 PM
"CareWare"? Very nice. *Please.* I'm not lofty. I am most definitely not a saint. I *am* implicated in precisely the same late-capitalist structure as everyone else here, which is to say: - I have tax obligations. Now, I happen to be a reasonably good writer. Some people enjoy the things I write. I can guarantee you that any one of my better essays is a greater contribution to the field in which I work than my site maps or user personae or competitive-site audits, which are competent and well-considered, but nothing earth-shaking. Why then can I expect to be paid $300 an hour for producing the latter, without question, but even implying that the former has some kind of value makes me a panhandler? Should I forego those things that are "merely" desires? Should I pretend that I don't believe what I manifestly do, which is that showing meaningful appreciation for favors received is civilized behavior for adults? If I stay over your house, I take you out to dinner or buy you something off your wishlist by way of saying thanks. If I get some real and valuable insight from something you've written, I will attempt to do much the same. There's no difference to me; making concrete displays of gratitude is important to me, and there's something wrong in your calculus if you suggest that such exchanges should have no place in the formation of a community. Indeed, reciprocal indebtedness is part of how people have always come to constitute a community in the first place. And what's still more offensive to me is that you're making this assertion while hiding behind a cheesy screen name. There's nothing on the line for you, is there? Posted by: Adam on January 27, 2003 10:48 PM
Adam, if you think so lowly of street performers that says something about you, not me. By the way, a street performer is not a "panhandler." I'll disregard the many other implications you've made about my writings as they are not related to my words. I didn't say your support page was "whorish, unworthy," or that you are a panhandler, or any of your other silly implications. You are a master of persuasion, in the Platonic sense. The truth in my words remains despite your personal feelings or displeasure in not knowing my identity. Posted by: Wedge Antilles on January 28, 2003 12:00 AM
Unworthy: "So far I have not encountered a worthy blog. " There's no truth in your words, merely valuations. And I find those valuations juvenile. Posted by: Adam on January 28, 2003 04:35 AM
This thread, while amusing, is getting a bit personal. Keep the flames down please. Much appreciated. Posted by: John S. Rhodes on January 28, 2003 07:19 AM
Interesting. I made a comment about the blogosphere in general and you took it personally. Interesting. Posted by: Wedge Antilles on January 28, 2003 11:27 AM
Wedge, "getting a bit personal" does not mean I am personally upset or offended. In fact, I like to see the banter and appreciate the conversations. Also, what is "interesting" exactly? I'd like to have some clarification because now I am curious. Posted by: John S. Rhodes on January 28, 2003 01:26 PM
My last message was in reference to Adam's citing my sentence -- "So far I have not encountered a worthy blog." -- as evidence for my inferring his support page is "whorish" and "unworthy." I found it "interesting" that (because I have not yet encountered a blog I want to give money to) a person would infer I was calling a specific web site "whorish" and "unworthy." Those are strong words that are not supported by my commentary. I thought we were discussing issues in the academic sense, dealing with ideas and theories about the web. For example, to claim that a reason people produce web sites is for eyeballs or money is merely my observation -- neither good nor bad. I didn't say feedback/exposure (eyeballs) or money were evil. If people take differing opinions personally then perhaps this is not the place for me. Posted by: Wedge Antilles on January 28, 2003 02:36 PM
Oh fer cryin' out loud. You can dish it out, but you sure can't take it, can you? You show up anonymously, post a bunch of snide and judgmental comments, disingenuously claim to not understand why they might irritate, and then complain that you've been taken out of context? I don't think so. Nothing is "academic." We're talking about blogs - about ways of sharing information that are by their very nature extremely personal. Every insight you or I can offer on this subject hits someone close to home, and to pretend otherwise is where your sophistry lies. Posted by: Adam on January 28, 2003 08:53 PM
For a web site that comes so highly recommended, I'm surprised to find this level of discourse. I'll stick to chi-web where insults are not commonplace. Posted by: Wedge Antilles on January 28, 2003 10:36 PM
"For a web site that comes so highly recommended..." 1. Who recommends WebWord? 2. My guess is that it is recommended because of the news that is posted, not necessarily the comments that are posted by readers. Then again, I enjoy posting news to WebWord and I really enjoy reader comments. I'm addicted to my readers. (I never really thought of it this way, but it is true.) 3. This is a pretty open forum and people are encouraged to say what they want to say (for the most part). Perhaps the comments should be treated like porn...if you don't like it, don't read it. :-) That's pretty catchy actually -- "WebWord: The Porn of Usability" 4. "I'm addicted to my readers." + "WebWord: The Porn of Usability" = I'm addicted to porn? 5. Watch, since I mentioned "porn" a few times in this posting, I'll get a bunch of Google traffic in a couple of days or weeks. That'll be a hoot. Posted by: John S. Rhodes on January 29, 2003 09:17 AM
I'm still trying to figure out how this thread escalated into "personal attacks"; sorry Adam, but I think you got Wedge wrongo. Were we reading the same post? Wedge's original post was completely non-acusatory, and pointed out that he (from a purely personal point of view) had not encountered a blog that made him want to pay the writer for their contribution to the blogoshere. Fair enough. He posited that there were a number of reasons that people write blogs. I took this to mean that these were a range of reasons that someone might blog. I don't think Wedge suggested that all of these reasons applied to every blog. From Adam's own responses, he sounds like a self-admitted "#2" and "#3" -- in a good way! There are still some good observations in this thread. Lets get back on track. Che
Che, it's possible. Indeed, it's possible that I take most things too personally. I will admit to having a hard time taking seriously the insights of someone who posts under the name of a minor Star Wars character, however. Again, my issue. Back on topic, "Wedge" has his criteria for contributing to an independent content site, and they appear to be pretty stringent: significantly "above and beyond." But I have to ask, "above and beyond" what, precisely? What's the standard we're looking at? You shell out, what, $3 or $4 for a copy of just about any newsstand magazine, and how well are they written? How much of the content are you able to take with you into your daily life? Remember that people are asked to pay the same for the Economist and the New Yorker that they are for People. Folks pay $8.95 for eminently disposable airport novels, generally destined to provide reading material for the duration of a single flight. These frequently feature stock situations, paperthin characters, awful dialogue, hamfisted exposition...but that's what they go for. A new hardcover book is going to run you $25 or $30 these days, despite the fact that the content is identical with the paperback edition - possibly a little fresher, since there's generally some lag in releasing the paperback. But you know what? Tens of thousands of people bought Michael Crichton's Blur despite the fact that they had already read it, when it had the title "Jurassic Park" (and "Rising Sun," and "Terminal Man," etc. etc.) So just how far above and beyond this standard does a solo operator on the Web have to forge before they are found deserving of even a dollar or two? Mind you, we're even talking about a voluntary contribution, not a cost-of-entry. And online content is so much more useful than printed matter! It can be instantly emailed to an arbitrary number of contacts, indexed, cut-and-paste, searched, and even rendered into ink on paper should that form prove more convenient to the user. No, we're looking at a double standard here, plain and simple, and one I find a little spoiled. Maybe it's because we've sloppily used the term "blog," and therefore implied that the content in question is something on the order of "what I ate and drank after my date on Thursday night," etc. But we're talking about WebWord, too, and all the other independent, content-offering Web entities. Posted by: Adam on January 29, 2003 09:23 PM
Good points Adam. We place very different economic values on intellectual property in different media. Why? I will often buy a newspaper, despite the entire issues' content being available online for free. What am I paying for? In one sense, I am paying the $1 it costs to cut down trees, make newsprint, print words on it and transport the words to the newsagent. We are not paying for the writing (well, not more than $.001 per paper, knowing what journalists get paid.) But in other media, there is very little relationship between the production cost, and the price charged (Movies? CDs?) "Information wants to be free" is of socio-political significance, but economic nonsense. Writing requires time and effort; it has an opportunity cost, and hence, has an economic cost. If you don't charge for your writing (and it has value to others), you are simply giving your labour away. So why should intellectual labour be given away for free when in one medium, when no-one expects it to be free in another? Posted by: Che Tamahori on January 29, 2003 10:33 PM
Che, the relationship between the price of a newspaper and its production is not direct. Yes, often the costs are similar, and publishers sometimes even draw the correlation, but when advertising revenue is down, the purchase price goes up. Your money gets stirred into the same pot with advertising revenue to pay for printing + salaries + distribution + miscellaneous costs. As for your question... People expect online content to be free simply because that's how it has been offered from the start and the situation has persisted for years. Plus, given the ease of individual publishing (blogs, etc.), there is a content glut. I welcome online subscriptions insofar as they will help separate the wheat from the chaff. This weeding already exists in the print world. I buy People magazine because it dishes the dirt really good. How many magazines are there like People? Very few. For a good reason. How many celebrity news and fan web sites are there? Thousands. How many would there be if they depended on subscriptions? Very few. For a good reason. A publisher with poor content will have few subscriptions and therefore few people referring the publisher to friends and colleagues. Poor subscription sites will be pushed into Google's bottomless pit. Living with free web sites means living with content glut. Some of us are willing to pay to rise above the fray by reading a handful of high quality web sites. Jonathan links to a bunch of blogs and other sites, as do most bloggers. Suppose half of those sites charged a subscription. Not freebie enticers for a paid report like Jakob, but real subscriptions. No pay, no play. Would Jonathan still link to all those sites? No, just the ones he considers worth the money. Posted by: Flaming Drag Queen on January 30, 2003 11:34 PM
Flaming Drag Queen, just for clarification my name is John, not Jonathan. (Good posting, by the way.) Posted by: John S. Rhodes on January 31, 2003 11:14 AM
Sorry Johnny, I meant no imposition. Posted by: Flaming Drag Queen on January 31, 2003 12:47 PM
After a quick, unbiased read, I think Adam took Wedge's comments personally, when he did not intend them to be. The moral? Communication is so much more than the words we use. Posted by: boysen on January 31, 2003 03:28 PM
boysen, while that may be so, I will also say that I have a hard time taking folks seriously when they post under assumed identities or stoopit screen names. While I prefer to believe that we all evaluate ideas on their merits rather than their origin, that's not always the case. So when I see someone take advantage of the self-authentication ability that's been provided them here to comment from anonymity, or a moniker like Flaming Drag Queen, I have to question their sincerity. This may be an old-fashioned habit, but if you really believe in what you say, I expect you to stand by it with the full force of a verifiable identity. Otherwise, it's just noise in the channel to me. Posted by: Adam on January 31, 2003 07:51 PM
Adam, I'm sorry you're not man enough to look past my mascara and take my comments on the economics of web publishing seriously. Your loss. Posted by: Flaming Drag Queen on January 31, 2003 09:15 PM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |