Compensation for bloggers and other new media producers. Simply reading that statement will give some a severe case of the shudders. It's dangerous territory as evidenced by the Amanda Marcotte/Melissa McEwan/John Edwards affair and Wal-Mart committing the most egregious example of astroturfing to date.
Where is the line? It's out there but do we really know when we cross it? Sometimes it's fuzzy as in the case of Amanda Marcotte. Sometimes it's quite clear as in the case of Wal-Mart. And sometimes, we haven't even seen it yet as in the case of dealing with the traditional media.
Murray Grevious, MIS Manager for Creative Loafing, recently stopped by to discuss some of the issues facing the cautious courtship between new and old media. This exchange led to further discussion via email resulting in Murray asking me if I would pose a few questions to the new media community of Atlanta.
Ironically, in the simple act of asking, Murray forced me to search for the line myself. By doing free research for a traditional media outlet, would I become their tool? Am I really exploring issues in the new media world or acting as a front for an admittedly quirky but still corporate entity?
In the end, it is a judgment call and I believe the request is honest and forthwright. Part of the evidence being Murray allowing me to attribute the idea for this experiment directly to him. Also, I believe the issues are vital to continuing the conversation begun at Podcamp Atlanta and continued elsewhere. This is a Rubicon we must eventually cross, so let's all start wading together.
Let's not waste time and start with the big ones.
Should a blogger be paid for providing content to a traditional media outlet?
What about managing a traditional media outlet's blog or blogs?
What about commentors? Would it be acceptable for traditional media to provide occasional token of appreciation (movie tickets, gift certificates) to those that regularly keep the conversation going?
At what point is the line crossed and the new media persona is inexorably tangled by the corporate web?
Most importanly, what other dangers lurk? What other concerns should we as the new media have and what dangers do the old media not even see?
Get the conversation going, people! This is one time I guarantee they are listening.
11 comments:
Ironically, in the simple act of asking, Murray forced me to search for the line myself. By doing free research for a traditional media outlet, would I become their tool? Am I really exploring issues in the new media world or acting as a front for an admittedly quirky but still corporate entity?
I'll have more on everything else later, but regarding this point, disclosure is the distinction between shilling and forwarding discussion. I think it's fine to sell or act on behalf of someone so long as you disclose that relationship. Then the reader/listener/whatever can decide whether they want to engage in a conversation on those terms or not.
For example, many sessions at PodCamp were run by people representing companies that had a vested interest in people getting excited about one technology or another. They were there to pimp their wares, no doubt, but since they disclosed their relationship ahead of time, few people complained. Most people just choose to go to another session if they feel like they're in an infomercial rather than an honest discussion.
Hello... this is America!!! Where we love capitalist pursuits and wealth and rich people and developers and all that shit. Of course we should be paid to freakin' open our mouths. Hell, I'd start me up a "security consulting" firm of steroid-ridden mercenaries and ship 'em all off to Iraq if I could get the government contract to do so. Sure beats blogging for a living.
Well, mercenary is an interesting, possibly inadvertant, analogy.
What other concerns should we as the new media have...
Transparency, as Rusty has touched on above, and other attention to basic journalistic ethics. Rebecca Blood's six principles seem like a good guide for DIY media.
Should a blogger be paid for providing content to a traditional media outlet? Certainly. I do. I am a freelancer writer. I got to eat. So Atlanta Magazine came along and said, hey, would you like to blog for us? I had written for them before, which was why they came to me. I turn my stuff in on time. I try hard. So, I agreed.
My blog is called Peachtree Screed -- http://www.atlantamagazine.com/blogs/blog.php?blog_id=1
I agreed to a contract that pays me a set fee (not enough!) for the blog and for writing a print column once a month. I make no secret of this agreement. The moment I put up the blog, Dana Blankenhorn was on me, asking if I was being paid. I said yes, disclosing it on the blog. Being open and transparent is vital. Before I started blogging for the magazine, I was not blogging on my own, so that wasn't an issue. On a bigger scale, Kevin Drum was a California blogger. Washington Monthly hired him to blog for them fulltime. I do it parttime, so I work elsewhere. I write for other magazines. But I don't do any blogging anywhere else, other than commenting on some blogs. I do corporate work, too, such as annual report writing. But, just today, I got a feeler from a political organization. I made it clear that I would consider doing paid political work to be an absolute conflict of interest for me. Although I freely identify myself as a Democrat with Libertarian leanings, I wouldn't feel right getting paid to do political work on the side. So I don't do that. I do some volunteering, however. I am a volunteer member of the board of directors of Georgia Watch, a consumer group where my son used to work and which fights payday lending. I blog about payday lending. As soon as I joined, I disclosed on my blog that I am a board member. As for being a "paid" blogger, I do try to take part in stuff like Podcamp and have gotten to know a lot of great bloggers in the process.
Good stuff Doug. Thanks.
What I find interesting here is the potential culture clash. Doug, you gave some good examples of where it worked but I can think of several where the blogger was hired and then almost immediately resigned or fired.
It seems to be such an obvious marriage. Bloggers have the knowledge of the environment. Media has the money. But usually when you get the two together it becomes a situation of "I'm paying you and you will do it my way". The big question for me is how loose is the leash and what does a blogger or commentor do when its yanked?
My gut reaction to each of the questions posed:
Should a blogger be paid for providing content to a traditional media outlet?
Yes, but the relationship should be treated like any other freelancing gig and disclosed as such. If a blogger provides tips to traditional media outlets that should also be treated and disclosed the same way that any such tips were treated pre-web 2.0
What about managing a traditional media outlet's blog or blogs?
It's a job, like any other. There's no reason that hiring an existing blogger to run a corporate blog should be any different than hiring someone who's never heard the word blog before. Treat them the same as you would any other new hire.
What about commentors? Would it be acceptable for traditional media to provide occasional token of appreciation (movie tickets, gift certificates) to those that regularly keep the conversation going?
This is where it gets murkier. I think the issue here is it has to be content-neutral meaning that if you choose to do such "tokens of appreciation" they have to be equally available to commentors regardless of what they comment about or whether it is positive or negative. It's when it starts to look like the drooling fanclub gets the perks that you develop a problem. But generally I don't see the point of rewarding commenting since if you are doing things right, there will be plenty of interesting discussion generated by your publication without the need to reward those who stoke the fires.
At what point is the line crossed and the new media persona is inexorably tangled by the corporate web?
As soon as it starts to look like the corporate web is driving the content of so-called new media. This is why any encouragement of new media activity on a corporate website needs to be content neutral and avoid any appearance of drumming up the mere illusion of interest from the bloggerati.
Most importanly, what other dangers lurk? What other concerns should we as the new media have and what dangers do the old media not even see?
The public may not be able to but hardcore bloggers can smell a lie or a scheme like a fart in a car. If it's less than 100% independent, authentic and above board, someone will sniff it out and make a stink about it. Better to stay ahead of the curve on being open and honest about such relationships than to get caught looking like you tried to pull a fast one. Just a general maxim for any corporate entity looking to engage the new media to their benefit.
Griftdrift, Thanks. One thing I would add is that because I had a long-standing relationship with the magazine, they left me completely on my own. They don't tell me what to write or edit me in any way. In six months, I haven't been edited and I've only taken down one comment, which I felt was clearly libelous. And the magazine has only asked me to blog about one story -- about a woman who was losing her house and was making a plea for immediate help. (The magazine has almost a three month lead time for print stories.) I have a good bit of editorial freedom.
NEWS FLASH FROM VON:
Required viewing here:http://vergenewmedia.com/?p=23
Some amazing comments and statements made, on video, on this very topic, leading me to start thinking a little bit harder, a little bit deeper, about the "little guys" needing to "band together."
Hmmmmmm. Much to ponder:
http://vergenewmedia.com/?p=23
Sorry to be tardy in making comments.
I am very interested in this discussion and tend to agree with much of what has already been written. I am less inclined to favor paying bloggers unless, like Mr Monroe, they have other experience that qualifies them. I just have seen so much BS on blogs over the years that I am wary of the credibility that tends to go along with a paid gig.
That said, I am quite sure that the future will hold some kind of paid gigs for some of the more talented folks in the blogosphere/podosphere/vlogosphere.
To me, disclosure is key.
I think Sara makes an excellent point about commenters. If you build it, and build it well, they will come...
My post from yesterday hasn't shown up so forgive me if you see two similar posts from me.
I'm glad to see that there seems to be a consensus that paying a freelancer to maintain and manage a blog for us is fine. I agree with full disclosure. There would also have to be some kind of vetting process. The things I'm thinking of are:
Does the person have a current blog
Does the person have an active network of other bloggers
Does the person have a journalism background - This wouldn't be a deal killer but it would be a plus
I'm interested if you guys have any additional items to add to the vetting process.
The purpose of giving frequent commenters a little swag is show appreciation for the time and effort they put in. The swag - Gift Certificate, Spot on the home-page, T-Shirt, etc... would be to express our appreciation to them for using us as their vehicle. We (Creative Loafing) need to have more outside voices in our content and we should show appreciation to those that do it on a regular basis. If that also encourages them to continue using us It's a win-win. We would also use full disclosure with this. Each time we gave away anything we would post it.
Post a Comment