April 19, 2006

abusive editors and meagre paychecks

Oh Jeez, here we go.

"Can Blogs Make Money?"
in The Wall Street Journal.

Blogs have a lot of buzz, but there's still considerable debate about whether that can translate into profits.

While many blogs remain little more than amateur diaries, several bloggers have tried to parlay their online ramblings into branded businesses. One, Jason Calacanis, co-founded Weblogs Inc., a network of blogging sites that was acquired last year by AOL. Mr. Calacanis has been an outspoken proponent of blogs as business vehicles, arguing that quality content can drive enough traffic to attract advertisers.

But longtime Internet entrepreneur Alan Meckler is skeptical. Mr. Meckler, who is chief executive of Jupitermedia Inc., believes that some blogs may achieve a measure of success, but doubts most blogs will be able to generate meaningful profits.

Sure, it's lovely to see Jason making all that money from Weblogs Inc [Full disclosure: I'm a big Jason Calacanis fanboy], but Mssrs. Calacanis and Meckler's debate just revolves around the argument that the only way to make money via blogs is through advertising, and only for a lucky few.

The other major way to make money with the blogging platform is to use it to market your Global Microbrand, like Thomas did with English Cut. That to me is far more useful to far more people, yet it gets no mention in the Journal article.

As I'm fond of saying, blogs are good for making things happen indirectly etc.

But journalists seem to have a problem getting their head around it. "Indirectly" is too foreign to them. They're too used to living in the "directly" universe:

Wake up. Commute to office. Write stuff. Take abuse from Editor. Collect meagre paycheck. Go home. Complain to long-suffering spouse about abusive Editor and meagre paycheck. Go to bed, sleep, wake up and repeat etc.

That's not what blogging is about, Guys. Blogging, at its best, is about freeing yourself from that crap.

[Bonus link:] The neuroscience behind Robert Scoble's new blogging policy.

Posted by hugh macleod at April 19, 2006 8:29 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Whilst people measure success by the amount of money in their bank account, I think you will be spending a lot of time explaining how using a blog can create much more 'value' for an individual.

I think the bloggers at Weblogs Inc. probably see the value of their work both in the money they earn, but more importantly in the freedom they enjoy.

Who wants to be stuck in traffic for three hours a day, to sit in an office you can't wait to get out of?

Posted by: Craig McGinty at April 19, 2006 9:39 AM

Yes Craig, words like "freedom" and "personal sovereignty" come into it.

Posted by: Hugh MacLeod at April 19, 2006 10:01 AM

Maybe the confusion really stems from the desire to get something for nothing… you know, quit your job, move to the sticks, get a high speed connection and then make *easy* money for just typing a bit and letting the ads fill your bank account.

Yeah, I don't see that working for everyone either.

It's that misconception about the easy part that keeps these stories going, I think. Not that blogging is *hard* exactly, but no matter how much you enjoy it, it does become work as soon as it takes off (or even sooner). If you put in a good deal of time, effort, networking etc (pretty much all the things you'd have to do in any entrpreneurial situation) then I think blogs can significantly contribute to your bottom line.

It's working for me. But I don't sleep much. And my work is what I want to be doing most days, so it's not a problem.

Blogging hasn't replaced what I do for a living, it's just made the living much more lucrative and rewarding.

Posted by: john t unger at April 19, 2006 11:29 AM

After passing the last 7 months hoping to make my first million off Adsense, I've realised you're right. The way to go isn't to suck up through advertising, the way to go is to build my own global microbrand.

Thanks for the inspiration and insights! I'll keep working on the Alvin Soon Global Microbrand :)

Posted by: Alvin at April 19, 2006 5:47 PM

Wait, it's not abusive editors and meager paychecks? Denton, can we have a word?

Posted by: Nick Douglas at April 19, 2006 7:04 PM

The people most poised to take advantage of advertising money have already been blogging for a while now. I say this not to discourage anybody, but if you do a job primarialy for the money, it's not likely to satisfy. I hope most bloggers continue to blog because they love writing and have something to say. When the blogspace fills with folks hoping to make money, we'll have a lot of crappy blogs filled with ads talking about things to buy. At that will be bad for blogs in general. I read blogs because I want to read the average joe's thoughts, not shill for a corporation.

Posted by: Mr. K. at April 19, 2006 7:42 PM

very good point that blogs can be an amazing marketing/selling tool for an offline revenue stream.... we should have included that in the debate!

Posted by: Jason at April 19, 2006 8:03 PM

Hugh, I think you hit this real well in your Gillmore Gang conversation.

I blog for Winc. not for the money but the exposure is awesome. (http://socialsoftware.weblogsinc.com is my gig with them)

Posted by: Marshall Kirkpatrick at April 19, 2006 8:03 PM

Hi Hugh...was poking around the blogosphere and came across this entry. Was going to write on it myself this afternoon, but you pretty much summed up everything I was going to say.

I really can't complain--blogging's been pretty good to me (I got to be on a panel at SXSW this year, editor of the Media Hub for Corante, made it to a bunch of conferences, met a lot of great people, chairing at another upcoming conference.) The money I make blogging, along with other freelance writing gigs, is enough for me to qualify for foodstamps and state-sponsored health care. How glamourous and exciting!

So you're right--blogging's an interesting way to get *somewhere*. For most of us, at this point, it's a vehicle, not an end destination.

Posted by: tish grier at April 19, 2006 9:26 PM

I listened to the Gillmore Gang thing as well. In the US, they are still very much rooted in the volume of eyeballs= value of ads on your site thing. But the indirect model does work - often for others as well - including the little guys who are trying to do new things: see: http://www.accmanpro.com/?p=713

Posted by: Dennis Howlett at April 20, 2006 3:49 AM

If Dennis hadn't shown up here, I would have pointed to him - check out his link if you haven't already - Dennis' blog is a commercial endeavour, but only because he is a thoughtful commentator on things that are important to him professionally, and the revenue-enhancing is mostly indirect.

Posted by: Ric at April 20, 2006 12:08 PM

It amazes me how slowly the paradigm is shifting. The Internet has given us a forum like none other in history. And here's how most people interpret it:

"Blogs? That's like magazines that you read on a computer screen? Do they charge for subscribers? No???? Well I don't know if they'll survive on advertising alone!"

Nobody realises that people are just contributing to the commons for the sake of getting information out there, improving the world, etc. People who do this will be recognized for their expertise and be rewarded appropriately. Those who are just in it for the money are doomed in the first place.

Posted by: Jesse Skinner at April 21, 2006 11:34 AM

Slow is good - gives everyone time to figure out this stuff - anyone who says they've got it bottomed is telling porkie pies. I don't think we've even begun to figure out the business models. Not by a country mile. Bonus: Go see Winer's interview with amanda Congdon at Rocketboom - I don't usually have time for him but on this occasion, he's bang on the money. IM (not very)HO

Posted by: Dennis Howlett at April 21, 2006 8:08 PM