7 comments

• 

  Felix

  1 year ago

  Hi Matthew -- I take it you've seen my latest 2,500 words on the subject, so I won't reprise them all here. One very minor point: the pay rate was $6.50, not $6.75.
  
  But to Jay's point, Denton's model does reward posts which perform well over time. Your total pageviews are for all your posts, no matter when they were written. And for sites like Lifehacker, old posts can make up a large part of your income, if they have legs.
  
  And the model rewards the generation of reader loyalty, too. If you write one post which lots of people like, you get lots of pageviews, once. If you write a series of posts which generate reader loyalty, you get lots of pageviews, every day. Which is much more lucrative.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  I stupidly didn't even check to see if you had written anything on it, Felix -- I should have known that you would have. And an excellent analysis of the situation it is.
  
  As you note, some of the pain Denton is experiencing right now is a result of setting the pageview rate too high to begin with -- and some is a consequence of the Gawker model, where better performing blogs help subsidize newer ones (an approach many traditional media outlets also take).
  
  Thanks for pointing out the price mistake, which I will fix, and for noting that the Denton approach does already go some distance toward answering some of my and Jay's issues with search and loyalty. I appreciate you taking the time to comment.
  reply
• 

  Daniel Gibbons

  12 months ago

  "If you're a blogger at an established site like Gawker, it's quite obvious that for every dollar you make in bonus pay, Denton has made much more in terms of extra advertising revenue. You really earned that dollar. But then, at the end of the quarter, Denton pushes your income back down to its base rate, and spends the excess advertising revenue not on you, any more, but rather on his newest properties - properties which, if and when they start making money, will benefit him but not you. If I were in such a position, I'd think that Denton should fund new blogs out of his profits and not out of my bonus: after all, they're his new blogs, not mine."
  
  To me this line from Felix Salmon's article is a classic example of the misplaced belief common in the blogosphere that it's somehow a democratic environment in which perceived unfairness will be corrected. The truth is Denton has done what is really the only thing you can do to make money from writing these days -- he's assumed the role of the aggregator and the distributor, not the author. He's built brands that attract a growing audience, and created a structure in which he benefits from the "marginal cost of x trending to zero". The irony is that unlike the publishing moguls of years past, the barriers to his bloggers going off and starting their own equivalent networks are much lower than the capital one would have needed to invest to displace an established publishing property in the 1980s.
  
  And really, good for him. He's certainly producing much more interesting content than many more traditional publishing properties have been doing for decades, and the quality and intelligence of his sites is generally light years above the likes of TechCrunch, VentureBeat, etc.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  12 months ago

  I agree, Daniel. I think Nick's model makes a lot of sense, and for
  the most part it seems to be paying off -- and not just for him, but
  for lots of his bloggers as well.
  reply
• 

  Seth Finkelstein

  12 months ago

  "barriers to his bloggers going off and starting their own equivalent networks ..."
  
  I think you've been taken in by the mythology here. The cuckoo-clock repeating of "Low barrier to entry! Low barrier to entry!" seems to have as much factual basis behind it as that cuckoo. Because if it were really true, why haven't a bunch of bloggers simply cut out Nick Denton ?
  reply
• 

  Daniel Gibbons

  12 months ago

  I didn't say "low barrier to entry", but "lower barriers to entry", which is much more than just semantics. I was saying "lower" relative to what it would have taken to start a competitor to a major publishing property in the 1980s. It's gone from "virtually impossible unless you're already vastly wealthy" to merely "very difficult"...
  
  And as to the reason why a bunch of bloggers haven't cut out Nick Denton, well that will almost certainly happen, as it does in virtually every creative industry. And they'll go on to form their own network, which in turn will be criticized for exploiting the poor old bloggers who work for it rather than own it.
  
  Denton has momentum and a critical mass of readers, but these aren't things that are necessarily related to how much capital you have at your disposal.
  reply
• 

  JoeDuck

  12 months ago

  ... whether it encourages bloggers to go for the cheap and titillating is the subject of debate
  
  Well, maybe a dummy debate. Gawker writers are masters of the cheap and titillating and are paid well to be that. There are flashes of brilliance here and there but we are not talking about a journalistic high road here.
  
  Valleywag is no... www.MathewIngram.com!
  reply