Showing posts with label Valleywag. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Valleywag. Show all posts
Sunday, December 07, 2008
DailyFill: MySpace launches another doomed gossip site
DailyFill: MySpace launches another doomed gossip site: “The celebrity-industrial complex will expand, must expand, can't help but expand until every site on the Web features gossipy famous-people headlines. The latest entrant: DailyFill, MySpace's slapdash copycat celebrity-news site.”
Friday, April 04, 2008
Valleywag's Paul Boutin Exposes Gawker Media Pay Scale System
Apparently upset that Gawker Media is reducing it's payments to writers, Paul Boutin has elected to expose the dark underbelly of a system that compenstates its bloggers. Here's that description in full below:
Gawker Media dark overlord Nick Denton (pictured) has launched a new pay system for all Gawker Media blogs, after testing it at four of his leading sites. Denton's goal is to discourage "self indulgent" posts and "mind-numbing frequency" in favor of "linkworthy material, by which I mean a secret memo, a spy photo, a chart, a well-argued rant, a list, an exclusive piece of news, a well-packaged find." Where does a self-indulgent secret memo fit on that axis? I guess we'll find out after the jump.
From: Noah Robischon Subject: Editor Newsletter - 2008 Preview Edition Date: December 31, 2007 11:42:12 AM PST
In January, as you've no doubt heard, Gawker editorial is introducing a new bonus system. While your base monthly pay remains the same, the chance of a bonus will depend on your individual performance. More specifically: it will depend on the popularity of your posts that month. Below, an explanation of the background to the move; why now; and how the new system works.
1. BACKGROUND
It's only on the internet that a writer's contributions can be measured. At newspapers, a reporter's reputation depends on the opinion of their editors, which can be fickle. Some people get on because they play the office politics well. Or simply because they're more aggressive in lobbying for more prominent jobs, or pay increases.
Advertising people say that the internet is special, because the audience's engagement is so much more measurable than that of newspaper readers, or television viewers. Which makes it so bizarre that most writers, on the internet as in print, are paid for the sheer brute quantity of their output.
Gawker has been equally backward. Sure, we pioneered the pageview bonus system, which rewards all writers for a site's performance. But, let's be honest: those bonuses have been allocated subjectively. And, in the large, writers have been rewarded, at $12 a post, for mind-numbing frequency. When we've paid a higher rate (the $200 "feature" rate) we've often not been rewarding better pieces; merely encouraging the padding of perfectly good, short items.
In short, we have repeated the bad habits of traditional media organizations: leaving remuneration to the arbitrary will of upper management; and, by treating words as if they were Soviet steel output targets, encouraging quantity over quality.
2. WHY NOW
Early on in the commercial blog era, frequency was the key to the success of a site: Engadget took a lead because it churned out 24 posts a day while Gizmodo, fearful of overwhelming its audience, stuck to a dainty dozen items. We learnt that lesson, and vowed never to be out-produced again. But we now really are reaching the limits of sheer volume. Readers can't take any more. And the proliferation of blogs, and social news services such as Digg, has changed the rules.
Where there was a shortage of attitude and commentary, there's now a surfeit. And what's in heavy demand, and short supply, is linkworthy material, by which I mean a secret memo, a spy photo, a chart, a well-argued rant, a list, an exclusive piece of news, a well-packaged find. Gina showed on Lifehacker, with the style of feature she pioneered a couple of years ago, that it was possible to grow a site's audience without endlessly increasing the number of posts.
Second, our objective is not merely to provide gratification for a writer, or amusement for their pals, but to appeal to the wider readership of a site, and to new readers who might discover it through Digg or Google or some other link. It's fine to pen the occasional self-indulgent or self-referential item. But we're not going to waste the editorial budget on them, when we're investing so heavily in the sites. We need a more efficient form of bonus compensation — and one that's fair to the writers who care most about their readers.
Third, the market for editorial talent is becoming more competitive. If a writer works like hell, or sparkles, we always run a risk: that somebody outside the organization notices before the news trickles up the management hierarchy. We need a mechanism to reward hard work, and stardom — to dispense pay increases automatically, if you will.
3. HOW IT WORKS
For several months now, we've displayed the number of views each item receives. It's not a perfect measure. The view count does not reflect attention paid to the posts on the front page; nor photo galleries (which are usually junk views anyhow); and it can overstate the value of cheap items with superficial appeal, but which damage a site's reputation. Nevertheless, it's the best measure we have, so we're going to use it to calculate bonuses.
From now on, you will be paid a set monthly fee. This is the total amount of money outlined in your editorial agreement or determined between you and your site lead. The era of counting posts that are worth $12 or $200 is over. You will be expected to contribute a set number of posts each month in exchange for your monthly base pay.
On top of your monthly base pay, you will be eligible for a bonus based on the number of pageviews your posts receive each month. This total includes any pageview on any story with your byline that was read during the month, even if the story is months or years old. You can track your monthly total here: (Click your site name in the rollup data section along the very top of the page).
Each site will be assigned a pageview rate, which is the dollar amount that each 1,000 pageviews on the site is worth. Although this sounds similar to an advertising CPM, this number has nothing to do with your site's revenue or advertising value. At the end of the month, if the money you earn in pageviews exceeds your monthly base pay, you will be paid the extra money as a bonus.
This chart should make it clearer. If your site has a PV rate of $5:
$2,000 = 400,000 views:
$5,000 = 1m views:
$7,000 = 1.4m views
Based on this example, if your base pay is $2,000 per month then you would need to get upwards of 400,000 pageviews to begin earning bonus. A total of 500,000 views would earn $500 bonus (or $2,500 total pay).
Your site lead will be able to tell you the pageview rate for your site, and give you a chart like this one to for calculating bonus.
For the majority of sites, there is no cap on the amount of bonus you can earn each month. Four sites are already using the new bonus system (Gawker, Wonkette, Gizmodo and Defamer). One guest editor on Wonkette landed a huge exclusive and walked away with an extra $3k in his paycheck.
-Rules Of The Road-
* The pageview rate for each site will change at the beginning of each quarter. It cannot be changed at any other time.
* This bonus will replace all other bonuses that now exist.
* Site leads do not take part in this system. They are still measured on overall site performance.
* The site lead has the right to revoke pageviews on any post. This is to guard against the publication of material that may be inappropriate or illicit, and we hope it is never necessary.
The site leads have more detailed information about all of this, and can share specific numbers for your site to give you a better sense of how your pageviews will translate into bonus.
Please send questions to so that we can round them all up and answer for everyone.
All best,
- Noah and Nick
Gawker Media dark overlord Nick Denton (pictured) has launched a new pay system for all Gawker Media blogs, after testing it at four of his leading sites. Denton's goal is to discourage "self indulgent" posts and "mind-numbing frequency" in favor of "linkworthy material, by which I mean a secret memo, a spy photo, a chart, a well-argued rant, a list, an exclusive piece of news, a well-packaged find." Where does a self-indulgent secret memo fit on that axis? I guess we'll find out after the jump.
From: Noah Robischon Subject: Editor Newsletter - 2008 Preview Edition Date: December 31, 2007 11:42:12 AM PST
In January, as you've no doubt heard, Gawker editorial is introducing a new bonus system. While your base monthly pay remains the same, the chance of a bonus will depend on your individual performance. More specifically: it will depend on the popularity of your posts that month. Below, an explanation of the background to the move; why now; and how the new system works.
1. BACKGROUND
It's only on the internet that a writer's contributions can be measured. At newspapers, a reporter's reputation depends on the opinion of their editors, which can be fickle. Some people get on because they play the office politics well. Or simply because they're more aggressive in lobbying for more prominent jobs, or pay increases.
Advertising people say that the internet is special, because the audience's engagement is so much more measurable than that of newspaper readers, or television viewers. Which makes it so bizarre that most writers, on the internet as in print, are paid for the sheer brute quantity of their output.
Gawker has been equally backward. Sure, we pioneered the pageview bonus system, which rewards all writers for a site's performance. But, let's be honest: those bonuses have been allocated subjectively. And, in the large, writers have been rewarded, at $12 a post, for mind-numbing frequency. When we've paid a higher rate (the $200 "feature" rate) we've often not been rewarding better pieces; merely encouraging the padding of perfectly good, short items.
In short, we have repeated the bad habits of traditional media organizations: leaving remuneration to the arbitrary will of upper management; and, by treating words as if they were Soviet steel output targets, encouraging quantity over quality.
2. WHY NOW
Early on in the commercial blog era, frequency was the key to the success of a site: Engadget took a lead because it churned out 24 posts a day while Gizmodo, fearful of overwhelming its audience, stuck to a dainty dozen items. We learnt that lesson, and vowed never to be out-produced again. But we now really are reaching the limits of sheer volume. Readers can't take any more. And the proliferation of blogs, and social news services such as Digg, has changed the rules.
Where there was a shortage of attitude and commentary, there's now a surfeit. And what's in heavy demand, and short supply, is linkworthy material, by which I mean a secret memo, a spy photo, a chart, a well-argued rant, a list, an exclusive piece of news, a well-packaged find. Gina showed on Lifehacker, with the style of feature she pioneered a couple of years ago, that it was possible to grow a site's audience without endlessly increasing the number of posts.
Second, our objective is not merely to provide gratification for a writer, or amusement for their pals, but to appeal to the wider readership of a site, and to new readers who might discover it through Digg or Google or some other link. It's fine to pen the occasional self-indulgent or self-referential item. But we're not going to waste the editorial budget on them, when we're investing so heavily in the sites. We need a more efficient form of bonus compensation — and one that's fair to the writers who care most about their readers.
Third, the market for editorial talent is becoming more competitive. If a writer works like hell, or sparkles, we always run a risk: that somebody outside the organization notices before the news trickles up the management hierarchy. We need a mechanism to reward hard work, and stardom — to dispense pay increases automatically, if you will.
3. HOW IT WORKS
For several months now, we've displayed the number of views each item receives. It's not a perfect measure. The view count does not reflect attention paid to the posts on the front page; nor photo galleries (which are usually junk views anyhow); and it can overstate the value of cheap items with superficial appeal, but which damage a site's reputation. Nevertheless, it's the best measure we have, so we're going to use it to calculate bonuses.
From now on, you will be paid a set monthly fee. This is the total amount of money outlined in your editorial agreement or determined between you and your site lead. The era of counting posts that are worth $12 or $200 is over. You will be expected to contribute a set number of posts each month in exchange for your monthly base pay.
On top of your monthly base pay, you will be eligible for a bonus based on the number of pageviews your posts receive each month. This total includes any pageview on any story with your byline that was read during the month, even if the story is months or years old. You can track your monthly total here: (Click your site name in the rollup data section along the very top of the page).
Each site will be assigned a pageview rate, which is the dollar amount that each 1,000 pageviews on the site is worth. Although this sounds similar to an advertising CPM, this number has nothing to do with your site's revenue or advertising value. At the end of the month, if the money you earn in pageviews exceeds your monthly base pay, you will be paid the extra money as a bonus.
This chart should make it clearer. If your site has a PV rate of $5:
$2,000 = 400,000 views:
$5,000 = 1m views:
$7,000 = 1.4m views
Based on this example, if your base pay is $2,000 per month then you would need to get upwards of 400,000 pageviews to begin earning bonus. A total of 500,000 views would earn $500 bonus (or $2,500 total pay).
Your site lead will be able to tell you the pageview rate for your site, and give you a chart like this one to for calculating bonus.
For the majority of sites, there is no cap on the amount of bonus you can earn each month. Four sites are already using the new bonus system (Gawker, Wonkette, Gizmodo and Defamer). One guest editor on Wonkette landed a huge exclusive and walked away with an extra $3k in his paycheck.
-Rules Of The Road-
* The pageview rate for each site will change at the beginning of each quarter. It cannot be changed at any other time.
* This bonus will replace all other bonuses that now exist.
* Site leads do not take part in this system. They are still measured on overall site performance.
* The site lead has the right to revoke pageviews on any post. This is to guard against the publication of material that may be inappropriate or illicit, and we hope it is never necessary.
The site leads have more detailed information about all of this, and can share specific numbers for your site to give you a better sense of how your pageviews will translate into bonus.
Please send questions to so that we can round them all up and answer for everyone.
All best,
- Noah and Nick
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Sarah Lacy Is A Cool-Ass Chick At Valleywag Happy Hour
Sarah Lacy Is A Cool-Ass Chick At Valleywag Happy Hour
If you read my blog on a regular basis, or if you read Valleywag, or if you attended the Facebook SXSW event, or all of the above, then you've probably heard of Sarah Lacy. You've also undoubtedly formed an opinion about Ms. Lacy without meeting her; a common habit in today's media-driven culture. But you've also certainly not met Sarah Lacy.
Well, I did, and she's one cool chick.
For some background, Sarah Lacy's the person who interviewed Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook at SXSW and got panned for what some said was a "softball" set of questions. Sarah took the entire event in stride.
As a seasoned writer for Businessweek and a tech-finance video reporter for Yahoo!, Sarah's used to mean comments and controversy. She even tossed water on TechCrunch's Michael Arrington. (No kidding.) But you never know who a person really is until you meet them and talk with them, and listen, and get a feel for who they are -- not the whole deal, mind you but a good part of it.
I met Sarah at Owen Thomas' Valleywag Happy Hour event last Friday at what is called, but is soon not to be referred to as, Moose's in Washington Square in San Franciscos' North Beach. Sarah, my friend and business colleague Paula Storti, and I enjoyed oysters, tea (for me), and cocktails and just talked about whatever came up.
That's off the record.
But I can report that Sarah Lacy's fun, smart, opinionated, interesting, and just plain cool.
So the next time you tech-heads go off on her, consider that it may be because she's cooler than you are and you just can't admit it.
Monday, March 10, 2008
SXSW - Sara Lacy Of Business Week Gets Hammered for Softballing Mark Zuckerberg
Sara Lacy's being described as having given an interview of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg that was "flirtatiously awful" at SXSW. I usually don't hear about such matters on the blogsphere from SXSW in the past, so this one must have been a real toilet-dweller of a talk.
I'll go over to my friends Owen Thomas and Paul Boutin at Valleywag for the ulitmate take on all of this, since both were there while I'm here in Oakland playing host to my Mom, who's visiting. Owen agrees with the reviewers regarding the audience's behavior. Paul, who can turn a phrase with the best of them, wrote "if you really hated yesterday's big event, Austin attendees, blame yourselves. SXSW only gave you exactly what you wanted: A chance to relive Spring Break and the senior prom, but with you and your self-styled "geek" friends as the popular kids."
So just what happened? You can see it here, along with the audience reactions:
Just eyeballing it, it seems that Lacy was doing more talking than listening. It's as if Mark was the spectator.
Here's Sara's explaination of what happened:
According to Sara, the questions were a product of discussion by her and Mark, but she's taking the fall. Tisk. Well, this will all blow over in a few days, especially since bigger news like New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's alledged involvement in a prostitution ring is holding the Monday Zeitgeist space.
I'll go over to my friends Owen Thomas and Paul Boutin at Valleywag for the ulitmate take on all of this, since both were there while I'm here in Oakland playing host to my Mom, who's visiting. Owen agrees with the reviewers regarding the audience's behavior. Paul, who can turn a phrase with the best of them, wrote "if you really hated yesterday's big event, Austin attendees, blame yourselves. SXSW only gave you exactly what you wanted: A chance to relive Spring Break and the senior prom, but with you and your self-styled "geek" friends as the popular kids."
So just what happened? You can see it here, along with the audience reactions:
Just eyeballing it, it seems that Lacy was doing more talking than listening. It's as if Mark was the spectator.
Here's Sara's explaination of what happened:
According to Sara, the questions were a product of discussion by her and Mark, but she's taking the fall. Tisk. Well, this will all blow over in a few days, especially since bigger news like New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's alledged involvement in a prostitution ring is holding the Monday Zeitgeist space.
Monday, January 28, 2008
ValleyWag.com Happy Hour At Mooses In SF - ValleyWag.com
ValleyWag.com editor Owen Thomas graciously invited me to join him at Mooses for his firm's Friday Happy Hour. The star of this show was Laura Goldberg, the noted tech publicist who's currently with Ask.com, and we were joined by the founder of Lunch 2.0 and some other colorful people.
Fun times!
Monday, August 06, 2007
My Response To Valleywag's Tim Faulkner's Article On My ABC Debates Video
Valleywag's known for its "hotvlogger" contest!
Hello,
Clever? ABC Marketing. No way man; are you kidding? First, ABC only received about 60 videos, and not the 2,900 for the CNN / YouTube debate. So to call the ABC Marketing Team clever is just plain intellectually sloppy. But -- and you must admit this -- the fine point you introduce (for some reason) isn't fine point at all. You present the text as if it states "submitting a video does not mean we will use it in the debate." NO. ABC's presentation, including the emails sent, imply that our videos will be used in the debate.
I can't for the life of me understand why you took a contrary view to an issue that's on the center scope of a number of vloggers and one that -- if you visit my blog Zennie's Zeitgeist -- even Amanda Congdon agrees with. But you did, thus my reply. (Delivered with considerable respect for you and your publication!)
Now, pleasantries aside, back to my retort.
The reference to the "blonde" was both true and a trap. I totally detest stereotypical behavior in media. Thus, the installation of my trap, knowing that someone would point to -- as you put it -- "the irony" of mentioning Amanda Congdon. Hey, I placed a photo of her in my video for a reason. If one reads the exit text at the end, they will note my expressed displeasure for the media's habit of using blonde images to attract, but not employing someone blonde to run something -- in this case the ABC Debates.
I knew there were going to be TWO reactions -- the one I got from a female vlogger who immediately got what I was saying and showing and expressed support, and this one. Ah, people are so terribly predictatable and in a way I wish they were not.
Your text also communicates that you did not actually see the debate. You referred to the effort by "The Disney-owned network" as "America's Funniest Home Videos" when it was not that at all. Geez, they only used two -- TWO -- videos, and as I understand it, the video with the blonde was made BY ABC, and not submitted by the woman in the video!!!
I learned that after I made my video.
Please help wake people up -- well, OK, one can state that by presenting my video and setting the stage for this exchange, you've done just that. But there's a bigger issue here.
I am one who believes in effective change, and not accepting things they way they are. Your text implies that you like the media landscape as it exists. That's actually an unusual position in an industry that's in a total state of flux -- just witness the success of this publication versus its offline competitors.
We've got to have a serious conversation about the direction of media and how we can impact positive and beneficial change. It's not that we should expect ABC to behave in a way that's "controlling", rather we should demand that ABC and traditional media -- and the Republicans skipping the CNN / YouTube debate and thus causing a rescheduling of the event, to come into this century and embrace a more democratic process.
By not being part of this change, you're being -- in effect -- conservative and stiffling to social advancement. I don't think you intend that. At least I do hope not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)