I usually try to not work/blog on Sundays, it’s my family time; but after hearing of Gawker Media’s latest pay scale reductions I thought this was an interesting discussion to have. Especially considering my involvement with Content Caboodle, where article writers are paid on a pageview basis for their articles; as well as owning several blogs myself where I also pay bloggers for their participation and efforts based on pageviews.

I have always favored the pay for pageviews model over straight purchased content from writers, mainly because I think it’s better for the writer.

I know that many are upset with the reductions in pay scales across several blog/web media companies recently, there’s plenty of bitching in the blogoshpere today about Gawker’s latest move, but lets put this into some perspective before forming our opinions.

Under the more traditional model of purchasing content from freelance writers, if I were to pay someone $0.25 per word for a 400 word piece that would be a flat rate of $100 for the writer. Not too bad, but if you’ve spent any time in the freelance writing market online lately then you know there are fewer and fewer publishers paying over $0.10 per word because the labor pool has become saturated; and at $0.10 per word that 400 word piece would only earn the writer $40.

But, let’s stick with the $0.25 per word rate and $100 payout for that 400 word piece to be fair. That’s a flat $100 for their efforts and the publisher owns full rights to the material, preventing the author from repurposing it elsewhere for additional revenue. The writer is maxed out at that $100 earning from the piece.

Now, let’s look at the pay for pageviews model. At $5 per 1,000 pageviews–which is what Gawker has reduced their rates to–if a writer gets 1,000,000 pageviews (Gawker writer, Richard Lawson received 1.2 million pageviews in February 2008 according to Portfolio.com), then they would earn $5,000 from their works.

Okay, but that’s collectively over a whole month and not for just a single writing.

Well, sure…but even if the author published a posting every single day for 30 days then at the flat rate of $100 per piece (s)he would still have only earned $3,000 for the month, regardless of how popular those writings might be.

So, the $5,000 they’d earn in from the pageview model is still 66% higher.

And for a writer who is particularly good and engaging, there is no ceiling to max out at with the pay for pageviews model. The better your output, the more readers you’ll attract and the more money you can earn.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand the disappointment and emphasize with the bloggers who were used to earning higher rates for their writing. I don’t want this to sound like I’m taking the side of publishers completely; I’m not.

The problem, in my opinion, is that many of these publishers were dumb about how they started out. They began paying high scales (to attract talent), and were prepared to lower their scales in adjustments once they were rolling to compensate for initially over-paying if needed based on income.

When I began paying bloggers I started with lower pay rates (and actually, several of our current bloggers began as unpaid Interns) and was able to adjust upwards once I had a clear picture of what the site revenue would be.

This made it harder to attract good writers early on, but I accepted that because I knew once the pay-scale leveled out we’d be close to what others were paying (without paying out to the point we were in the red), and that the writers who were with us through that time would be appreciative of the rising adjustments rather than upset with the lowering cuts.

What’s funny is that most of the writers publishing with us are making the same as Gawker’s writers do now, and they’re all happy. Oh, I’m sure they’d be happier making more money, but wouldn’t we all?

But the important point is that none of the writers feel any animosity towards me or the blogs they write for over having suffered pay cuts.

I will add that I said “most” of our writers are at that $5 per 1,000 pageview range because in most markets that I have sites in that’s the pay level we can sustain and remain profitable.

There are a few markets where it’s slightly lower than that and writers on our sites in those markets are still earning less than the $5 per 1,000 rate because of it.

But I see that as comparable to how the world works in general when you’re a service provider–which is how I classify online publishing; as an entertainment/informational service.

For example, a cashier at a specialty boutique on Rodeo drive may earn twice as much as the cashier at your local grocery store will. They’re both doing the same basic job, but the marketplace is different between the 2 stores which accounts for the differences in pay scales.

The same is true with online publishing as well. There’s far more revenue to be made with a Technology or Financial related site than there is with a History or Fishing related site. With each different topic comes a different marketplace, and that creates different levels of pay that publishers can afford to remain profitable.

The bottom line is I feel fair pay for bloggers (or other online content producers) is a variable, depending upon the market they’re writing in. However, it should be something above what they could reasonably expect to earn if they sold their writings outright in one-off deals on a per word basis.

What do you think is fair?

Email this post

Technorati Tags: blog for pay, Blogging, paid blogging