Should I be paid based on traffic?
A frequent topic of conversation in the blogosphere is how bloggers get paid — whether it’s Google’s AdSense or paid review services like PayPerPost and SponsoredReviews — and whether it influences how they write. And a similar conversation has sprung up about how professional journalists get compensated, and whether paying them (even in part) based on the amount of traffic they get is going to distort how they write or the topics they choose.
The latest instalment of this particular debate cropped up when Steve Rubel posted on MicroPersuasion about ZDNet compensating its bloggers based on traffic numbers. Steve says the practice “raises an eyebrow” for him. Dan Farber of ZDNet, in a comment on Steve’s post, says that the site monitors posts closely to make sure no one is “pandering for page views.” The always acerbic Nick Carr notes that the practice has been going on for months.
The same debate came up a few months ago, when Business 2.0 magazine editor Josh Quittner said he was asking all his writers to start blogging, and that they would receive bonuses based on traffic (I wrote about it here). A writer at The Huffington Post submitted a fairly long diatribe about the practice, saying it raised ethical issues, while Jeff Jarvis and others noted that journalists are already effectively compensated based on traffic.
Chip Griffin effectively makes the same point here. And I would agree. Newspapers already promote writers who draw a large readership (or lots of letters to the editor), and I’m sure the traffic that particular stories or bylines get is part of what web-based news operations look at as well. Should it be the only factor? No. But it makes sense to include it as a measure of popularity. I’m just waiting for the first blogger/journalist to get accused of employing a click farm 
Related posts:
(On Jan 16th, 2007 at 7:27 am)
[…] Mathew Ingram: Should I be paid based on traffic? ZDNet and Business 2.0 are paying their journalists bonuses based on the traffic they generate on their blogs. Is this really as ethically dubious as some commentators have suggested? (tags: journalism blogging ethics zdnet business2.0) […]
(On Jan 16th, 2007 at 12:13 pm)
[…] Internet Pushes Concept of ‘Free’ Content (IHT) After spending millions of dollars over the past decade fighting the free exchange of their products over the Internet, some media companies are now yielding. The best way to get something in return, they are deciding, may be to accept that consumers want to play but few seem to want to pay. If enough of them join the game, there can still be a payback. MathewIngram.com: How should professional journalists be compensated for online work, and will paying them (even in part) based on the amount of traffic they get distort how they write or the topics they choose? […]
(On Jan 16th, 2007 at 11:56 pm)
[…] Should I be paid based on traffic? […]
(On Jan 16th, 2007 at 10:18 pm)
[…] Much heat over the last couple of days about ZDNet’s policy (amongst others) of remunerating bloggers based on the page impressions their work generates. Steve Rubel finds the practice "raises an eyebrow"; Nick Carr characteristically points out that it’s being going on for months.Months? Centuries! Certainly since newspaper owners have paid writers to write for their publications. Jeff Jarvis rightly says that "we are all…influenced by our traffic"; Mathew Ingram that "newspapers already promote writers who draw a large readership". A handful of newspaper columnists draw rock-star salaries. Many more are paid what their editors think they are worth. This assessment involves intuition, personal preference and the inexact science of market research, some combination of which tells their editors that they draw the readers to justify those numbers. I am honestly mystified that people can effectively claim (HuffPo) this sort of unsubstantiated editorial guesswork is ethical but accurate measurement of a writer’s draw is not. The claim seems…too far from disinterested to be itself considered wholly ethical. Editors are paid considerable sums to make subjective judgement calls from which writers expect to benefit. Journalists protesting against changing that rather murky relationship to a fair, impartial and transparent measurement of quantifiable appeal strikes me as more than a little suspect. […]
(On Jan 16th, 2007 at 11:45 am)
[…] Matthew Ingram, the Globe and Mail technical writer, has a good article on his website: Should I Be Paid Based on Trafffic. Here he talks about the recent incentive program where some publications are paying writers a bonus if their columns get more web traffic. “Newspapers already promote writers who draw a large readership,” he reasons but he also worries about “pandering for page views” (writing sensationalized articles just to get more readers) and if that will dictate what kind of writing we see on the web. It’s a good issue to ponder. Hopefully, editors will be vigilent about this system as it gets used (and abused) in the future. In the meantime, if you see some unusally over-the-top articles at your favorite publication, you’ll know one reason why that’s happening. Of course, all of us at PopMatters would never approve of such practices and splash SEX and items about WILD GIRLS or CELEBRITY GOSSIP or anything like that (editor, please note my web traffic spike, which will no doubt start now…). […]
(On Jan 16th, 2007 at 5:49 pm)
[…] paying its writers on the same basis, i.e. a salary combined with a bonus based on traffic (I wrote a post about it at the time). And there have been other occasions as well, including when Business 2.0 magazine […]
(On Jan 16th, 2007 at 5:53 pm)
[…] paying its writers on the same basis, i.e. a salary combined with a bonus based on traffic (I wrote a post about it at the time). And there have been other occasions as well, including when Business 2.0 magazine […]