On Wednesday I attended the “Media 2010 Summit” presented by the Albany Times Union. It featured a panel discussion with three of the TU bloggers and Greg Dahlmann, co-founder of popular local blog All Over Albany.
It took a while to get to some meat in the discussion, and it felt like time ran out just as we arrived there. The Times Union runs about 155 blogs on its site. A handful of those are written by TU staffers; the rest by unpaid volunteers from the community. Topics range from food to politics to dogs to parenting to religion.
I was most interested in hearing about how the TU is (or plans to) turning their stable of blogs into a revenue source for the paper — and what its plans are for more tightly integrating the news content on their site with blogs and being able to package and sell ads against all of their content.
We didn’t quite get there.
Panelist Kristi Gustafson, who writes the fashion/lifestyle blog for the TU, talked about “feeding the print product” and how they’re constantly trying to use blog content to drive people to the print newspaper. She repackages some of her most popular blog posts and features from the week for the Sunday print edition of the Times Union. To me, this seems backwards, as people continue to consume more content online and less in print.
The topic of “The Wall” (the traditional partition between editorial and advertising) came up, and Steve Barnes, a senior writer at the TU and author of its popular food/restaurant blog, made one of the more interesting statements of the night:
The revenue aspect completely not my concern. I build a brand because I know it brings more readers to the TU. I have no idea what they charge for ads. I don’t want to know. We have a department for that. We have people who go out and sell ads.
Steve is an “old-school journalist” with a great respect for editorial and journalistic integrity (and I respect him for that). But his statement is a bit contradictory. He wants to use his blog to bring readers to the TU, but doesn’t want to take the full step to equate those readers with dollars and that what he writes impacts that. In the Web world, readers = traffic. Traffic = ad revenue. I don’t believe it’s as decoupled as Steve thinks.
Journalists in the future, like it or not, are going to need to understand media business models better. While I’m certainly not suggesting that advertisers should directly impact content (be it “traditional” news content or blogs), driving traffic is what drives revenue (and let’s not get into that other Wall, the pay wall).
Journalists and editors need to figure out how to make the content/traffic/revenue marriage work. It may mean that journalists DO need to think about the revenue side of the house when writing. The Huffington Post does real-time A/B testing of headlines in the first few minutes a story is live and then makes a decision on the most effective one.
I certainly don’t want to see all news content devolve into keyword-optimized nonsense, but we can’t pretend that media companies can exist without revenue to support them. Consumers have so far shown that they’re unwilling to pay for news online. Advertising is, and always have been, what funds the editorial side of the house. I don’t think that one side of the house can afford to ignore the other.
I’ve been noodling on this since the event on Wednesday. Let me know what you think in the comments.
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
Amy, I could not agree more.
And for those wondering, Steve’s statement was in response to my question from the floor, and when he said that my jaw almost literally dropped to the floor. He noticed, too, and immediately said that “now, that may just mean I’m too old school.”
Yep.
And that’s not a knock on Steve. The transition from strictly print to this new model that the Hearst Corporation has dictated (and is still developing) isn’t an easy one. It would be if the process had been started earlier, but it didn’t. Again, not Steve’s fault, but these folks gotta be re-educated on their role with the paper if they’re going to be doing what they’re doing.
Thanks, Amy, for taking the words right out of my mouth, particularly since the response left me speechless. That being said, kudos to Mike Huber, the TU, and St. Rose for putting this thing together. Here’s hoping future installments (as I suggested to Mike and Steve afterwards) focuses specifically on this conversation.
Kevin, it would be great to see more events like this that really delve into some of the stickier issues about how media is changing and evolving and how blogs and other social media platforms are affecting it. Steve’s a fantastic journalist and this definitely wasn’t a knock on him – but I agree that journalists and editors need to be having these conversations and talking about the impact of editorial on advertising and vice versa. It was interesting to hear Greg’s perspective on how they handle “The Wall” at AOA and I’d like to see more traditional outlets tackle that issue directly, too. Hopefully at the next event!
Interesting thoughts, Amy!
I’ve been wary of the “unpaid bloggers” situation the TU has had going on. On one hand, it’s great to give community members (especially the hyper-specific “East Greenbush”, “Saratoga”, “Ballston Spa” blogs) a chance to speak about their community within the context of the paper and utilizing the institution of the TU to bring a certain “validity” or “cache” to the blogs. For community members who have never blogged before, it’s surely a great platform for folks to get their feet wet.
However, when a blog becomes a HUGE source of traffic – read: ad money; perhaps it would be appropriate for the TU to consider some sort of ad/revenue share for the writer – especially if said writer falls under the “unpaid” category.
It’s unclear to me whether Kristi and Steve blog “on-the-clock” as a part of their regular job descriptions or whether the content is created on “their own time”. If the content is “off the clock” then I have to ask – why? I suppose it could be a good way to ensure employment in a highly volatile world of publishing.
Someone said to me recently that chefs only have their recipes and that they should never give them away for “free”.
Could the same be said for writers and therefore bloggers?
I’m not quite sure myself…
Thanks for visiting the blog, Matthew! Kristi and Steve both blog “on the clock” as part of their regular job duties for the TU. Many of the other bloggers are voices from within the community with no affiliation with the TU besides their blog, and they aren’t compensated. Some do it for the “exposure” and you’ll certainly have an easier go building up a community around your blog if it’s hosted on a site that already receives close to 1MM daily page views than you would if you did it alone. I do believe that the TU grants them access to their content and would allow them to take it with them if they moved to a self-hosted site (but I’m not 100% sure about this).
The unpaid blogging situation makes me a little uncomfortable, too. Especially when, like you said, you end up with a very popular “community blogger” who becomes a huge source of traffic, page views, and potentially ad revenue to the TU. I don’t think the TU is at the point (yet) where they’re selling ads against specific blogs, but it could certainly happen. But there’s also the slippery slope of paying people directly for the page views/ad revenue they drive – you don’t necessarily get the highest quality content that way. It’s a tricky balance and one that I hope the TU goes deeper on at the next event that they host!
As far as the volunteer bloggers from the community: even the blogs that aren’t hyper-specific are from folks who otherwise wouldn’t get the traffic they get from the Times Union. In most cases, it’s a win-win. I agree that when it comes to ad revenue, the question of whether a blogger should be compensated becomes a real issue. I’m just not one hundred percent sure if any of the volunteers are pulling in the type of traffic yet to warrant it, though I imagine it will come up.
Personally speaking, I’d do it for free. Hell, I do my blog for free, and I also use that to promote and get the word out about my other activities (plays I’m writing, plays I’m acting in, friends’ events, etcetera). I also think that the revenue model for this venture needs to be clearer on the part of the TU and Hearst as a whole before the conversation concerning blogger compensation can take place.
It’s also worth noting that I can tell you unequivocally that despite a lot of rumors to the contrary, the bloggers CAN maintain their own independent web presence while they’re blogging for the TU. Matt’s decision to just maintain Friday Puppy and leave the TU blogosphere and Rob Madeo’s decision to focus on the TU blog and discontinue his Keyboard Krumbs site were based on their own views on content and time management, and was not influenced in any way by Mike Huber, the Times Union, or the Hearst Corporation.
Which brings us to the question of whether the staff that blogs are doing it on or off the clock. For journalists, the line between what’s considered on and off the clock is blurred. But having a vague idea of their schedule and when their blogs are usually posted, I’d gather that (at least in the case of Kristi and Steve) it’s done largely “on the clock.”
Some Times Union staff blogs are on the clock; others are not. You can generally tell which are which by the volume of posts.
I think you’re both misinterpreting me slightly. I recognize that I have the privilege of not having to think about the revenue side of the equation, because we have a department in place to handle that. It would be different if the Table Hopping blog were independent and I, like Greg and Mary at All Over Albany, was both a generator of content and a seller of ads.
It would be awkward for me to go to a restaurateur and say, “Please give me money for advertising, and oh, by the way, I reserve the right to say harsh things about your restaurant if I think they’re warranted, and I will let my blog commenters say harsh things, too.” Having an ad salesman make the pitch, a person who can say, “I’m sorry if you may not like what Steve or his commenters say on occasion, but I literally have no influence over the content,” is a necessary and liberating insulation. Once I start worrying about softening a negative opinion so as to not offend an advertiser — or, worse, start giving extra attention to a place that advertises heavily as a reward, not because the restaurant’s food and service deserve accolades — then I’ve lost my integrity and thus my value to readers. And so it’s true: I do not want to know how much big advertisers like Dale Miller, Angelo Mazzone and Proctors spend for space on Table Hopping. Besides, I get paid the same whether I have 3,000 page views a month or 300,000, and I like it that way.
Steve, I wasn’t suggesting that you should involve yourself directly in pitching and ad sales. Clearly that’s a conflict of interest. However, the discussion and idea of how to generate hits and, subsequently, revenue is a conversation that bloggers – hard news or no – should be involved in.
Your examples marry hard news/critique and the subjects of your stories. What I’m saying is much more basic than that: know how what you’re doing impacts and/or will bring in the traffic that will attract those advertisers so Ad Sales can do its job. Know what I mean? In other words, you don’t need to go to Delmonico’s and let them know that they can buy ad space on “Table Hopping.” I think that’s an of a slightly related – but entirely different – conversation involving ethics and journalistic responsibility. But you can sit in and be part of the discussion of how what you’re doing impacts the TU financially, what you can do to generate more visits and attention to your personal space, etcetera.
Like I said, it’s a new world for journalism and everyone – participants, experts, and casual observers such as myself – are still just beginning to grasp it. In print, you were part of a mechanism that included what you wrote on a few sheets of paper that were bundled together. Now we’re transitioning to a web model that may function in some of the same ways, but also has to come with the understanding that there are going to be folks that, say, read Table Hopping and nothing else. In that sense, you are much more singularly responsible for the success of the Times Union than you ever have been in your entire career.
Isn’t that exciting?! ;)
You may get paid the same whether you have 3,000 page views a month or 30,000. Personally, I wouldn’t want it any other way either, since we still need those areas covered that aren’t as sexy to the average reader (especially the arts). But with this, you have to start caring about at least trying to grow an audience. Besides, I’m an actor and I love the art of theater, but I’m not going to tell you that I’d be just as happy if nobody saw the product and I just performed Tom Stoppard plays in front of my nieces in my sister’s back yard.
Also, can I just say how incredible it is that you’re continuing this conversation with us? I’m not being facetious or anything. I think it’s truly exciting that there’s guys like you that get it when it comes to interacting with your audience and having them do so in kind (in a civil and respectable manner). Big ups to you on that.
We need to remember that Steve Barnes is a journalist … who happens to write a blog.
If Steve went solo, it’s fair to say he’d have a different thought process about revenue and advertising. That’s what happened to music writer Greg Haymes when he left the TU and started his own blog at http://www.nippertown.com.
@Matthew re: unpaid bloggers. What’s to be wary about? Kevin Marshall is correct: it’s win-win. Blogger gets lots of readers. We get lots of traffic. And there’s a third ‘win’ that I like best: the Capital Region can find tons of local content in one local Web site.
And when a blogger feels s/he can carry their own blog, cool. We give them a hug and they go solo, a la Matt Baumgartner and his fridaypuppy.com.
Michael,
Thanks for taking the time to comment!
As someone who values his content (be it music, writing, etc) and the content that others create I am wary of community folks just simply not being aware or receiving enough “win-win-winning” in exchange for consistently providing what boils down to free traffic for the TU.
As someone who consumes plenty of this (admittedly free and awesome) content (SimplerLiving, Table Hopping, and the Baumgartner blog when it was active on the TU), I’m thankful that these folks have great thriving blogs under the umbrella of a traditional media outlet.
But is it wrong for me to be concerned that as writers build up their reader-base and traffic that there might be an imbalance between the amount of time and effort being put in to the blog and traffic/ad money being culled by the TU/Hearst from the blog’s performance?
With no precedents in place for compensating well-trafficked blogs, I’m simply leveling concern that writers are not getting their fair shake.
As you pointed out, bloggers are free to go with a hug and a handshake when they feel it’s time to do so, and that’s exactly how it should be. Do you indeed allow the bloggers to take their archived content to their own site?
I appreciate the discourse here and I hope that my comments are not taken too heavily; I’m certainly not losing sleep over this. With no access to stats, details or even personal experience with this situation, my comments are obviously purely conjecture.
Thanks for the discussion!
It’s certainly interesting and exciting to see how this is all unfolding before our eyes!
It’s surprising that media enterprises, like the Hearst Corporation, haven’t found the ability to go to a module that creates “cash money” for their brands. While I believe editorial should be kept separate, kinda like church and state, perhaps reporters would be more willing to keep apprised of technologies that can increase their brand and introduce their writing to new markets/readers. Whether its online advertising modules or unique outreach models. Having a reporter skew his article with key words or thinking of some corporate entity while writing a story of substance would definitely keep me from reading their article all together. However, a PR person (corporate/agency side), would find it as a path of gold for clients advertising heavily in trades/dailies/online forums. Either isn’t the solution, so hopefully hard news can find that happy medium for the benefit of the consumer.
Thanks to Steve and Michael for weighing in with the TU viewpoint. Great discussion happening here – would love to see it become a topic for a future Media2010 event.
I took my blog to the Times Union site for the exposure.
I may make wisecracks about not getting paid, but it’s really not an issue. I enjoy writing and it expands my personal brand — for better or worse.
Allow me to toss out ANOTHER joke I didn’t get around to Wednesday night: I go into burning buildings for free, why would I expect to get paid for writing a blog?
I’m definitely hoping for more Rob Madeo jokes at the next event. :-)
I’m not, because the jokes he told at Wolff’s were about me! :)
Sample: “Mike Huber is like Tom Sawyer… come whitewash my fence! We can’t pay you but it’s great fun!”
Interestingly, I’m not the first one to use this analogy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/weekinreview/29basicA.html
Yup, that was my favorite. I shared it with my nine-yr old son, Jack. Coincidentally, he has just finished reading ‘Tom Sawyer,’ so he got the reference, if not the inference. I spared him the economic realities of the newspaper industry.
I’m in for more Rob jokes as well…. Loved the Titanic joke….
“Do you indeed allow the bloggers to take their archived content to their own site?” Yes. They retain copyright. We retain right to publish their content online and in print.
I acknowledge it’s not for everyone, and that’s fine. But if you subscribe (hehe) to the school of thought that the TU ought to pay bloggers, I’d ask if you’d be willing to pay to read those blogs? The money has to come from somewhere, and we all know that newsrooms are shedding jobs and cutting costs to get in line with the industry’s realities.
Michael,
Thanks for the reply!
Thanks for clarifying that Mike. Retaining copyright was a concern of mine as well….
I’m sorry I missed the Summit… for anyone interested there’s a related event being put on by the Albany Ad Club on March 2th. Tile: Are Newspapers Dead? – A round-table discussion of the viability of newspapers in the Internet age.
http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=14922952&gid=942757
March 2th? Can you fix the date? Also the link doesn’t work if you’re not a member of that particular group. Can you fill us in with more information?
25th! I just looked that up myself… here’s a link to the event site:
http://www.albanyadclub.com/events/index.aspx?eventid=108