Gresham's Law of the Web: Crap Content Quashes Quality

This is actually a link to a post I did on BNET a couple of days ago. People have asked me what damage writer mills can really cause. Here's my answer - and it's a much bigger picture than how much some writers make:

Gresham's Law of the Web: Crap Content Quashes Quality

Old Media Companies Try to Sabotage New Media Efforts

I had posted something on my BizBlast blog that I thought might be of interest to freelance writers. Although it nominally addresses a recent study of the effectiveness of different advertising media (online, print, television), it's really about the resistance that so-called old media companies have to the new formats, suggesting that many of the attempts to convert print properties to Web will fail because the publishers actually want them to fail -- subconsciously, perhaps, but still that's what they seem to desire if you look at what they do.

Cry Me A River: Musician Billy Bragg on the Internet Underwriting Creatives Provide

A reader, catching up on her reading, forwarded a link to a New York Times piece called The Royalty Scam. In it, English songwriter and author Billy Bragg eloquently wrote about the inherent problem occurring on the Internet. In mentioning a conversation with the founder of Bebo.com - a social networking site that just sold to AOL for $850 million - he wrote the following:

In our discussions, we largely ignored the elephant in the room: the issue of whether he ought to consider paying some kind of royalties to the artists. After all, wasn’t he using their music to draw members — and advertising — to his business? Social-networking sites like Bebo argue that they have no money to distribute — their value is their membership. Well, last week Michael Birch realized the value of his membership. I’m sure he’ll be rewarding those technicians and accountants who helped him achieve this success. Perhaps he should also consider the contribution of his artists.

I agree with Mr. Bragg that there is a significant problem for creatives of all stripes. Also, anyone who's been reading my posts for any period of time knows that I'm not a fan of giving work away, whether for "exposure" or not. (Bragg points out that he gets exposure from radio stations; the difference is that they pay for the use of his music.)

However, the Internet issue is also a thorny one because of "monetization." Companies that own sites must find ways to make money not just from their sales, but from their operations. This is a situation that has many CEOs biting their nails late into the night. On one hand, they pay a whopping amount to acquire the social media sites because they're sure that if they don't, their companies will be left behind. But on the other hand, they can't figure out how to make money online.

I don't mean to point this out by way of excusing the system, but rather as a form of explanation. Many of the now hot Internet sites depended on investors for enough money to operate. When they sell, the investors get the money, and there are still those jobs that were created. But the real elephant in the room is that making money is far more difficult than any of the Internet cheerleaders want to admit.

So, do you give a cut to the musicians, particularly "the fledgling songwriters and musicians posting original material onto the Web tonight" whose "first legal agreement that they enter into as artists will occur when they click to accept the terms and conditions of the site that will host their music"? It would seem fair, but how do you calculate it? What is the value compared to, say, the amalgamation of posts and profiles that draw people to sites?

I don't have an easy answer. If I did, I'd be making a whole lot of money from knowing it. The one thing that is clear is that the start-ups, even as they get big, don't have the cash resources to pay everyone, and the corporations that buy them do so assuming that the business model of free content is going to remain. Otherwise, they would need to see enough cash to pay people.

We can draw a lesson. Your work may be wanted on the Web, but you can't depend on others to make a living for you. You must do that yourself. If you're going to use a site to promote yourself, either be comfortable with the thought that you'll never see a dime, or start developing business models now that will let you make money. Perhaps you need a link to an online store. Maybe you need people to come to your own ad-supported site. But certainly you cannot depend on others to make your business work for you. That is your job.

Adding a Domain Name to Your Blog

You might have done as I did and created a blog (or more than one) in your main domain. For example, when someone wanted to go to my Flash in the Pan blog, they'd have had to type:

www.eriksherman.com/the-pan

However, that looks pretty clumsy. But it turns out that there's something you can do. I went to GoDaddy and got the domain FlashInThePan.org. Then I forwarded

http://www.flashinthepan.org/

to my blog and used masking (a feature built into the forwarding system) to have "Flash in the Pan" pop up on a browser instead of the longer URL. Click on each link to see the difference. This approach gives you a way to add a domain after the fact and even expand a blog site so that you could actually sell the domain name in the future if you wished. Note that this feature is probably available at many domain registration and hosting companies.

Here's another thing to consider: if you want to keep multiple blogs, or even multiple sites, you can use this domain name redirection trick to have all the people who think they are going to different sites to actually end up at the same domain. Although I don't know for sure, I'm pretty sure this starts driving up statistics on your whole domain, and will help drive up search engine results for anything on any of the sites.

Warning: Possible Infringing Site

On a discussion board, a writer mentioned having found a piece she wrote for Health Magazine appearing on a site called Healthy Park (or Healthy Book). The writer gave me permission to pass this on. She said that what she wrote was owned by her and not available for use elsewhere without her permission. She also noticed a number of other Health writers' work on the site. I did some checking on Whois (the way you find who owns a domain), and the person is based in Beijing, and there is no email address listed. In other words, forget about trying to get in touch with the site owner, let alone get paid.

However, the ISP is Enom.com, which is based in Washington state. That means it is subject to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, or DMCA. You can issue a DMCA take-down notice and have the ISP remove any copyright-infringing material. For information on how to formulate and file a DMCA take-down, click here.

Multimedia and the Single Freelancer

A reader of this blog forwarded a link to a post on The Editors Weblog. The World Editors Forum, part of the World Association of Newspapers, publishes it. This post quotes Bas Broekhuizen, a television person from the Netherlands, who argues that the drive to turn journalists into multimedia people is a mistake. He led an effort at the leading Dutch broadsheet to train reporters as video journalists so that they could produce both written and video stories. The experience was less than stellar:

“In my opinion every journalist can learn to be a video journalist, as long as he or she is not afraid of the technical aspects (camera, computer, et cetera). Journalism is about telling good stories and in that regard there's no difference between writing and filming,” said Broekhuizen.

“But to become a real good video journalist, you need talent and time. A lot of time.”

“That's why I do not believe in the so called multi skilled journalist, or in ‘convergence by hardware’. Just handing out cameras to newspaper reporters will – in my opinion – not bring you video reports with the quality you want.”

Broekhuizen thinks that the answer is working with specialist teams, not reporters who do it all. Those who follow my blog might be surprised to hear that I agree, because I've often stated that reporters need to learn additional skills - video and audio and some HTML coding - to deal with the web.

The best approach would be to have separate people doing these jobs, for the same reason that the actors in a professionally-produced play aren't also directing, designing sets and lights, building costumes, and running operations back stage. Specializing does give you the chance to learn something well.

That's the theory, at least. Unfortunately, practice doesn't always follow smoothly. A team is great if someone is willing to pay for it. This Dutch newspaper went that route, and obviously had the money to do so. But publishers keep tightening the financial reins, and it's tough enough these days to get them to send both a writer and a photographer. Can you imagine most of them actually paying for a video crew to join the happy reporting band? Neither can I. And yet, as YouTube shows us, video can become insanely popular on the Internet.

When a publisher looks more and more to the web and sees that video might draw the younger demographics that advertisers, either rightly or wrongly, so passionately seek, what are they going to do? Keep funding long-form articles? Or will they say, the hell with writers, let's get some video on the site? My bet is on human nature, cheapness, and the desire for audience.

Let me be clear: it's not easy to do multiple media at the same time. I've gone into stories both taking notes and photos. When doing one, you can't do the other. Adding video or audio only complicates things. But even my myopia can make out the tall letters on the side of the building. When publishers move to multimedia, you'd better be there if you want to keep clients. So now's the time to start learning, so as the publishers experiment, you'll be there with them, and they'll develop the habit of calling you for the complex assignments.

As for the corporate world, I expect it will do as it has in the past - assume that video or audio is a separate undertaking and pay for specialized crews to do the work. Having mixed skills could offer a competitive advantage (lower costs), but only if the video and lighting and audio come out as well as the writing.

Giving Away E-Books to Drive Sales

Author Paolo Coelho has apparently been giving away electronic versions of his books to great marketing effect. There's a quote on a site called TorrentFreak:

In 2001, I sold 10,000 hard copies. And everyone was puzzled. We came from zero, from 1000, to 10,000. And then the next year we were over 100,000. […]

I thought that this is fantastic. You give to the reader the possibility of reading your books and choosing whether to buy it or not. […]

So, I went to BitTorrent and I got all my pirate editions… And I created a site called The Pirate Coelho.

And here's something from his official blog discussing a talk he gave about the phenomenon. I'm not saying that every author should immediately run off and give away copies, but the success that some have with this method does give one pause to think. With so many book purchases happening online, maybe this is the online equivalent of going to a book store, having a title catch your eye, flipping through it, and deciding to buy it. Or perhaps this will only work with a few authors and eventually the whole approach will fall apart. Interestingly, the people I've heard of who have had success - Coelho; journalist, science fiction author, and co-publisher of the popular web site BoingBoing.net; and M.J. Rose - have all been giving fiction away.

It makes me wonder whether there has been any success with giving away non-fiction - at least the non-literary type. (If you've heard of a case, please email me and let me know.) It could be that it's an approach that only works with more "literary" works. Or perhaps it's just that non-fiction authors generally have an easier time to get commercially published, and aren't quite desperate enough to take big chances that could result in success.

Striking Writers Talk to Venture Capitalists

Thanks to reader Debra Cash for pointing out this LA Times story: writers are talking to sources of money to see if they can create their own web site outlets:

At least seven groups, composed of members of the striking Writers Guild of America, are planning to form Internet-based businesses that, if successful, could create an alternative economic model to the one at the heart of the walkout, now in its seventh week.

Three of the groups are working on ventures that would function much like United Artists, the production company created 80 years ago by Charlie Chaplin and other top stars who wanted to break free from the studios.

Oh, this is smart on two levels. At the most basic, writers need to find ways to lessen their dependence on studios. That means going into business and developing their own production outlets for their scripts. Although venture capital firms have shied from pure entertainment plays in the past because of their risk, the money plunked down for YouTube has got them reconsidering. Their business model is fund something to get it going and then either take it public or sell it off to make their profit. And theater has often gone to wealthy individuals to bankroll shows on Broadway and other places. When the backers have enough money, they don't miss it much if it doesn't pan out, and, oh, the parties they get invited to. So now is the time for all writers to be considering how they can take what they have and make a "product" out of it. For the purists among us, don't forget that at one time, virtually all art and music was possible because of the generosity of patrons.

The other reason this is a smart move is purely negotiation. Studios stall on talks when they think they will get more leverage that way. But when they see that someone might be making money without their getting a cut, the situation becomes a powerful inducement for a rapprochement.

Giving Writing Away

In this blog, I've been following the topic of giving away content - not that there is a single answer, but because we all need to understand the dynamics. And now there's another view at The Long Tail. Chris Anderson, who wrote the book about the concept of selling small amounts to target audiences, actually refers to a commentary from Dilbert cartoonist and author Scott Adams in last week's Wall Street Journal. (Atually, you should read the Adams piece itself, as it has insight from direct experience and is funny, to boot. If you don't have a WSJ subscription, try finding this at your local public library.) Here's a particularly important passage:

A few years ago I tried an experiment where I put the entire text of my book, "God's Debris," on the Internet for free, after sales of the hard copy and its sequel, "The Religion War" slowed. My hope was that the people who liked the free e-book would buy the sequel. According to my fan mail, people loved the free book. I know they loved it because they emailed to ask when the sequel would also be available for free. For readers of my non-Dilbert books, I inadvertently set the market value for my work at zero. Oops.

In other words, giving away free content doesn't always help a writer, photographer, cartoonist, graphic artist, or other creative, though sometimes it does. As Adams writes, "Free is more complicated than you think." Understanding the new market dynamics is going to take a lot of experimentation and consideration - and a lot of discussion among those of us in these industries. The minute I think I have the obvious and easy answer is the minute I should figure that I'm definitely not getting it.

On the Radiohead and the Booker Prize

There's a bit more information now - of varying quality - on Radiohead's experiment in letting people set their own price for the group's new album. That's important for writers to follow, because many of us will have to find ways of making our own markets and success independent of publishers who keep ratcheting down payments to authors while they still try to get how to make money on the Internet.

According to a Forbes article, many people are still pirating the new Radiohead album, even though they could go to the site and get a legitimate copy for free if they wanted to:

On the first day that Radiohead's latest became available, around 240,000 users downloaded the album from copyright-infringing peer-to-peer BitTorrent sources, according to Big Champagne, a Los-Angeles-based company that tracks illegal downloading on the Internet. Over the following days, the file was downloaded about 100,000 more times each day—adding up to more than 500,000 total illegal downloads.

That's less than the 1.2 million legitimate online sales of the album reported by the British Web site Gigwise.com. But Eric Garland, Big Champagne's chief executive, says illegal file-sharing is likely to overtake legal downloads in the coming weeks, given that many of those 1.2 million legitimate sales were pre-orders taken during the 10 days between when the band announced the album and its actual release last Thursday.

Garland suggests that the real culprit is habit - they go to their favorite BitTorrent sites and download in the way they're used to doing.

However, even with lots of pirating, consider the economics. According to a London Times article (and we'll get to the main part of the article in a minute), an Internet survey of about 3,000 people who bought the Radiohead album suggested that most paid an average of £4. Although this won't be particularly accurate, it's the best numbers possible: a rough total of £4.8 million on the album, all going to the band. Given the economics of regular record deals and distribution, I think they made a whole lot more this way. The real test will be whether they do the same on their next album.

But what does this have to do with the Man Booker Prize? Because it plans to make the novels on its short list available for free online:

The downloads will not impact on sales, it is thought. If readers like a novel tasted on the Internet, they may just be inspired to buy the actual book.

Journalist and science fiction author Cory Doctorow has said for a while, now, that making his books available for free online has increase his actual sales. As I said, this is something that every writer will have to face. Will it be the necessary free part of freelance?

Newspapers Going Strong Online

If you write for newspapers and editors tell you that online is still a small thing for them, be wary. According to a Nielsen//NetRatings study for the Newspaper Association of America, a third of all active Internet users visited newspaper web sites in the first quarter of 2007. That's a 5.3% jump over the same time last year, and the average visitor spends more than 45 minutes there a month. That part may not sound big, but it's 11.5% longer than the same time last year. Notice this paragraph:

This report comes on the heels of NAA’s spring 2007 Newspaper Audience Database (NAdbase) report, research that analyzed the total audience (print readership and online usage) of the nation’s top 100 newspapers. NAdbase, released April 2, revealed that on average Newspaper Web sites have helped drive a 13.7 percent increase in total newspaper audience for 25- to 34-year-olds and a 9.2 percent increase for 18- to 24-year-olds (according to data from Scarborough Research).

Those demographics are big deals to advertisers, who are the ones ponying up the money to make the sites run, and supposedly represent unique visitors, even taking into account those who might show up both at home and at work. There's certainly an axe to grind for papers that want to remain relevant, but that's fine. When the editor says "We need the web," answer, "Yes, I've seen the figures - and I need to make a living."