Another User-Generated Magazine Issue Experiment

Recently Budget Travel undertook an all user-generated issue, in which it paid readers to write pieces that needed some heavy editing. Now Time Inc.'s This Old House became Your Old House for an issue, according to a story in Folio. All the photos, DIY projects, and tips in the June issue came from readers:

Executive editor Kathryn Keller says the magazine received thousands of e-mails, letters, photos and projects since editor Scott Omelianuk's first call for submissions in his December editor's letter.

In addition to the letter, the magazine created a dedicated microsite for readers to upload materials and then called for submissions at the end of magazine stories, in e-mail blasts and at the end of the This Old House television show.

Ads were up over the same issue the previous year, but so were expenses. Interestingly, the big resource sink was apparently not the editing, but building and managing the associated web site. This Old House is currently thinking of doing this on an annual basis. There's even a company that apparently is finding a way to make this pay in the long run:

8020 Publishing, which formed in June 2006, produces its two reader-generated titles Everywhere and JPG with a total staff of 19, and may be profitable by next year. The company is reportedly considering similar titles for foods and car enthusiasts, if the demand among its online community reaches critical mass.

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.

Mediabistro Sale and the Value of Online

People have been grinding away on the Mediabistro.com sale, wondering why they got so much, and there's been more than a touch of envy on the party of many who had attended some of Laurel Touby's parties. As Jupitermedia CEO Alan Meckler put it in a blog post, "It's the Job Board, Stupid!"

And certainly, as even back in 2000 as she got a $1 million investment from now closed hedge fund Gotham Partners as well as media figure Martin Peretz, Touby said that Mediabistro was profitable from the job listings that then went for $150 and now may be up to $200 each (according to something I saw posted on a writers' board).

But even Meckler isn't telling the whole story (though he admits to liking "everything about the business"). The job board worked because there was enough of an audience. But the audience went there to see content - and for years Mediabistro didn't pay for the articles. Instead they touted the exposure, and sometime would throw in a free subscription that would get the writer access to most everything on the site.

I remember getting into some public tussles, along with some other writers, with MB's former CFO as well as Elizabeth Spiers, who was editor there for a while. Some of us thought it was practically obscene that the company not pay writers when they claimed to be an industry community. "We can't afford to pay," they would wail, and also claim that the articles just didn't matter that much, and that they were more or less doing the writers a favor by having them up there at all. Then there were the occasional mentions of paying eventually when conditions allowed. All while having about a dozen paid people on staff. (I understand they now pay a whopping $50 per article, which is still remarkably cheap.)

Ah, but it's content - articles and discussion boards - that generally draw people in the first place. That's what creates an audience large enough to attract advertisers. As some of us said then, writing for free for Mediabistro (and you can substitution any company name in its place) is effectively investing in that organization. Now the payday for all the work came - for Touby and her investors. Not for those whose work subsidized the business model. She's done well, and good for her so far as that goes. But she also did it partially on the backs of others, who will never get credit, let alone payment, for the investment of time.

As the saying goes, you can die of exposure. That's what happens to the time and effort of writers who go along with schemes, listening to strains of, "We hope one day to be able to pay." Maybe they will, but, frankly, eventual paltry payment is just so much chicken feed best suited to poultry. When new owners come into place, they aren't going to open the payment flood gates. Hell, they bought the existing business model! Why should they pay more? Clearly writers are willing to underwrite the profits of others.

I've seen many publishing ventures make these promises of some future consideration for under payment today. But it virtually never happens. What you get now is pretty much what you'll always get. Asking someone to make money for your enterprise for nothing in return is despicable. Being willing to do it is just plain dumb. Don't be a patsy; go off and find a real assignment.