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.

Stalking the Wild Deal-Killer

For those who might not yet have run across the term, a deal-killer in the contract world is a condition that puts you at such potential disadvantage that you have walk away from the work.

Not all people have the same deal-killers. If a significant part of your business is reselling articles, you are more sensitive to extensive rights licensing than someone who doesn't bother reseller, or who is doing corporate work. One person might find pay on publication (where you don't get paid until the article runs) unacceptable while another will hold his or her nose because for other reasons a clip in a specific magazine could help increase a public profile.

But there are some terms that should be deal-breakers for all writers, because the danger so strongly outweighs the return. I ran into one this weekend on a book contract that sought not only indemnification if I breached a set of warranties, or promises, but if there was an allegation that, if proved true, would be a breach.

Now, the topic wasn't one that would cause a libel suit nor an action over having invaded someone's privacy. But there are a lot of kooks in the world, and the topic isn't new. Even though I know I wouldn't infringe someone's copyright, could I be that sure that no one would ever accuse me of doing so? Such unfounded claims are hardly unknown in the publishing world.

If I signed a contract with that particular phrase, I'd be liable for the economic damages, including legal fees, that the publisher would face - whether I had done something or not. And contrary to the opinions of many, and something I used to think myself, some major publishers actually do pursue reimbursement from writers over such things. As it stands now, I've let my agent know and we're waiting to hear back from the publishing house. Should they refuse to back down, I'll be walking away from the contract, even though it would be a handy amount of work to lock down.

Any time you look at a contract, you may be in a position where you feel that you need the income or the credit or the opportunity and that saying no is impossible. But realize that you might be in a position where saying yes should be unthinkable, once you realize what the cost could be. Read carefully; sometimes "No" is the best answer.