In Praise of Paid Posting
|
Written By Sepideh Saremi | April 3, 2007 | Share This
|
|
Yesterday Kate wrote about Topix.com’s “citizen journalism” approach to local news. In her discussion about how Topix will filter content, I couldn’t help but think of a similar citizen journalism project that uses a very different model - Associated Content, aka “the People’s Media Company”, filters content by rewarding quality posts with cash. Better known as the Pay-per-post approach, Associated Content (AC) reviews submissions, makes a bid, gives contributors rights over their work, and finally, rewards the posts that yield higher page views. Think of it as a combination of Google’s Quality Score system (minus the “black box”) and Digg’s democratic ratings.
The Online Journalism Review recently interviewed Luke Beatty, Founder of Associated Content. He describes AC’s system,
“The bidding process is totally transparent. We’ve built a system that allows people to easily submit content for publication. Each submitted piece of content is reviewed promptly by a real person on our content buying team. If it needs polishing, we’ll bounce it back to be re-worked, and it if it’s something we think that people will want to access (based on our proprietary evaluation criteria), we’ll tell the contributor exactly what we’re willing to pay, and we’ll typically bid higher for exclusive rights. The key is that the communication is fast and straightforward. We put the Content Producer in the driver’s seat. If we’re interested in paying for the submitted content, we make a clear, fast offer. If the offer is accepted, we pay promptly, which many of our contributors really appreciate…
We just launched a beta of a new page view bonus program to augment our upfront payments for desirable content. In order to offer this bonus, we felt it was necessary to provide our Content Producers with a personal dash board of statistics to track the popularity of individual pieces of content. This is in line with our “people’s media” philosophy. A contributor to a traditional media company never even gets a glimpse into how his or her content performs over time; at Associated Content, we’ve tried to create an atmosphere of total transparency, because we’re all in this together.”
Granted, most of AC’s content is comprised of how-to stories, not breaking news or investigative reporting. So perhaps comparing it to Topix.com is a bit apples and oranges - but the point is that, a pay-per-post model is a good way for old media to transition to new media. Traditional newspapers are heavily dependent on free-lance writers who earn their paychecks per-word based on background and experience. Similarly, paid posters are measured in page views to assess talent, with a bonus system tied to the publisher’s profit.
As print news publishers continue to slash jobs left and right, the market is being flooded with freelance writers. For media outlets like Topix.com that are touting citizen journalism as a way to boost content, Associated Content’s pay-per-post filtering model is a great way to attract professional writers at a fraction of the cost for print. Companies using similar models (like the appropriately named PayPerPost.com) have received a lot of flack from bloggers and journalists as a deceptive form of advertising - but perhaps we should stop thinking about paid posting as something to scorn, and start considering it due compensation for quality writing.
Topics: Publishing |
There’s a big difference between PayPerPost and Associated Content (I’m the person who did the interview for OJR)
PayPerPost is a marketing scheme, where people are paid to post about products. Their scheme was part of what motivated a recent FTC decision (december, 06) that requires disclosure if one is being paid to write product endorsements.
Associated Content is NOT paying for product endorsements. Associated Content is paying for what it prefers to call “citizen journalism” in that the pieces are being generated by a group of people who have some knowledge of journalism but aren’t necessarily working as professional journalists at the moment (although, who knows, some might be pro journos.)
Please don’t confuse the two. PPP is still under FTC,and blogospheric, scrutiny. AC is ethical and doing a pretty good thing.
I agree that AC is ethical and, as a writer, I think they’re doing a really fantastic thing. It’s not straight pay-per-post as payperpost.com has established, but really the argument here is that the pay-per-post model could be applied to editorial as well and we shouldn’t be afraid of that model. AC is doing such a good job of compensating “citizen journalists,” and big publishers should take note.
Since PPP now requires disclosure, I don’t have a big problem with their model, either. It’s not unethical if you’re disclosing to your readers that it’s advertising, which is more than I can say for a lot of the PR fluff that lands in major newspapers and magazines as editorial. I’d argue that the lines between advertising and editorial are a lot blurrier than many people in publishing would like to admit.
Good point re the lines between editorial and advertising–the most egregious, I think, are in the VNRs (video news releases) that are sent to broadcast tv outlets, which then re edit them to use as news segments in overly-long local news programs.
Rather, I’m inclined to forward the idea that AC’s model of paying for good freelance stuff should be used by more pubs. I often find the AC stories far more interesting than the musings of Muffy and Skip that often pepper the New York Times’ “personal style” and related columns.
Another interesting factor of PayPerPost–their people, referred to as “Posties” have created their own little community where they link only to one another’s posts and help each other to create income (can’t remember where I read that or I’d send the link) They’re creating social capital re linking and creating something of a circle of credibility. It’s truly fascinating.