Wow... what a response! TechCrunch hates that we're paying top users (they call it a red flag!), and the comments show many folks out raged by the concept of paying community members. How ironic that in the meritocracy of the Internet folks have no problem with the elite getting paid, but when you offer to pay the masses some folks get all bent out of shape. You know what the difference between the so-called "elite" and the top users in the masses are? One group gets paid and one doesn't--that's it.
When we offered to pay bloggers people were freaked out, and now that we're offering to pay the top 12 social bookmarkers some folks are upset--it's no different. The top 12 users in this space spend 2-3 hours a day cool hunting for free, and have done so for over a year. We're gonna pay them for doing exactly what they are doing now without filtering them in any way (just like we did at Weblogs, Inc). If they worked for us last year they would have $12,000 in their pockets and would be able to justify spending even more time doing what they did for free. If that was the case the audience would have gotten even better (and more) free content. Everyone wins.
WIRED News just asked me why they think some folks get upset by this change and I told the reporter the story of people threatening to boycott WIRED's HOTBOT because it had a banner advertisement. Then folks realized that they couldn't get a free service if it didn't had advertising and the vocal minority changed their tune. It's like when an indie film directory gets their first pay day, or a band gets signed, some of the original fans feel they are selling out. However, artists deserve to get paid for their work, and getting paid does not mean compromising--especially in our world where people have so many options.
Bottom line: I've got 20-30 emails from DIGG, REDDIT, and NEWSVINE members in my GMAIL asking me for more details and how they can get involved. I know I'm 110% right about this one.
Wow... what a response! (or "why people get upset when you offer to pay the amatuers.")
Reader Comments
(Page 1 of 1)2. The one piece of feedback I would have to offer is that they are NOT paying people to be hired "news reporters" as some have already claimed. There is no guarantee that any of the stories submitted by these "hired hands" will make the front page - EVER. It is STILL user driven content, as the users will still decide if it's front-page worthy!! That's what user-driven content is. If you don't like it, don't vote for it.
Posted at 1:51PM on Jul 19th 2006 by Seth Fraser
3. I think it's a good guideline that if you're pissing people off, you MUST be doing something right.
Keep up the good fight, Jason. Moves like these are redefining the online information economy - for the better.
Posted at 1:54PM on Jul 19th 2006 by Jay Andrew Allen
4. Paying 12,000 dollars to a person who provides your site with content that puts MILLIONS in your pocket is hardly an incredible feat. Come on Jason you sit on your high horse and talk about getting talent PAID so they can produce BETTER content. Well you know what, all you are doing is creating an army of underpaid sweat shop workers. I'm sorry but I'm sick of content creators getting the short end of the stick in this business. I saw it at AOL in the late 90's I'm seeing it in Film/TV right now. Pay your content creators REAL money before they unionize and make you suffer.
Posted at 2:07PM on Jul 19th 2006 by Matt
5. I have to agree with Jason on this one... if you are a blogger and you are spending 3-4 hours or more per day reading up on your favorite news, battling to submit stories before others, and being delighted when your story hits the frontpage, it is definately a hobby, but getting paid to do that hobby would be incredible. Why would a really dedicated blogger or digg poster turn an offer like this down, because it is not moral? That is ridiculous. Nobody is stopping you from continuing to post wherever you want... Netscape just wants to have a very solid core team of posters that it knows will post very high quality material and keep the flow of stories coming in.
Posted at 2:12PM on Jul 19th 2006 by Chad
6. You're definitely 110% right on this. And relating this to paying bloggers is insightful. I have a feeling that a lot of the upset folks are wishing that they would have though of this first.
Posted at 2:25PM on Jul 19th 2006 by Scott Johnson
7. I agree with you that people can and should get paid for talent (hell, I wish I was getting paid for my filmmaking), but when you have the "social bookmarking" concept that is Digg, that you can have anyone submit stories, how Digg and Reddit and Newsvine all work, why waste the money to pay people when you can just have anyone and their mother do it for free?
If you're looking to pay people, which is fine by me, why not just offer a cut of the ad revenue? The people who get the most stories to the front page get a certain percentage of ad revenue off of their stories? That makes a bit more sense to me, because then you are insuring the quality of the stories since the money will increase if the stories are read more.
That's just me though... :-P
8. Dude, you done well. All these amateurs deserve their do. Thanks!
Posted at 3:15PM on Jul 19th 2006 by Randy Charles Morin
10. In the meantime:
3 Million Bloggers Looking to Make Money
http://publishing2.com/2006/07/19/3-million-bloggers-looking-to-make-money/
90% of Japanese bloggers willing to write product reviews for reward
http://www.multilingual-search.com/90-of-japanese-bloggers-willing-to-write-product-reviews-for-reward/12/07/2006/en/
Posted at 4:44PM on Jul 19th 2006 by Dimitar Vesselinov
11. Yes, you're 110% right that people will be interested. No, you're not 110% right that it will promote Netscape to the top of the social bookmarking hierarchy, or even turn the site into a self-sustaining, viable community. Don't get me wrong; I don't have any problems with mixing passion and money. I just think a better way to go about this would be to instill a rewards-based competitive ethos into the entire Netscape user base, not just hire a mercenary crowd from outside. Start paying users based on the traffic their posts drive (to the post itself and the target site) and allow them to compete for "navigator" positions.
Posted at 5:16PM on Jul 19th 2006 by Steve Bryant
12. Your piece here Jason exposes the fad of "it's hip not to like business, commercialization, and capitalism." It's business, and this proposal is Win-Win like paying bloggers was before it.
Beautiful business model.
Posted at 5:26PM on Jul 19th 2006 by Blake Snow
13. I've always liked TechCrunch for their access to upcoming web 2.0 stuff, but I could do without the moralizing. Double-standards (sellout/starving artist) are a sure sign people are not thinking for themselves. If TechCrunch's readers don't want to make any money blogging, let them. This is too bad, because now I have lost some respect for TechCrunch--ironically on an issue for which they feel they have the respectable high ground.
As far as getting paid for this, I barely have time to write this comment. I couldn't blog or post links to any site full-time unless I got paid enough for me to quit my day job.
Alright, Jason, you can paypal me that $50 now. ;)
Posted at 6:26PM on Jul 19th 2006 by Michael Martine
14. Paying people to blog will lead to gaming of the Netscape site. People will submit links merely to work up in the standings and get their bounty. As this happens, the links included in Netscape's social bookmarking site will become less and less relevant. Users will not come to the site to get information, merely to enter themselves in the Top 12 lottery.
Posted at 6:33PM on Jul 19th 2006 by Jim Benson
16. You've nailed it Jason. Paying the amateurs pisses people off. These top users spend an AWFUL lot of time because they LOVE sharing news stories.
WHY NOT PAY THEM FOR SOMETHING THEY LOVE!
God forbid!!!! Great work Jason.
Posted at 11:04PM on Jul 19th 2006 by Drew Olanoff
17. I agree with Chris and Steve Bryant. Why not just put up an equitable payment or ad-revenue-sharing scheme and give an incentive to the members of Netscape to improve their "social bookmarking" skills? Indeed, there seems to be something wrong with having an elite group of "bookmarkers" getting paid while the rest "volunteer" their time. If Jason is going to hire "bookmarkers", he should hire everyone.
And I think this is going to be the trend of the future. Look at soulcast.com and writingup.com where the Adsense revenues are shared with the contributors. I, myself, have recently implemented this with my site WriteLit.com. Indeed, open-source and capitalistic models are not contradictory and can co-exist or even re-inforce each other in this vast digital space. Even Drupal, the open-source CMS software I use, does not discourage commercialization of their free product.
Posted at 4:51AM on Jul 20th 2006 by Dino Manrique
18. The consensus is this is a stunt to deflect attention away from Netscape?s falling numbers.
The people who use Netscape.com as a start page are telling you something, but you?re not listening and they are leaving.
I fell off my chair when I read your comment on TechCrunch about people using the Netscape Browser, are there 3 people who use the Netscape browser?
Netscape was a software company; AOL should have invested in a better Netscape Browser and build an audience from there.
Posted at 5:05AM on Jul 20th 2006 by paul
19. Thanks for coming up with innovations and ideas Jason. It's all good.
Posted at 9:08AM on Jul 20th 2006 by Miles Burke
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry: inappropriate or purely promotional comments may be removed. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
1. TechCrunch is also the classy blog who gave us the skinny on the latest and greatest porn browser makes "porn consumption easier or making it less likely that others will know what you are up to."
Wouldn't exactly use them as a measuring stick for moral guidelines.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/07/11/porn-browser-heatseek-launches-yeah-porn-browser/
Posted at 1:45PM on Jul 19th 2006 by Landon Howell