While some folks have been shocked--SHOCKED!--that I offered to pay top bookmarkers, others have taken a day or two to think about the idea and realize that it is the totally logical evolution of "crowdsourcing" and Web 2.0.
For the masses bookmarking is not some refined skill, it's just something they do. They see something they like, they bookmark it for later or to share with friends. Just like some folks just blog or just put their photos on Flickr.
However, some of the folks who blog are great writers and some of the folks who put pictures on Flickr are amazing photographers. Those folks get paid for their work, the masses do not--and that's just fine. Everyone is entitled to make their own choice in these matters. Some folks write for the love of it and don't want to get paid, some of us consider it our trade.
Why should bookmarking be any different? To me, the best bookmarkers are what we call editors or cool hunters in the business--trend spotters. They see patterns before they emerge, they find the cool stuff before other people do. They have ever right to get paid for it.
Of course, the Web 2.0 elite want to make the decision for social bookmarkers--and for me and my company Netscape. How dare we offer people money for their work?!?!!? How dare these people get paid for their time!??!?!
You think Mike Arrington works for free? I tell you what Mike, if you're so offended by the concept of people getting paid for their work, why don't you work for free. Take down all the ads on TechCrunch and you can pay your rent in the good vibes from the Web 2.0 community. Oh... I'm sorry, you're making tens of thousands a dollars a month with your business... oh... I'm sorry. Go right ahead and tell the very talented cool hunters who find hundreds of cool things that they shouldn't get paid. Really.*
Clearly, some folks are very threatened by this idea of paying the masses. They are threatened for different reasons and I'll break them down for you.
1. Some entrepreneurs are very threatened by this concept because for the last couple of years they've gotten a free ride on the backs of the masses. Now, it's true that Flickr provided a free service and value to their users, as does DIGG and REDDIT, but the top 1-2% of the users on these services are providing much more value to the companies then they are getting back. There should be a market for the 1%, and if I have to create it so be it--I'll take the heat. I'm not here to make friends, I'm here to build a business.
2. The media elite are *very* threatened by this idea--just as they were threatened by the concept of paid bloggers. Why, because by making a wider talent pool drops the pay rates they're accustom to getting. There are thousands of great writers who got their start by free blogging who are now getting paid. Those new folks have lower pay expectations and the $1-a -word crowd was really pissed off about it. I remember someone in the stock photography business who got upset by me offering my pictures for free for commercial use. His problem was that my photos were as good as stock in many cases, and I was gonna take money away from the stock business. You know what, I don't care! It's *my* work and I can do what *I* want with it. This is the new world we've built here, and talent rises, wins, and gets to decide for THEMSELVES if they want to get paid or not. It's not Mike Arrington's choice, it's the content creators choice. For photos and blogging I choose to not get paid--for some of my others skills I want to get paid.
The talent pool is bigger and more open today and that benefits the little guy and it scares the heck out of the big guy. I love it!
The irony of ironies is that the so-called meritocricy of Web 2.0 is the most upset about this concept. They will fall back on the "you're corrupting community by paying them" line of BS, but don't fall for it.
John Battelle makes a lot of money doing the Web 2.0 conference--is he any less of a member of the community because he gets paid for putting it on? When John is on stage interviewing members of our community should we think he is a fraud because he's making six figures for doing the event?! I think not... he's, in fact, more credible to me because he made a business out of it.
The four members of Boingboing.net make tens of thousands of dollars month (together) now, but they used to do it for free. Are they any less respected now that they are getting paid? Of course not. Should you not trust Xeni or Mark when they point out something cool because they are getting paid? Heck no! They deserve to get paid and I'm psyched they are because boingboing got much better when they all started putting more time into it. Remember, time for 98% of the world, is driven by money... if you have more money you have more time to dedicated to stuff.. That's not my rule, that's the world we live in.
When DIGG put three ads slots on their pages did they become bad members of the community? No way! They are making their service into a sustainable business and they are adding features as a result of it.
The bottom line is that making money does not make you any more or less a member of the community. There are people who get paid to work in communities like teachers, fireman, and police officers, and there are people who just live in the community. The fact that community pays you is not the issue--the quality of your work is the only issue.
If we pay someone for their social bookmarking rights and they suck we will fire them--not to mention the fact that the audience will never give them the time of day.
Credibility and authenticity can exist in a commercial environment (say, like the.. ummm.. real world!).
I'd be really interested to hear John Battelle, Dave Winer, Caterina Fake, Fred Wilson, and other members of the community comment on this. Why shouldn't bookmarkers get paid?
* Well over 50 folks from social bookmarking sites have emailed me already. Many of them are in the top 10-20 on the major services. So, while the elite Web 2.0 mafia may not like the concept of paying top contributors, the contributors certainly like the idea!
Why the Web 2.0 and media elite are so upset about paying amateurs (or "I'm sorry, does Mike Arrington work for free?")
Recent Posts
- Facebook lifts 5,000 friend limit. (5/09/2008)
- Systems Engineer, Los Angeles (5/09/2008)
- Sheyla Hershey (5/08/2008)
- Help pick the next host of Mahalo Daily (5/08/2008)
- Marc Andreessen, Roelof Botha, and Marissa Mayer are back as judges for Techcrunch50 (5/07/2008)
Reader Comments
(Page 1 of 2)2. It's not necessarily that we're all shocked that you're wanting to pay people to submit news to Netscape. That's not really breaking news.
The fact that you're paying Digg users specifically to switch over and post news on Netscape, in regards to the previous three-or-so weeks of commentary, is news. We've been suggesting that this is just an attempt to power your way into the market using digg's feature set specifically. But to try to steal their users away by waving cash in their face for the stuff they already do for free is low.
"Why shouldn't bookmarkers get paid?" It's not the fact that these people shouldn't be paid. By all means, pay them. But don't make it so obvious that you want to steal users away from Digg (and like-minded sites).
One more comment, calling the "big bad evil" Web 2.0 people "Web 2.0 Mafia" doesn't make them look bad (to any person that knows what they're talking about[, in other words, everyone who reads your blog, thus making this tactical use of name-calling useless]) but in return makes you look childish and puts Netscape in an even lower notch on the totem poll of social news networks.
Posted at 1:08AM on Jul 21st 2006 by Don Wilson
3. There are plenty of blogs making lots of ad revenue based largely on the content they are given by their community. Many of these sites simply don't value these people enough, nor realize the value these people add to the site. Even something as simple as informed comments can add value. If someone wants to pay these people to work in that capacity for another site they have that right. I don't see how this differs from one company "sniping" the competition's best employees. People's time is valuable, and if they are better appreciated/compensated somewhere else they will gravitate there. If this were Microsoft/Google instead of Digg/Netscape virtually nothing would be said.
Someone offers people a job based on one of the most worthless things there is, their web reputation, and these people are angry. Wow.
Posted at 1:40AM on Jul 21st 2006 by Jim E.
4. That was well said, and more clear. My observation was that others were upset because of the "bounty" you put out for targeted sites (Digg, Reddit, etc). That appeears like stealing. You hit a great point - Quality. Quality is job one, and thats it. If someone gets rated negatively for posting junk articles - poof - goodbye, the community has control over
that.
I believe a lot of people think that Netscape is a finished product now - it isnt. Its a work in progress, as so is Digg - constantly remaining competitive. As you said, you're not here to make friends, you have a business. Business in social-bookmarking is a great idea - but folks need to realize Calacanis is clear and genuine
as to not corrupt the social-bookmarking scene.
Did Myspace corrupt social-networking? No. They capitalized on readers, and hence offered built in audio players, and more features to their site.
Overall, good clarification of the proposition, and the
context you meant it in.
Posted at 1:40AM on Jul 21st 2006 by Joseph Manna
5. 1. Some entrepreneurs are very threatened by this concept because for the last couple of years they've gotten a free ride on the backs of the masses.
Really?
It certainly didn't look that way at reddit (judging from the faux-netscape logo alone, not even considering the comments on that post).
Tell me, did you hire them to be Navigators? They're just a couple college kids in running reddit out of an apartment for the last year -- they could probably use the extra cash.
And you seem like such a generous soul ;-)
Posted at 2:15AM on Jul 21st 2006 by Time2DropAnchor
6. Jason, if you really believed in what you were doing you would have done your one blog post and carried on. Now, it seems like you're trying to convince even yourself that this is a good idea. You can't turn back now so just pay your bookmarkers and stop over-explaining. If you really believed in what you were doing one statement would suffice.
Enjoy your day in the sun, you created what you wanted, a publicity stunt, and now you have the community's attention. It won't last though...the old Netscape users will ditch the site when they realize you essentially told them "they're not good enough to help steer Netscape on a growth path." You'll be left with tons of great stories that your "mercenaries" submitted but no one to "DIGG" them.
Your idea isn't a bad one, but you should have offered to pay the top 20 NETSCAPE users. You sold out your community to the highest bidder. I hope the existing Netscape users realize they just got a slap in the face. You couldn't take the heat from the negative responses so you're left to "transplant" the old loyal crowd for something else. It didn't have to be this way, you could have listened to your audience and salvaged something worthwhile.
This is your last ditch opportunity, everybody knows the executives are giving you heat. When your gamble resolves into the final nail in the coffin, it's going to be you who bears the burden of a small web start-up who crushed the big corporate entity...not with their wallet, but with a shovel. And that, my friend, will be a GREAT Valleywag story.
Posted at 2:25AM on Jul 21st 2006 by the truth
7. I've only read about half of this article and will continue, but have gotta say this. What a lot of people out there want is traffic. And a lot of people are submitting their own content to places like digg, reddit, netscape, etc. Perhaps you could capitalize on this need for people have to get traffic. Some people out there complain or get annoyed when a story is submitted and it doesn't go to the original source. I say who cares. If I find a good story and put a better spin on it, then screw it...I get the traffic.
What I want is traffic. Well, really... I want money.
So here's a fuzzy version of an idea... create an incentive (ad income? traffic?) and let people submit their own stuff pointing to their own site(s). What am I trying to say...let's see... perhaps a site like Digg - but you get paid a percentage for your content? Perhaps all the content would be located on the site?
Well, I don't know if I'm making sense or not - but it's 2:45 am, so it's the best I can do.
The bottom line is I want money and one of the best ways to get more moola is to get more traffic. Create something that will solve those problems and you could have something betta than digg?
Posted at 2:38AM on Jul 21st 2006 by James
8. "His problem was that my photos were as good as stock in many cases, and I was gonna take money away from the stock business. You know what, I don't care! It's *my* work and I can do what *I* want with it."
This is also a problem...You're contradicting yourself. Yes, those pictures are yours to do whatever you want with. Sell them, give them away, whatever you want. But when you apply EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID IN THE QUOTE to paying off digg users, you run into a gaping problem. The top digg users are NOT your work! Digg provided a service for these users. You are now trying to take away the WORK that digg fostered! You're defending yourself by "digging" a deeper a hole.
And I stress, the issue isn't paying bookmarkers, or naviagators, you are free to do whatever you want with YOUR community. You should pay your registered Netscape users. The other websites, specifically digg, have cultivated these users over time. Now you're flashing fresh meat (money) to dogs (users) to save your job. I hope you realize that the "longtail" of your actions will follow you for the rest of your web career. You made your money with Weblogs, Inc. so you'll be fine for a long time, but you'll always have that black cloud looming over your head with friends, associates, and most importantly, "the community."
Posted at 2:43AM on Jul 21st 2006 by the truth
9. Hi Jason,
First of all, congratulations for all the buzz you have managed to generate around the launch of the new Netscape. You are facing a fierce competition (I was listening to Diggnation the other day and it seems that a lot of Diggers had decided the site sucked before they could even beta test it), but, the same way Friendster disappeared to let MySpace rule the world, I believe that the market is now ready for a more mainstream Digg-like, while Digg will certainly remain a very strong community of geeks (I don't think adding new categories will change the audience, and, if it does, it means the end of Digg).
I wanted to say that I support your concept that peer production deserves rewards. From 2000 to 2004, I worked for Ciao, the European version (at least at the beginning) of Epinions, where we paid users to submit reviews or take surveys. Since they spent time creating the content, I still believe that a retribution is the right thing to do. However, adding incentives makes things more difficult, because it means having to deal with fraud and quality issues, especially if you have to deal with a large number of people. In other words, this is a VERY complex puzzle to solve, so good luck! With all the energy you seem to demonstrate, I am confident that you should find the magic formula...
-O
10. Just noticed that the NEW Netscape is now targeting the chattering gossip crowd, not one mention of WAR, but I guess people are tired of hearing about WAR.
I saw that Jonathen Miller and Kevin Rose will be at the Web 2.0 conference this fall, Jonathan is going to get heckled and laughed off the stage.
Posted at 4:53AM on Jul 21st 2006 by paul
11. Jason, Great Post. I talked about your two last posts on my blog yesterday.
http://www.recruiting.com/recruiting/2006/07/paying_your_way.html
Your post today brings up some very good points. It's the fear and it's the greed that makes people not want others to do well (make money) It's tough to buy food in a store with a nice smile, at least in my city.
JAson
Posted at 9:26AM on Jul 21st 2006 by Jason Davis
12. Brilliant job! The buzz around the reborned Netscape, the Netscape/Digg trade off ... everything is a brilliant strategy.
Those ideas make the real difference!
I've bookmarked you blog! :)
Posted at 9:31AM on Jul 21st 2006 by david moura
13. hiring the other guy's top talent = healthy competition.
there's plenty of room for both services to flourish.
Posted at 10:13AM on Jul 21st 2006 by Nicholas
14. Jason,
Keep searching for and paying talent. I don't think that business model will ever fail.
I don't see this as a red flag for AOL or "Netscape". AOL can invest as they adapt to the changes circumstances. Digg had to use the start-up model but you can certainly use a catch up model. For years a little software company in Redmond just waited to see what software categories drove revenue for start-ups and then they targeted that market and with their logo on the box they won. AOL can certainly use a lot of methods from that playbook and open new effective franchises. That pattern should map to your situation... You can prove that with this effort and continue to re-engineer AOL for the new business landscape.
I see it as intrapreneuring inside a massive corporate entity. Teaching the old dogs new tricks. Identify the niche, target a response and go for the top of that segment.
Overtime, your approach to business will be studied in business schools. It's got win-win-win (co-talent-reader) and that model always seems to scale.
15. As I wrote already elsewhere, the more content promoters -- which is what I see the people who spend their time finding the cool links before others do -- the greater the need there will be for better quality content.
I can't see from this perspective how it's a bad thing to pay the content promoters, diggers, Netscape Navigators whatever you want to call them. They are helping those of us who create content.
These people are saving time for others who don't want to spend that (much) time digging around separating the wheat from the chaff.
I like the concept and disagree with those who think this is a terrible thing.
I also agree with James (comment #6) in that the thing most webmasters are interested in is traffic (because more traffic leads to more $$$). Digg grew its traffic to a point with geeks and because Rose had the post TechTV crowd following him. Nowadays that geek group is spread across hundreds of digg-clones and it's harder to get that initial traction.
Mainstream america doesn't get the Digg-style yet. That's just one of your major challenges, Jason/Netscape Team. If you can get them to groove on that like people voting on American Idol with text message then you will do something even Digg hasn't been able to do.
Netscape is going to have to do something different to get noticed. Maybe paying content promoters will get some traction, but I think ultimately to get more of the early adopter geek crowd and webmasters en masse it's going to be the result of finding a better way to redistribute the massive traffic back to webmasters as James mentions.
Jason, if you figure out how to better redistribute that traffic to websites you won't have to pay $$ to get interest, the webmasters will be there en masse.
Traffic talks.
16. From Karl Long at ExperienceCurve
"Current.tv is like ?project greenlight?, it encourages video submissions that the community votes on. In fact the community can ?greenlight? projects as part of the voting mechanism, and because current.tv is actually a TV channel, it has an avenue to broadcast the best and the brightest. Oh and guess what, people get paid."
Is Arrington going to rain on this parade as well?
Keep up the great work Jason!
Posted at 11:49AM on Jul 21st 2006 by Brooklyn
17. Man, the Calacanis shills are out in full force. I'm not disagreeing that paying submitters is wrong, but I urge every positive-Calacanis commenter on this to look at my posts, #5 and #7. I'm curious what you guys think. Agree/disagree? I really think Jason messed up when he mentioned the photos. It shows a glaring problem with his philosophy. I'm open to debate.
Posted at 12:14PM on Jul 21st 2006 by the truth
18. I'm enjoying this blog more and more every day, Jason. This gem had me laughing out loud at the office:
"Oh... I'm sorry, you're making tens of thousands a dollars a month with your business... oh... I'm sorry."
So true, so true. Keep 'em coming!
Posted at 2:11PM on Jul 21st 2006 by Scott Johnson
19. I don't see what the issue is.
What Jason basically is looking for is editors that submit stories to the best of the web to netscape, whether they are from digg or reddit or something else. yeah, sure, it's social bookmarking, but that's just another name for being an editor, because you're presenting the best of the web to readers, and that's something most readers want -- to be told what to do. Hell, i've worked at places where we had editors that would do exactly the same thing, and at some point, I would think these people will be worth more money than the $1,000 per month Jason's proposing.
I think it takes a lot of courage to say, "hey, this web 2.0 is a scam because many of these companies have built their businesses on the backs of volunteers," which is something that a lot of people (Us, Robert Scoble, countless others) have said in the past. They only difference between web 1.0 and web 2.0 is that web 2.0, they've figured out to cut the labor costs out of it, and call it "community."
Somehow dismissing logic basically means you've drank the kool-aid and bought into Web 2.0. Fool me once, it's your fault, fool me twice, it's my fault (or something like that).
Whatever. Mike Arrington is a pinhead and soon to be Bastard of the Blogs, right after we get Mark Cuban out.
(Sorry Jason ;))
Posted at 3:01PM on Jul 21st 2006 by King Bastard
20. Wow Jason, your commentors are fired up about this one. Some of the comments are longer than your blog post. You are moving us somewhere cool, and Im enjoying the ride whereever it goes.
Posted at 4:52PM on Jul 21st 2006 by Steve over at realVerse
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. Hey Jason,
I want to invite you to read my post again because I was careful not to criticize the fact that you want to pay people:
"There is the question of whether or not this will fix this. Digg?s Achilles heel is that such a small group of active users drives so much of their success. However, even if those users bail to Netscape, others will certainly take their place at Digg. In my opinion, Netscape may gain some human assets and may get better story submissions, but Digg will probably continue to thrive."
My point was that the fact that you have to is a red flag, since Digg doesn't. That's all.
Posted at 1:06AM on Jul 21st 2006 by Michael Arrington