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?")
Reader Comments
(Page 2 of 2)23. It sounds to me as simple as paying somebody for working. You can argue particulars but it is all a smoke screen. If you don't think people should be paid for the work they do state your opinion accordingly then move on.
Posted at 7:05PM on Jul 21st 2006 by Christian
24. Jason, I don't have a problem with what you're doing...I just have a problem of what it looks like. If you can't win...then buy, right?
http://shawnsblog.wordpress.com/2006/07/19/if-we-cant-win-well-buy/
-shawn
Posted at 7:10PM on Jul 21st 2006 by Shawn Christopher
26. I don't understand all the uproar. So he's targeting quality sites and "stealing" people. How is this different than trying to hire someone away from Microsoft or Google by offering a better salary? How is "steal[ing] their users away by waving cash in their face for the stuff they already do for free" any lower than making your business model work by selling other people's effort without giving them any compensation.
The fact is there is a group of talented people out there. He appreciates their work more than you do, he's willing to pay for it! He's not forcing them to leave, if they do it, it's because they like the idea of getting paid for what they are doing. If you want to keep them, you'll have to show them that you appreciate them more.
What you are all getting upset about is that you're going to have to start paying for something that you used to get for free. Maybe you view it somewhat differently, that he's commercializing social news... but wait a minute... don't you get advertising money? He's not commercializing it, he's just competing in it. And maybe doing a better job than you.
Posted at 8:53PM on Jul 21st 2006 by Bryan
27. This could be a good thing for digg. There were many complaints recently that most people who came to the digg(and other such sites) site were just 'tourists' - they contributed very little. If people see that there is a financial advantage in contributing they are more likely to contribute.
I am not saying that these non-contributers will put in the same amount of work that is but in by the top contributers - but at lest, they will be participating.
28. Nice work. I think this is a smart move, but I'm not sure what audience you're reaching with netscape.com so I don't think paid editors and bookmarkers are going to attract users.
I'm surprised that aol didn't incorporate this community functionality into aol news in some way. You have to bring this to aol news soon, as the aol news message boards are dead and they're in need of something new.
However, to make it work with the aol audience and build a strong community, you have to make it easier to use and improve the list format of stories. People don't want to see a list. Aol users need and want intelligent design (no pun intended).
CD
Posted at 1:27AM on Jul 22nd 2006 by CD
29. Excellent post.
So whats next, stop paying scientists, market research people, analysts. Hey they are collecting and analysing information. This is the best post ever!
BTW we are getting started to get our a** kicked here in India for paying bloggers to blog. Check out http://www.smondo.com
Ashwin
ashwinnaik.com
30. if you want the social web dream to come true you have to wake up. the problem is that the early movers of w20 (if it even exists) have reared a everything for free generation of users that is used to high standards against ads or premium services for 5$. there is off course the wisdom of the crowds but if you wan't to go beyond the mediocrity you need professionalism, and that, well, simply costs. the web has like any other medium ever been a commercial playing field (hey, i even paid for a netscape browser back then) and with the exception of a few mentionable, there are no good samaritans that deliver a constant level of quality.
i've talked to several business friends who have never heard of anything digglicious - if you want to push the social web to the masses you need a louder voice than a self-referencing elite community in a cheese cover. if netscape wants to take that mission and play a major role on the new mainstream web than go ahead, we listen.
thomas / popurls.com
Posted at 11:09AM on Jul 22nd 2006 by thomas marban
31. Jason, your idea is good, go ahead with it. And congratulations to wake up a lot of folks who are -in my opinion- quite stupid to invest so much of their time on digg and many other sites for free. Pleasure and money can coexist, so learn to do what u like and make a living out of it.
Anyway Top diggers digg your brain! n stop complaining.
note: i would just advice to stop doing more posts about this, you got the attention, dont spoil it by doing comments out of context. look professional even to people who dont like the idea.
32. Many of these Web 2.0 companies consider the community to a large part of thier products but they dont give back to the comunity .
Some compaines do like Revver who profit share whth users that submit and promote videos .
Peer Impact gives its members a system credit for seeding thier closed p2p network and affilite fees for promoting content .
Posted at 4:15PM on Jul 22nd 2006 by Matt
33. I think you intentionally missed the point of much of the criticism about your latest move. It's not that you're willing to pay, it's that you HAVE to. Plain and simple.
Posted at 7:58AM on Jul 23rd 2006 by Angel
34. Is this not all to do with incentives? If I know someone is being paid to do *whatever* then they immediately lose their credibility. I don't know what incentive they have for their actions and these days given the Enron nonsense I'm a skeptical soul.
Isn't that the whole point of this social web stuff?
Posted at 2:46PM on Jul 23rd 2006 by Keith Douglas
35. The Hegelian-style dialectical contradiction in this idea is perfectly articulated in this story from The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50637
Posted at 7:25PM on Jul 23rd 2006 by Stewart Butterfield
36. We are going to break digg, so check out the blog and see if you want to be part of Webreakdigg.
Posted at 10:31PM on Jul 25th 2006 by webreakdigg
37. The no-pay into syndicated advertising into paid bloggers into online magazines is just a transition. No one knows where this will end up. Let's just enjoy the ride and see where we end up. I don't know where journalism will get to but I'm sure it will be interesting and we'll all be better off.
Posted at 12:11AM on Jul 26th 2006 by David Neubert
38. Hello,
nice article and comments found on this page, greetings
Posted at 2:41AM on Jul 21st 2007 by Zauberer , Thomas
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.
21. One problem I see with most bookmarking/social networking sites is this: from a data perspective, they're roach motels. You can't pack up your contribution to them and move to another platform. (Delicious is an exception: you can get an XML file of all your bookmarks and comments. But what are you going to do with it when you have it? Since so few other services have open APIs, today the answer is a little, but not too much.)
A lot of Web 2.0 is Walled Garden 2.0. If Digg and Netscape compete head to head and allow users to freely move their stuff between them, then they have to compete on a feature for feature basis.
From my perspective, neither Digg nor Netscape should own the bookmarks -- they belong to the person who made them.
Posted at 5:39PM on Jul 21st 2006 by Lisa Williams