A question for Steve about compensation
9January 18, 2007 by Colin
From Steve Rubel’s post about his cheque from the Blogburst network:
“Clearly the way journalists and bloggers are being compensated is changing. However, everyone really should disclose the mechanics of how they are rewarded. Why should there be a double standard for the level of disclosure for journalists vs. bloggers when it comes to new models of compensation? We’re all part of the media fabric now. This should especially be revealed when anyone is being compensated based on traffic.
…But the point I want to make here is that no blogger – full-time pro or part-time paid – is exempt from disclosing how (not necessarily how much) they are paid and who is paying them.”
So – let’s say you’re the evangelist for a social media practice at a largish public relations agency. Your pay is directly related to your ability to demonstrate thought leadership in the subject, and your workload is divided between blogging, client service, client pitches, and conference presentations.
What proportion of your salary should you disclose, Steve?
This is an important question for bloggers and social media consultants as the world of blogging makes the transition from idealism to practical (read monetized) application.
The idea of disclosing all side interests, compensation deals or product placements that support a blog is a goal. As more and more bloggers develop viable careers from their work, can this be put into place with any level of accuracy?
[tags] Steve Rubel, blogger compensation, pay per post, blogger ethics[/tags]
Sure, I will tell you – 100% of my compensation comes from Edelman and none from blogging. However, you are misinformed when it comes to how I am measured. I am measured by what I do to keep us ahead so that we make money, not by thought leadership.
Thanks, Steve. I don’t know if I’m clear on how you parsed between “what I do to keep us ahead” versus “thought leadership,” but do recognize that the business goals always come first.
Thought leadership is earned through what is produced, not by what one says. If all I did was get ink and blog buzz and didn’t generate a return on my employer’s investment, I wouldn’t be here.
Unless I’m reading Steve’s and your (Colin’s) posts wrong, why should a blogger or journalist who blogs or etc. disclose he/she is being paid or how or what %?
The only reason I want to know if a blogger, journalst, TV anchor, etc., is being paid is if he/she talks about a product, service, company and paid for it. That’s called an endorsement (like PayPerPost).
Otherwise, why should I — as a reader, viewer, listener — care?
Also, I think Steve combines two points: “I am measured by what I do to keep us ahead so that we make money, not by thought leadership.”
So, is Steve (and others) measured by what keeps his firm ahead or by how much money he brings in?
If measured by staying ahead, than the thought leadership side comes to play. Actually, it’s all connected to the ultimate bottomline: Generating enough income to stay in business.
– Mike
Mike, you’re veering towards the theme I have been considering. Right now, we’re all concerned about bloggers taking tips and treats – books, trips, phones.
As the “blogging paradigm” expands to incorporate full time bloggers on-staff at businesses, not-for-profits and in government, how do we ensure disclosure of all related interests and influences?
For instance – if I’m a blogger at a think tank and begin to look at intellectual property issues as a result of interest (and possible research funds) from a record company, what sort of disclosure does that require?
To take the argument a step further, what if you decide to aim your new satirical blog squarely at undermining the new business practice being pursued by a significant competitor in your industry?
As, some might say, Strumpette has done?
[...] Colin McKay/CanuckFlack in a comment [...]
Third Monday is back… Bring your predictions for 2007…
If the prospect of watching (nay, heckling) a group of middle-aged white guys trying to out-jargon……
When you say that there should not be a double standard with regard to who pays journalists and bloggers, it presupposes that the general public still believes that newspapers and journalists provide ‘objective’ coverage of isssues and events. Older folks still think this way but many younger people, especially those who engage with the blogosphere, do not. They would argue – and I would agree – that in practice many individual journalists are as beholden to personal and corporate agendas (political, cultural, economic) as bloggers with professional agendas. Having spent years as a mainstream journalist and now working for a PRfirm and blogging, I will say that I have a lot more editorial freedom now than I did then. I’m happy to disclose that part of my professional role is to blog (tho I’m not paid specifically for that) but I also think that by and large people don’t care very much who’s paying you so long as what you’re giving them is useful in some way. If it ceases being of use they will tune you out.
Reminds me of a saying. Something about opening your mouth and removing all doubt.
There’s a new posterchild.