If They Were That Smart…
Posted on February 9th, 2011 in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »
…they probably wouldn’t be bloggers.
(I can say this because, well, you know.)
Now that HuffPo has been valued at $315 million by AOL—a move that will prove disastrous, IMHO—the people who create the content for it would actually like to be paid, the Daily reports.
“Even $50 per blog would help out,” said Tara Dublin, an unemployed Portland-based (and how many times have we heard that before?) HuffPo contributor.
I’m sure it would! If I paid myself $50 per blog, I’d be pretty close to a millionaire. (We’re approaching 5,000 posts here on Shots in the Dark. Hooray!)
Of course, then you’d have the question of whether to pay some people more than others, and whether some bloggers were just, you know, bad. ‘Cause some of ’em are.
In any event, the point is moot: Let ’em eat liberal cake! Arianna’s not paying them a dime! (And don’t even think about health insurance.)
According to the Daily, Huffington sent her bloggers an email saying that the only real change they’d notice from the sale is “more people reading what you wrote.”
Which will surely make them feel better when they’re writing rent checks.
Full disclosure: I blogged a bit for HuffPo back when it first started. The idea was that you’d trade content for exposure. But after a while, I thought, wait a minute—the point of this exposure is to make me money, and that it isn’t. No one was calling me up and saying, “Love your blogs—how about a column in [insert name of dying print media publication here].”
Plus, since HuffPo was adding about ten new bloggers every time Arianna went to Starbucks, one’s “brand” was constantly diluted.
So I thought back to Tom Sawyer and the fence and decided that I didn’t need the exposure that much.
Props, of course, to Huffington, who I’m sure has worked her tuckus off building the site, and she certainly took a lot of shit for it in the early days. But how long can something survive when it’s based on free labor? Or is there a continuous supply of suckers in the blogosphere?
4 Responses
2/10/2024 3:55 am
Richard,
I agree with you, that this is going to be a disaster for AOL (that’s why I’m getting ready to buy the stock when it really craters over the next few months). However, Ariana has proved herself to be one smart Greek, not only in getting a great price for a rag, but getting 95% of it in cash. Very smart.
With that being said, we have to be very wary about your comments about blogs and tech First you go and buy “an old” I Pad. Ooch.
Then, we have to consider your comments about one of the fastest growing segments of communications.
You said:
“Twitter is Dead
Posted on October 15th, 2009 in Uncategorized |
It’s my sense that Twitter is headed the way of MySpace—a social networking tool that was once all the rage but has settled into mainstream irrelevance.
I’m not saying Tweeter is about to go belly-up—not that it makes money anyway—just that its status as a cultural phenomenon is over and its status as a niche social network for commercial users seems clear.”
So, with all due respect, this is how it is turning out.
From today’s Wall Street Journal
“As Internet valuations climb and bankers and would-be buyers circle Silicon Valley in an increasingly frothy tech market, many eyes are on one particularly desirable, if still enigmatic, target: Twitter. Discussions with at least some potential suitors have produced an estimated valuation of $8 billion to $10 billion.”
You win some, you lose some
2/10/2024 10:32 am
Richard, do you want your photos back?
2/10/2024 11:01 am
Sam-Twitter being valued at $10 billion is like HuffPo being valued at $315 million. I’m sure you can find someone to pay for it, but how that works out for them…
As for Arianna, I give her due props. I know her slightly, and I think she’s very smart, incredibly hardworking, and has her finger on the pulse of the culture.
2/10/2024 11:03 am
Sam-also, in my own defense, the iPad was a gift. Myself, I would have waited!