Mack discusses blog monetization, a much visited topic in blogdom, but as in all things viral garden, he does so with style and substance. And he directs a rather pointed finger at Jaffe and his latest sponsorship idea.
And he ends by raising a question to the rest of us.
"What are your thoughts on blog-monetization? Does an example like the
Target blog work for you, or are you just fine with Jaffe's iPhone
deal? Or can you think of other examples that could directly benefit
readers as well?"
Time for me to come clean. I'm all for monetizing a blog under certain circumstances. CK and I have discussed it and I've emerged with only a slightly bloodied lip and blackened eye. But I don't mean to take her on as I totally get and support where she's coming from. The problem is in the definitions and by translation, the context.
Blogging is a bad term. David Armano has called for us to not refer to people as bloggers. And I finally understand his concern as the concept of a "Blog" is equally misleading and key to this discussion. It's like referring to Time Magazine, The Economist, The Mary Peabody Association for Ants Newsletter, a personal diary and my craphammer blog all as the same thing. We wouldn't think to do this. We intrinsically understand they are each different.
Yet we refer to every blog as a single entity without meaning to do so. As a blog. And they are anything but a single thing. There are so many different types of blogs which is further compounded by an endless number of purposes and intentions.
There are blogs that aggregate content by topic or area. There are blogs that are looking to be an online 'zine of sorts. And there are blogs that are basically extensions of the blog owner. Just to name a few.
Okay. Now I can answer the question. Let's assume we are talking about an individuals site. Not some multi-author zine with editors and online ads to fund it.
How do you deal with the bias? We all have bias. But when someone is giving us a gift or money, does this not change our evaluation of their site or offering?
To put myself on the spot, how do we handle this as consultants? We're paid to asses a company's products, messaging, organization, what have you. It's part of what many of us do.
When a company brings me on board, I assume they want me to be real. To be harsh where necessary. Part of what they are paying me for is to mirror back to them what they cannot see because they are too close to it.
But, if I am truly honest with myself, it also means I am agreeing to play by their rules, however inane and subconscious these may be. I am agreeing to provide them a certain level of service in a certain manner. Anyone who has ever lost an account for "social" or "unusual" reasons has felt this quite directly.
Mack asks some great questions. I wish I had some better answers. But hopefully there is value in having this conversation.
Recent Comments