Why The Arguments That The Huffington Post Must Pay Bloggers Is Misguided: Payment Isn't Just Money
from the you-made-the-choice dept
We didn't mention the whole AOL buying Huffington Post story earlier this week, because there just didn't seem to be that much to say about it. It was an interesting deal, to be sure, and I'll be curious to watch what AOL does with the property, but, beyond that, it seemed like just another content acquisition deal. However, almost immediately after the deal went through, I started seeing some rumblings on Twitter, picking at the scab that has always annoyed a certain group of people about The Huffington Post: that it doesn't pay most of its writers. Sure enough, it didn't take long for this issue to start to spread, with the inevitable summary line of: "Hey, HuffPo became famous because all these people worked for free, and yet, they don't get a cut of the sale."That story is now snowballing. Dan Gilmor wrote a blog post arguing that it was the "ethical" thing to do to start paying bloggers. Douglas Ruskoff said that he'd no longer blog on the site for free. And, of course, a bunch of cranky HuffPo contributors have created a whole campaign arguing that Arianna Huffington had no right to sell the site, since it was built off of their free labor.
They're all wrong.
Of course, we've been through this before. Five years ago, Nick Carr tried to argue that all the various big Web 2.0 sites like (at the time) Digg, YouTube and MySpace were really digital sharecroppers exploiting labor. As we argued at the time, this was hogwash. People were using those sites because they provided a valuable service. The reason they provided labor was because they got something of value in return -- whether it was attention or hosting or distribution or reputation.
Three years ago, we saw an almost identical controversy after AOL bought Bebo and musician Billy Bragg demanded some of the $850 million AOL paid (in retrospect, a massively bad decision). Bragg argued that Bebo made this money based on all of the "free labor" of musicians who used the site. But that ignored the fact that those musicians got tremendous value in using the Bebo platform to connect with fans and distribute their music... all for free. The folks who got to keep the money were the ones who took the actual risk. The ones who had to cover the expenses to keep the site and the service running, even when it wasn't making enough revenue. They took the risk, they should get the reward. The people who used the site did so of their own free will knowing quite well that the benefit they got from using the service was worth it to them at the time. Along those lines, if Bebo had struggled and faced bankruptcy instead of a massive buyout, would Bragg have felt obligated to give them money to keep it going? Similarly, if HuffPo had been running out of money, and Arianna had gone back and demanded that those who used the platform pay up retroactively, how would these people have reacted?
There are more ways to "get paid" than with money.
The reason that people chose to blog for free at the Huffington Post was because it's a fantastic platform for exposure. It brings traffic like no one else out there, and if you want to present something in a way that's likely to get more attention than on your own blog that no one visits, posting at HuffPo can be quite a good way to go.
And that's the point: the people who chose -- of their own free will -- to post at the Huffington Post for free did so because they clearly got value out of doing so. Otherwise, why would they have done so in the first place? To then say that the only proper thing is to pay them is completely missing the point. It's an attempt to retroactively go back and change the terms of a deal. If you wanted to get paid directly for what you write, fine, don't write for the Huffington Post. It's that simple. Go out and pitch your stories to publishers who pay freelancers. But don't go back and complain afterwards when the folks who actually did take the risk of putting together the site, financing it, organizing it, hiring the staff, buying the servers, paying for the bandwidth, and building it up so that it was such a successful platform, then get paid for their efforts.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, payment, platforms, value
Companies: aol, huffington post
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, was there some point you were trying to make? Or did I just kill it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An example: I used to post (in the tens of thousands) in the Windows technical forums for ars technica, because I enjoyed helping people. I also ad-block, and when they started to bitch at their ad-blockers, well, that was all I needed to know I was no longer welcome. I occasionally revisit the forum I used to post at and it's a virtual graveyard, apparently I wasn't the only one that abandoned the site.
My point is people may not do it for the money, but don't expect them to stick around it you make money off of them in a way they do not agree with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay Us!
Of course, Mike, if you get sued into bankruptcy with some bogus copyright lawsuit or ICE throws you in jail and tortures you - you're on your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So bloggers who make this arrangement with a blog = all good, but musicians who make this arrangement with a label = all bad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wait, I think that might be a trick question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I was trying to point out that musicians have many established methods of getting paid, like live performances, tours, merchandise and so on, while bloggers don't generally have the same avenues available. My hope was to point out the flaws in Average_Joes comparison of musicians to bloggers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When have I ever said that?
You sure do misrepresent what I say a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You sure do misrepresent what I say a lot.
Are you now going on the record as saying that it's not bad for musicians to sign up with labels even if they get no money in return?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If they get something else in return of value and know the exchange that they're going in for, sure. But that's not what happens, is it? The labels pitch them on how much money they're all going to make as rockstars... and then use accounting tricks to never pay them. That's quite different than being totally upfront about the deal, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That would be different, if it were true. Exactly how many musicians are tricked into thinking they will be made into rockstars, and how many are told up front the reality of the deal they are getting into? You make it sound like every one of them is tricked, and I suspect that's not actually the case. I'd like to see the evidence you have, if any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um. Have you ever spoken to someone who signed a major label deal? I do all the time -- and they're all sold on the fact that Warner/Universal/Sony/EMI are going to make them rockstars. All of them.
And the deal has explicit terms under which they're going to make money.
HuffPo doesn't do that. It explicitly says you're not making money directly from us.
If a record label set itself up and said "here's the deal, you won't make any money from us, but we'll promote the hell out of you *and* you're free to capitalize on that with different business models" and people sign up for that, that would be fair.
But that's not what happens. Find me a musician who was given that deal. Otherwise, stop misrepresenting what I say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the deal has explicit terms under which they're going to make money.
HuffPo doesn't do that. It explicitly says you're not making money directly from us.
If a record label set itself up and said "here's the deal, you won't make any money from us, but we'll promote the hell out of you *and* you're free to capitalize on that with different business models" and people sign up for that, that would be fair.
But that's not what happens. Find me a musician who was given that deal. Otherwise, stop misrepresenting what I say.
So the only evidence that you can give that the labels are all evil is unsupported, conclusory hearsay. Sounds about right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never said they were all evil. Why do you lie?
Seriously, AJ, knock off this childish game you play where you blatantly misrepresent everything I say. It doesn't make you look smart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you just said that "Warner/Universal/Sony/EMI" are evil. You know, "all of them." I'm sure you can name a hole-in-the-wall label that's not evil, but the fact is, you think all of the big labels are evil. I don't even care that you think that. I just think it's hilarious that you waffling on the issue.
Regardless, I can't help but notice you didn't deny that your statements are nothing but unsupported, conclusory hearsay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I said no such thing.
Why lie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why lie?
Oh, really? No such thing? Nothing like it at all? LOL! Yeah, right.
Why don't you explain what you actually think? It would be more productive than this stupid exchange we're having.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um. I'm not sure what you're laughing at. When did I say that all the major record labels were evil?
Say it or admit you're lying again.
Why don't you explain what you actually think? It would be more productive than this stupid exchange we're having.
Dude. The only reason this conversation is not productive is because someone decided to go on a little rampage pretending I said something I didn't say.
If you want to know what I said and what I think, try reading what I write.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is it? Is it "not what happens," therefore making it "all bad," or is it not as bad as you are saying it is, making your statement that it's "not what happens" a misrepresentation? You've trapped yourself in a corner. People who lie a lot often do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
AJ. Learn to read English.
Which is it? Is it "not what happens," therefore making it "all bad," or is it not as bad as you are saying it is, making your statement that it's "not what happens" a misrepresentation? You've trapped yourself in a corner. People who lie a lot often do.
Again, learn to read English. Your misrepresentations are getting worse. Anyone is free to read what I wrote above, and those who understand basic English can comprehend it. You, apparently, cannot -- or you choose to purposely misrepresent what I wrote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All you're capable of is nitpicking and ranting over semantics, putting words into peoples mouths and making stupid assumptions that stem from your faulty extrapolations. Your rhetoric stinks and your logic doesn't work because you seem to be incapable of the true impartiality needed to accurately apply logic.
Your problem is that you think that enrolling for law automatically makes you great at logic and rhetoric and that those things are somehow the possessions of the legal world alone. In other words, you believe your own "elitist" bullshit.
Someone with your ego will always be flawed at logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you don't value my posts, don't read them. From the looks of it to me, you're the one with the ego. You're the elitist.
I'm here to understand the law as it applies to things that I'm interested in, like IP, privacy, free speech, etc. I do my best to add meaningful input to the conversation. I do research on issues and share that research with others. What do you do?
I also enjoy calling Mike out for being a two-faced liar. He states that piracy is not OK, but then he defends piracy every single possible chance he gets. His hypocrisy amuses me, and I point it out from time to time. If you don't think he's a hypocrite, then fine. We're all entitled to our opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are NOT worth arguing with; people have tried to reason with you and gotten nothing but broken-record gibberish in reply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just 'cause you say it don't make it true. Never has. Never will. In your own words: Amusing, yet kind of pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For instance
This is an easy one...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It seems nowadays it's always up to the content creator to run a scam within a scam: hey, we're fucking you over so why don't you get wise and fuck someone else over? I'm offering you the *privilege* of having your song in my million-dollar commercial/film/tv show, so why don't you just use that momentum to go sell some singles out of a cardboard box in your truck in front of the stadium? You ought to be glad for the exposure. Oh, what's this? That's just the money I'm paying the director for his skills. And this? The actor's wages. Why? Well, they're all highly trained, uniquely skilled artisans who contribute to the value of the production. But music? Come on... It's your passion, right? You'd do that anyway. Oh, and hey... can I get another martini for my friend here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is someone putting a gun to these people's heads to write for HuffPo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So then don't play those clubs.
What are you complaining about?
It seems nowadays it's always up to the content creator to run a scam within a scam: hey, we're fucking you over so why don't you get wise and fuck someone else over? I'm offering you the *privilege* of having your song in my million-dollar commercial/film/tv show, so why don't you just use that momentum to go sell some singles out of a cardboard box in your truck in front of the stadium? You ought to be glad for the exposure.
If you're not glad for the exposure, then don't do it.
What's the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And while this trend ironically claims to be artist-friendly, it is very carefully and slowly dismantling any possibility of making a living based on creative skills. And a very specific set of creative skills! No one is telling actors that they should be happy for the exposure a commercial gets them so that they can go sell their headshots.
Look, I understand that current copyright law is obscenely overreaching. I accept that the internet has made it near impossible to sell records. I just think that the combination of these forces have obscured a reasonable valuing of creative work.
I'm curious at what point you think people should people get paid for this work, and even more curious whether you think something like writing a song should be able to make anyone a living at all, or is that some kinda bygone notion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Welcome to the real world, where you AREN'T entitled to get paid for work that no one wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Systematic devaluing of creative content?"
Yeah right. What you mean is that there's now more content on the market than ever before, and the price is moving to market value. That's how it works.
However, top notch content creators still have plenty of ways of getting paid.
And while this trend ironically claims to be artist-friendly, it is very carefully and slowly dismantling any possibility of making a living based on creative skills.
Ok, now I know you're making stuff up. We've been pointing to more and more examples of how content creators who could NEVER make any money before are now able to do so, in part thanks to the wider exposure they can get.
I just think that the combination of these forces have obscured a reasonable valuing of creative work.
Well, there's your problem. You think there's some "reasonable value" above market value. There isn't. But that doesn't mean you can't make money.
I'm curious at what point you think people should people get paid for this work, and even more curious whether you think something like writing a song should be able to make anyone a living at all, or is that some kinda bygone notion?
Of course I think people should be able to make a living writing music: if they put in place a smart business model. It's why I highlight so many smart business models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[I accept both trade secret (with government not being justified imo in supporting closed formats or standards, generally) and copyright protected if weak copyright.. but not patent protected as that already goes beyond where I draw the line with copyright.. however I would accept some sort of tax support system for patent invention, generally.]
Whenever I think of whether I would write or spend time here or there online, I try to remember what is at stake, and I accept the terms all being what it is. I definitely get value out of participating on this website for example, but it's naive to think that unpaid contributors don't reasonably have varying expectations.
As someone else started describing (and imo), the weakness of our system is not that those that contribute don't get paid in cash, but that our system so rewards financial wealth with the same money/terms required by people to feed and shelter themselves. If we gave proper imo priority to citizen's rights for life and basics higher than for extra property (something a government of the people could certainly do within our Constitutional framework), then we would not have this problem. Performers, for example, would have alternative venues for performing that currently are closed off either by restrictions of public land here and there and also with too much land being "private" with almost no rights to the public and none of this private land reserved for ordinary human beings as inalienable rights.
The summary: if monopolies are the wrong solution to a peaceful society with everyone having a fair shot, a correct solution would still be evading us were we to remove monopolies. As concerns this site, I expect to cut back in time, as I do with every other site. I'd like "wealth" to be better distributed, in general, but I value what websites like this one offer today while I am here and participating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
supply and demand
therefore, it is harder than ever for creative people to distinguish themselves from the herd. each creator needs to find their way. some have connections, others sign up with a label or publisher, and still others give their art away to expose people to it.
in the end each creator succeeds or fails based on their talent and their ability to draw an audience. using a blogging environment to get yourself out there is just one example. if you reach a point where you don't need to create for free, awesome. otherwise, you're stuck with creating for free and finding derivative ways to earn income from your talent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Difference between Gilmor and Rushkoff
Rushkoff isn't saying that, though. As he wrote, "It's because we write for HuffPo for free, and � because it's Arianna � we do it without resentment."
Do not discount the value of personal relationships here. I have little doubt that a fair number of contributors to HuffPo did so in part "because it's Arianna". This AOL deal changes that dynamic, and some, like Rushkoff, will elect to vote with their feet. I don't get the sense that Rushkoff would stop writing for HuffPo because he's not getting paid -- I get the sense that Rushkoff would stop writing for HuffPo because now it's really AOL.
Sure, some contributors to HuffPo did it for other reasons, such as you mention, and many of those will continue to do so for the same reasons. However, do not tar everyone with the same brush, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ average_joe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ average_joe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And if it weren't for the free publicity, Huffpo wouldn't have been worth writing for. Get it?
And while you can't eat publicity, if you're smart, then you'd know how to turn publicity into money.
If you're not smart and can't turn publicity into money, well, then that's really your problem, not Arianna's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think you're understating the issue.
Based on the people who make a living by "being famous for being famous" (the Salahi's, Jersey Shore cast, D-list actors like Pamela Anderson, etc.), it doesn't appear to require much intelligence at all to be able to turn publicity into money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What risk did the writers take to deserve reward? This isn't about not valuing their contributions, this is about real risk to real reward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think this particular argument is going to work well in this forum. The record labels have been saying for years that they deserve most of the money that comes from selling music because they take the financial risks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misunderstsnding
Is it really that hard to understand? Do some of you need help with the big words?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
money
Now that AOL (overpaid) 315 million for the site, everyone wants to see if they can get a cut of it.
And now that money is involved, I am sure that is more than one blogger who is asking why they are posting for free when so much money is involved.
Yes, bloggers can complain, but they do get the exposure.
Either way, expect a lot of them to leave the site if they don't get money in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The difference between "must" and "should"
What is HuffPo providing that entitles them to lots of money? Maybe you think the market has made the choice, and that the popularity of the site is in itself, deserved of such compensation, but if the popularity is based on the good will of its contributors, that could prove fickle.
If HuffPo's writers don't think exposure is enough compensation, or think that exposure is only important insofar as it needs to lead to compensation somewhere else, seems to me they at least have the right to request money for their efforts. If HuffPo doesn't want to give it, fine...but maybe there will be another outlet (i.e. The Daily Beast) that comes along and has the resources to get up there and compete and lure away the writers.
Isn't there an argument for keeping the writers happy? If that means a measure of compensation, maybe that represents a good business model. Don't think it's necessarily written in stone that HuffPo will remain a top website if it doesn't compensate, so why shouldn't writers ask/demand more in recognition of that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The difference between "must" and "should"
All three of those websites depend on people offering their content without being paid for it, but their value isn't in the content but in the implementation of their small part. Having hundreds of thousands of people using it only reinforces the fact that the implementation was good.
That�s what makes the website worth $315mill, not the content but the proven successful implementation.
These people knew that they would not be payed for their posts, so no, they should not be payed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The difference between "must" and "should"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great for exposure
This is one of the webs most popular business models. Website owners and others contribute content for exposure and traffic and in return, the website use the content to drive traffic and ad-revenue.
I am not familiar with huff post, as I am from Norway, but the same principle is valid for a huge number of websites out there (inluding facebook, twitter and google)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free my ass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free my ass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free my ass
Oh, I'm sorry. I must be behind the times, because Craiglist is apparently paying the bills for anyone that posts on their site, and newspaper Personals will put food on your table for just having a phone number on the sheets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free my ass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free my ass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streisand effect
I've been making a point of clicking on each of his comments to see what offends you guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Streisand effect
It may be a better idea to keep the posts visible rather than hiding it. Especially as it is not spam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Streisand effect
But I'd even argue that it simply does not work purely because of human nature. For instance, I have to expand and see what it was that was hidden. Wait, wait..... just had a though, again..... but isn't it kind of a localised streisand effect?
Anyway, I expand and read every hidden comment. Am I alone or is it simple human nature?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not? Worked for Disney, see the copyright term extensions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HuffPo and payments
For one thing, if you want payment, negotiate it in advance, not in retrospect!
Many times in the past, I have had people offer to do something for me, then afterwards demand payment. At one time I would buckle; now, I try to be reasonable, but basically my response (unstated, if possible) is "so, sue me!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]