Online publishers large and small have been struggling to create or discover sustainable business models for more than ten years. We’re no closer now than we were then; in fact, there’s mounting evidence that we’re farther away.
Compare and contrast two recent developments. Jason Kottke announces that he’s quitting his day job to write and edit kottke.org full time using the PBS voluntary contribution/benefactor/patron model:
I’m attempting to revisit the idea of arts patronage in the context of the internet. Patrons of the arts have typically been wealthy individuals, well-heeled foundations, or corporations. As we’ve seen in many contexts, the net allows individuals from geographically dispersed locations to aggregate themselves for any number of reasons. So, when you’ve got a group of people who are interested in a particular artist, writer, etc., they should be able to mobilize over the internet and support that person directly instead of waiting around for the MacArthur Foundation or Cosimo de Medici to do it.
A week previous, J. D. Lasica investigates the ethical implications of paid influence peddling in the blogosphere. You know the shit’s getting deep when a trade association releases ethical guidelines for shills. Lasica asks a series of not-so-tough questions that, if nothing else, separate the imaginary from the credible:
Cyberspace and the blogosphere add new wrinkles to the debate. Just how far can marketers go in soliciting blog coverage of their products or services? Does the practice of paying bloggers to blog about a product amount to an advertorial, embedded infomercial or product placement—and does such an arrangement violate the compact of trust between reader and writer? Or is it simply the next logical step in the blogosphere’s evolution from hobby to business opportunity? Do different rules apply to journalists who blog?
As Lasica points out, the Society of Professional Journalsts’ ethics code is clear on these issues, going so far as to preclude service in community organizations that compromise journalistic integrity.
A somewhat looser ethical canon has evolved within the blogosphere, focusing on disclosure, reputation, and transparency. Several attempts have been made to codify this canon within the blogosphere; so far none have really stuck.
Because the nature of the blogosphere is that of the net itself—evolving, fiercely independent, and resistant to external control—attempts to commercialize the blogosphere have resulted in much fretful hand-wringing and not much else, statements to the contrary from the marketeers not withstanding. As Dragonfly Media CEO Ron Williams told Lasica, “We’ve reached a saturation point with commercial message among people who resent the intrusion of commercialism into almost every aspect of their lives….”
And this is happening in the legacy media as well as the blogosphere; only with higher stakes. Witness the Bush administration paying US$240,000 to Armstrong Williams for propaganda services under the guise of objective commentary. And the Associated Press recently reported that the Pentagon is investigating the US military’s practice of paying journalists to write for a website with the mission of influencing opinion in the Balkans. The list goes on.
For an internet-equivalent of the full blown patronage model that appears to be legitimate and sustainable, take a look at what Chris Locke is doing with Chief Blogging Officer. Locke is managing to maintain commercial viability while retaining his reputation through transparency.
Which brings us back to Kottke’s micropatronage model; something ARTS & FARCES tried several years ago. Here’s hoping we were too soon and Kottke’s onto something that’s sustainable. Kottke wisely wants to avoid advertising on his publication. Kottke.org is a one-person nanopublication and advertising, as Kottke explains, would disrupt the relationship dynamic between author and reader:
There are currently two parties involved with kottke.org: me and the collective you. Advertising introduces a third party. In my experience, the third wheel of advertising often works to unbalance the relationship in favor of either the author or the readers (usually in favor of the author). If ads were involved, I might feel the need to change what or how I write to appease advertisers. I might write to increase pageviews and earn more revenue. I could fill pages with ads, earning more revenue but making the content more difficult to read or pushing some content off the page entirely. You could block advertising and deny me needed revenue.
None of that is appealing to me. If I’m writing, you’re reading, I’m responding to what you’ve got to say about my writing, and we’re mixin’ it up in the comments, why do we need a middleman? Why not keep that dynamic intact if we can?
0 responses. Comments closed for this article.