Comment by ChuckMcM | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChuckMcM | Hacker News Reader

This dispute will be worthwhile to follow. Lets look at the 'value' equation here:

Value received: Reader gets content to view/read. Price paid: Advertisements are pushed with content. Market Evaluation: CPM

The more advertisements and advertising 'gimmicks' (click throughs, pop unders, talking flash) that readers deal with raises their perceived 'cost' of the content.

The more Ad clicks, views, mouse-overs, demographic sharing/tracking the web site gets increases the revenue generated by the content.

Costs associated with generating the content - CMS operation, rights clearance (author, images, other media).

There is lots of evidence that as people put more and more intrusive advertisements on their web site readership goes down (higher 'cost') and mitigation efforts (AdBlock, Flashblock) go up (user attempt to lower the cost). Interesting experiment at Ars with blocking content if Ads are blocked: http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking...

Versus the paywalls (very explicit cost structure for readers).

All this adds data points to the questions of 'can readers distinguish between good content and not-good content' and what is the marginal value of 'good content' vs 'farmed content'.

Really fascinating to watch these systems getting tested and evaluated in real time in the real world.

Also fascinating to see how the free market will settle on the price of the content writers' services. Historically, one could argue that digital ecosystems have placed a clear value on timeliness over quality and depth, with some notable exceptions.

Unfortunately, I just don't see much of a future for long-form, written journalism on the web as a viable profession, unless you are the owner-operator of the content shop or blog. When people want timeliness, they'll go to timely sources. When they want depth, they'll go to message boards or social media channels. The latter are much more dynamic and "living" sources of deep information than static articles are.

Finally, the HuffPo contributors need to keep in mind that they tied their own bonds here. They volunteered their services for free in the first place. If you place such a low value on your own work, what do you expect you're going to get paid for it?

I have sympathy for the writers in this situation, and for writers in general. In many respects, though not professionally, I count myself among their ranks. But the way people consume information is changing fundamentally, and journalism gigs as they've traditionally existed are anachronisms.

Best way to get paid, if you're determined to be an individual content writer/contributor? Build your brand, market the hell out of yourself, and build a following. The size of your following is your most tangible indicator of worth on the market for your services.

"Unfortunately, I just don't see much of a future for long-form, written journalism on the web as a viable profession, unless you are the owner-operator of the content shop or blog. When people want timeliness, they'll go to timely sources. When they want depth, they'll go to message boards or social media channels. The latter are much more dynamic and "living" sources of deep information than static articles are."

I think the Jury is still out on this. I subscribe to the Economist and read it primarily digitally on my iPad. I suspect a lower priced 'digital only' Economist will bring in some additional revenue there. And I don't think we have yet seen a 'long form' journalism vehicle which is digital only so its still very hard to tease apart the costs vs revenue. (if there is one then I'm not yet aware of it)

Would love to hear about such a project if one exists.

Fair point. By "long-form," for the purposes of my post, I was referring really to anything longer than a handful of paragraphs. The definition of "long-form" itself is changing and is arguably becoming meaningless. But I'd consider HuffPo to be an example of what I was attempting to refer to.

I agree that this will be fascinating to watch, but I'm also surprised it took this long. From the moment the sale to AOL was announced I've been waiting for the backlash from the writers, asking for their piece of the pie.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com