Blogging is now big business. Mike Arrington reminded us of that with a rant this morning. According to Arrington, about $25 million of VC money went into the coffers of top-tier blogs and blog networks last year, $8.5 million the year before. And maybe I'm reading him wrong, but I detected a bit of distaste when he talked about blog writers starting to think they're worth more than the $5 per post standard apparently set by pioneering blog networks like Weblogs, Inc. and Gawker Media.
"Those salad days are long gone," wrote Arrington. "Writers suddenly want to be paid market wages, far above the $5 per post that they received two years ago. No, we’re talking a big salary, with benefits, and stock options. There went half your margins at least."
I won't disclose what ReadWriteWeb pays its writers, and I honestly don't know what the site's revenues are like, but suffice it to say I make enough to pay my bills by blogging here full-time. And I don't think that's a bad thing. But the majority of bloggers probably aren't being paid what their outlet could afford to pay them. Some, like those who write at the Huffington Post or DailyKos, might not be paid at all.
A bloggers union is an idea that was most recently advanced last month in an issue of the Columbia Journalism Review. "It’s a Wild West out there for bloggers -- even though, without them, the Internet’s frontier would not have expanded so broadly or so rapidly. And even though, without them, the Web-derived profits many of these blog sites are starting to rake in simply wouldn’t exist," wrote Chris Mooney.
Mooney envisions a professional guild for bloggers, not unlike the Writers Guild of America, that would strictly rep professional bloggers. How you weed "professional bloggers" from the hobbyists would be task number one for guild organizers, whom Mooney thinks would initially be the blogosphere's most successful writers -- i.e., people who have sway with management. Unionizing bloggers is something the National Writers Union recently voted to be a priority.
Organizing bloggers is also a meme that popped up last August when some political bloggers started talking about it. There were arguments made both for and against the idea, which organizers hoped would give them the leverage necessary to demand better healthcare, better pay, and more access. All of which are generally good things.
The arguments against blogger unionization are mostly two-fold: 1. blogging is still in its infancy and is barely ready for a unionized workforce, and 2. the blogosphere is built on the idea that anything goes, and organizing would undermine that premise.
However, like it or not, I think some sort of bloggers guild is probably on the horizon. The first steps toward that idea might actually have been taken this week with the announcement of a new ad network aimed at long tail bloggers by Blogger & Podcaster magazine. What makes the BPN ad network stand out is that they're planning to provide healthcare for members and that it is non-exclusive. Though it's not quite what Mooney envisioned (BPN is working with long tail bloggers rather than those writing for top-tier sites), it does have the makings of a foundation for a future organized coalition of bloggers. (Note that there are a number of real challenges to organizing bloggers under the National Labor Relations Act in the US -- this post on MyDD has a good overview.)
What do you think? Mooney says that organizing bloggers is "not only inevitable, but necessary." Do you agree? Or do you think organization goes against the freewheeling principles that the blogosphere was founded on? Share your thoughts in the comments.
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Forget bloggers. Web developers and designers don't even have a union yet.
And we shouldn't. As witnessed in detroit, unions destroy domestic markets.
Posted by: James Thomas | March 19, 2008 4:34 PMI definitely think bloggers need a union. $5 a post is absurd for professional quality writing - even using a blogger's standard for "professional."
Unions don't destroy domestic markets, as the commenter above suggests. They protect workers from exploitation. Greed at the top destroys the market because it doesn't pay workers enough to pay their damn bills. How do we support a domestic market without consumers with the cash to buy all those cars?
Unions now!
Posted by: Myg March | March 19, 2008 4:57 PMYou know ... unions have a way of ruining everything the touch by politicizing. And who is to say whether I am a professional or not?
Posted by: Fabian Schonholz | March 19, 2008 5:29 PMAnd what then happens to all the bloggers in other countries, or those who don't (for various reasons) join the Union? Are they to be barred from blogging, blacklisted for getting linked to, have their content stolen sans attribution?
There is an accusation that can be levelled that this is the "current" A list trying to create restrictive practices so that new talents can't enter the game - the classic "raise the drawbridge" sign of the approach of ossifying incumbency.
Plus the economics don't work - efficient search + long tail transaction dynamics means the genie is out the bottle anyway
No, I think in that sence Mike Arrington is right - the consolidated collaboration will have to be commercial, not coercive, for it to be viable
Posted by: alan p | March 19, 2008 5:31 PMAs the CEO of an internet company that's disrupting the well-established acting unions, notably SAG and AFTRA, I find it hard to believe that creating a bloggers union to be the answer.
In our industry, the trend has moved the other way. Insiders have told me that thousands of actors are leaving the union. It's only the top-dogs that get the full serving of benefits.
Same would go for a bloggers union. The A-List bloggers would get the spotlight, as they do now, and the thousands of other bloggers would be treated as second-class citizen, but granted union status only to support the A-Listers.
Posted by: David Ciccarelli | March 19, 2008 5:46 PMWhats the difference between a journalist and a blogger? The paycheck.
Seriously guys.
Posted by: Hjalmar | March 19, 2008 5:58 PMI wrote with my views against this on on of my blogs in August and my views haven't changed. I'm in process of a server move that has my images all wonky there, but you can still see the post here, sans images: http://www.writerswell.org/?p=92
Posted by: leslie | March 19, 2008 6:56 PMIf you are seriously thinking about going out and organizing a significant bloggers union,well, pack a lunch.
Posted by: vanderleun | March 19, 2008 7:12 PMAs Leslie said, it was stupid last summer and it's stupid now. Bloggers are, for the most part, freelancers. The whole point of unions, for those who apparently slept through American history, is collective bargaining agreements. Now, if someone would like to describe exactly how that would work with multiple business models for blogs across multiple COUNTRIES with different labor laws, then you must know something no one else does. If you don't want to work for $5 a post, don't work for it. That's the whole POINT of being a freelancer. You set your own hours and your own rates. Working under a union contract doesn't allow for setting your own anything. For some reason, the majority of Americans seem to think that unionization means everyone gets more money and does whatever they are already doing. I can only assume that most people haven't ever worked in a union shop or have any idea how hard it is to get into a field that's unionized, or how often you get laid off, or how crappy the pay is until you gain seniority. Wake up folks... there's a whole lot more than money involved.
Posted by: Cyndy Aleo-Carreira | March 19, 2008 7:20 PMI think people have this image of two camps of bloggers: one is pulling in six-figures writing for a top-flight well-heeled blog network. The other camp is the lone wolf, knocking out rants from some bedroom, subsisting on ramman noodles and Kool-aide. The reality is somewhere in between.
Just as freelancers join organizations to learn how to read a contract, get tax assistance and buy health insurance, a professional blogging organization can do the same.
Posted by: Ed Sutherland | March 19, 2008 7:53 PMWho would be in charge of this Union?
Personally I'm with Ed Sutherland on this one.
Posted by: Cesar H Castro Jr | March 19, 2008 8:34 PMUnion might not be the best term. I think what Mooney (the writer I referenced in this post) was getting as wasn't necessarily a union under the Wagner act, which doesn't cover independent contractors. Rather, he's suggesting some sort of blogger organization that allows bloggers to do things like organize for health care, get easier access to press credentials, get professional advice, etc.
I.e., the sort of thing Ed Sutherland talked about in comment #10. So union probably isn't the best word, as this wouldn't (and probably couldn't) be a traditional union.
That's my fault for using the term -- I used it for two reasons: 1. because it catches attention and 2. because I thought it would make the post more clear because unionizing is a concept every is immediately familiar with. In retrospect, though, I think using that word actually muddled the issue a bit.
Posted by: Josh CatoneDon't mean to blow my own horn, but back in 2004 I saw this coming and laid the foundation for we called the Professional Bloggers Association. A group of us formed an advisory board and began to define our charter, which was "developing and promoting the profession of blogging as a legitimate business function." Some A-listers were part of the group too, though I won't name names here.
However, it was a bit before it's time and never went to market so to speak. The site is still up for anyone who wants to see it: www.probloggers.org
Posted by: Paul Chaney | March 19, 2008 9:44 PMAs a freelancer, I do set my own hours, and I do set my own prices. I write what I want and don't write what I don't.
I can't imagine belonging to any organization that would have my interests more at heart than myself. And I can't imagine that "collective bargaining power" is going to help me one bit.
I will resist. It is not futile.
Posted by: Jon | March 19, 2008 9:52 PMHi Josh,
Thank you for reporting on this important issue that deserves careful consideration.
Last month, I announced that Blogger Reps is launching a non-profit for all bloggers regardless of their size or popularity. Our focus will be on education and providing benefits such as affordable health and dental insurance. I invite you to check out my post about it and our discussion at BarCamp LA over the ethics of enforcing journalistic standards as a matter of policy. I will be posting a series of interviews I did at SXSW with bloggers on the subject over the next few weeks as well.
I appreciate your keeping the conversation going and look forward to reading more about your thoughts in the coming months.
Best,
Posted by: Marjorie Kase | March 20, 2008 2:45 AMMarjorie Kase
President and CEO
Blogger Reps
http://www.bloggerreps.com
http://www.bloggerreps.com/blog
Josh, there is such a thing. It's called the Freelancers' Union, and they have a much cheaper healthcare program than a bloggers' group would be able to get simply because they don't limit it to the relatively small field of pro bloggers. They even have dental! They don't do anything about pay scales, because again, they expect that freelancers understand what the concept of freelancing is.
As for press credentials, that is always going to be up to the organizers of whatever event. Lobbying as a group isn't going to have them grant press cred to any blogger with two readers or more; they'll assess that based on the gig, just like they do with print.
I never understand the mentality that bloggers have to constantly reinvent the wheel when there are tons of existing things that people simply need to find and take advantage of.
Posted by: Cyndy Aleo-Carreira | March 20, 2008 4:56 AMCome on guys!! That is a terrible idea!! Why it change so much? Why is it so interesting? Because it is free to do it, it doesn't have to report to anyone. Give the bloggers a union or a guild and you will see it become a newspaper like any other.
Posted by: Thiago Guerra | March 20, 2008 7:07 AMYou write. I read. If I like what you wrote I come back. You write more. You get paid. Simple. Free market.
Union = everyone get paid the same regardless of ability.
Average = best of the worst and worst of the best.
Posted by: Khurt Louis Francis Elliot Williams | March 20, 2008 9:49 AMCreating a Union? This is the most backward idea I've read on ReadWriteWeb.
Let the market decide who should be getting paid and how much.
Unions are not only counter-productive, but they make people lazy, they make people exploit the system, and the quality of service or product will diminish significantly.
In addition, when you join a union, you will be coerced to follow set rules, standards, and guides.
Unless I missed it, but where is the part about how much bloggers would have to contribute to be a part of the union? Even if it doesn't cost anything? Someone would have to fork over some cash... government you say? I tell you right now, there's no way I will be contributing my tax dollars to this.
Posted by: andrei | March 20, 2008 10:09 AMA Union may sound like a good idea to the person making $5 a post, but not to the blogger making $50 a post. Unions remove skill from the pay scale and reward the mediocre. Also, bloggers have to pay for a union! How much of your $5, $10, or $50 per post are you willing to give up?
Posted by: Bill Arneson | March 20, 2008 11:05 AMIf you can't distinguish yourself in a field as individual as writing, you need to just quit. What no one needs is you trying to screw up the entire field by forcing others to overpay you for mediocre, commodity work. On the other end, good writers enjoy getting paid a premium for the skills they cultivate.
Posted by: Morgan | March 20, 2008 12:36 PMMost of the TechCrunch articles are no even worth $5.
Keep doing your thing while Arrington turns TechCrunch into the Fox News of the internets.
Posted by: Wolke Snow | March 20, 2008 2:03 PMI think a union is a terrible idea but a trade organization to provide support, networking, and other services to bloggers might be beneficial. A union has implications that seem contrary to freedom we enjoy as bloggers. I don't understand the benefits. Who would we be bargaining with, our readers?
Posted by: Mark R. Hinkle | March 20, 2008 10:07 PMA bloggers' union wouldn't force anyone to pay for or promote mediocre work just as the current Writer's Guild, et al. does not.
I don't think it's a bad idea at all, especially when there are so many eager to exploit out work.
Posted by: Dana | March 24, 2008 8:48 AM*our
Posted by: Dana | March 24, 2008 8:50 AMthank you
Posted by: aliba | March 31, 2008 2:59 AM