Comments on: Don’t pay contributors (but don’t treat them like crap either)

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:19:12 +0000

The largest issue I see is determining the worth of user-generated content. With the mass quantity of content being thrown at these sites (and these companies need this volume for economies of scale and marginal profit), it’s impossible to determine value on an individual basis.

The alternatives, as I see it, are fixed-rate or percentage of advertising revenue. Revenue sharing is the fairest and rewards quality authors, but find a Web 2.0 company that’s willing to implement a system of royalties ad vitam æternam. (Remember Jerry Seinfeld’s 12-cent residual checks from Japan? Multiply by the number of posters on Youtube!) Fixed-rate pay would rob that minority of quality authors, but, well it’s better than a kick in the balls.

I think the best we can hope for is that these companies respect copyright of the author but openly ask for an exclusive license. Quality authors that generate enough revenue should be in a position to negotiate a non-exclusive license. For money, go pro.

Conversely, this should be how “traditional” media differentiate themselves in a market full of user-generated content. Prove to information consumers (shudders) that you are worth paying for because you deliver quality content that you paid for through a payroll of quality journalists, columnists, freelancers, editors and designers, as well as an expense account for quality materials, tools and travel.

“Traditional” media shouldn’t be afraid to elicit consumer input. Letters to the editor and opinion pieces—hell, even pictures of the snow—have their place. But not at the expense of professionally drafted material. That’s not just treating contributors like crap, but your customers like saps.

I know, I’m living in a pipe dream.

Speaking of which, Steve… you can send my 5¢ to the following address: … =¬P

By: oniquet

oniquet — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:55:18 +0000

@fred : ouin, pas facile à gérer les conspirationnistes.

By: fred

fred — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 01:45:41 +0000

@oniquet: i have read cent papiers and yes… once in a while there is good stuff.. but it isnt often enough to be a reliable news source … ive read more pieces by conspirationist freak than anything…

anyway… it a beginning and it’s a nice read once in a while…

By: Dom

Dom — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 22:26:51 +0000

I can beat your record for time between filing and publishing. I wrote something for MtlDiary in October and it still hasn’t seen the light of day!

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 22:25:05 +0000

I would agree that paying someone a minimal amount for content would not place much more “value” on their work. The point I was trying to make is that the idea of paying someone for content, does not necessarily cheapen the content itself. The best journalism is still done by paid journalists.

Most user-generated content on the web IS fluff. The reason is that most users don’t create content for others, they create it for themselves. People have a need to express themselves. It’s egotism, and I feel it’s the motivation for much of the user generated content out there. That’s the value they get out of it. My point is not to criticize the fluff, but to argue that I don’t think that most users feel the need to be paid.

By: oniquet

oniquet — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:33:25 +0000

@Fagstein : it’s kind of a vicious circle… we wan’t to invest time and money on this kind of project so it can grow, but we don’t want for people to think as CentPapiers (or whatever 2.0 thing) “as a magic ticket to free labour”. So our compromise is to give some of the revenues (all of it for now) to some of the contributors as a bonus.

By: Fagstein

Fagstein — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:19:59 +0000

@Peter: I think part of the problem is that users would get paid a very small amount for what they contribute. Would you think your work was valued more if you got paid 5 cents an hour for it than if you did it as a volunteer?

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:01:39 +0000

I don’t see how paying users who generate content cheapens what they contribute. It’s just the opposite. Paying someone places value on what they do. It gives the person an incentive to work hard and produce a good product. It’s like any other enterprise. You get what you pay for.

By: oniquet

oniquet — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:59:47 +0000

@Fred : CentPapiers’ goal is not to take the place of La Presse or whatever. I don’t know where you got that. It’s a complement to those big medias and you should have read it because there is many great content on fields not covered by mainstream medias, even though it’s still a work in progress, an experiment. Furthermore, we are redistributing revenues to the writers.

By: Fred

Fred — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:20:15 +0000

It has been said that the Internet would be better without comments everywhere.. On digg, youtube, that’s true. On Slashdot, from times to times, comments are interesting…

And Voir readers are not humans. Everybody knows that they are chimps smashing their keyboards OR wannabe sceners who want to belong so much to said (whatever it is) scene… Voir is the Pitchfork of local media…

By: Philippe-A.

Philippe-A. — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:47:46 +0000

Voir encourage their readears to comment by awarding them with points that increse their chances to win stuff, mostly cds and show tickets. Not so long ago, these points were used in an auction (their word) where you could actually purchase these prizes.

The comments on Voir are by far the most uninteresting, uselss and flat out stupid of the whole wide web.

By: Fred

Fred — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:23:07 +0000

I hope that this web2.0 craze ends soon. It’s okay for sites like flickr and stuff like that… But, and i’m sorry to say this… but sites like Cent papiers are nowhere near ready to take the place of La Presse, Le Devoir or whatever. The users that actually bring good quality content to sites/medias should get a retribution. Sending pics of my (hypothetic) dog for weather reports is not what i’m looking for in a serious news source so enough of that crap!

In short, i agree wholehearthtedly with you..!

(really sorry if my comment is full of errors… EN is my second language..)