<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Advertising, editorial lines blur as bloggers&#039; salaries tied to traffic</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ojr.org/advertising-editorial-lines-blur-as-bloggers-salaries-tied-to-traffic/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ojr.org/advertising-editorial-lines-blur-as-bloggers-salaries-tied-to-traffic/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=advertising-editorial-lines-blur-as-bloggers-salaries-tied-to-traffic</link>
	<description>Focusing on the future of digital journalism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:43:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Perricone</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/advertising-editorial-lines-blur-as-bloggers-salaries-tied-to-traffic/#comment-161</link>
		<dc:creator>John Perricone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2005 19:48:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=442#comment-161</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve had similar concerns about traffic.  On the one hand, writing to 30 readers is sort of like yelling in a closet.  On the other, now that I have some readers, it&#039;s important to recognize that they come to me for what I have to offer.  Changing topics or styles can backfire, and my readers are quick to let me know.  They are also pretty unwilling to pay, even small amounts, through, say, a donation format.

Interesting article, as I have just added several new writers to my site, and was considering tying their share of revenue to their traffic.  I&#039;ll definitely rethink that approach now.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve had similar concerns about traffic.  On the one hand, writing to 30 readers is sort of like yelling in a closet.  On the other, now that I have some readers, it&#8217;s important to recognize that they come to me for what I have to offer.  Changing topics or styles can backfire, and my readers are quick to let me know.  They are also pretty unwilling to pay, even small amounts, through, say, a donation format.</p>
<p>Interesting article, as I have just added several new writers to my site, and was considering tying their share of revenue to their traffic.  I&#8217;ll definitely rethink that approach now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Niles</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/advertising-editorial-lines-blur-as-bloggers-salaries-tied-to-traffic/#comment-160</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Niles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:26:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=442#comment-160</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Almost all journalists learn how to report, write and edit. But few learn how to be a publisher. But journalists need a publisher&#039;s skills when they set out on their own and create their own websites. You need to be able to figure out how to bring in enough money to, first, cover your bills and, then, make a living. I&#039;m wrestling with how to add publishing skills to the curriculum here at USC and would love to hear how other journalism schools are addressing this need.

Ultimately, all journalists&#039; incomes are tied to the popularity of their work. If a newspaper loses readers (and therefore, advertisers), journalists lose their raises and some lose their jobs. So, on a conceptual level, what Gawker is doing is nothing new. It&#039;s just that at a Gawker site, there&#039;s one blogger determining the popularity of his or her site, not a newsroom of reporters who can bear collectively the success or failure of their reporting&#039;s popularity. And that potentially exposes a writer to immediate, daily financial pressure that he or she would not have to deal with in a newsroom.

Every independent reporter publishing online has to deal with this issue at some point. Which is why I think that online publishing skills, not just the techie stuff, but the business side, ought to be part of j-school curricula. And that&#039;s why we&#039;ve got a wiki going on &lt;a href=/ojr/wiki/ethics/ rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;journalism ethics&lt;/a&gt; that I hope online journalists will contribute to and debate.

Personally, I&#039;ve dealt with this issue on my sites by outsourcing the advertising on those sites to Google AdSense and a handful of affiliate vendors. Unlike Rafat&#039;s site, my sites (not OJR, my personal sites) publish in well-defined niches where Google has attracted plenty of advertisers. So I have not encountered the targeting problem he has. And allowing an outside agency to place, bill and manage the ads on my site allows me to preserve a ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Almost all journalists learn how to report, write and edit. But few learn how to be a publisher. But journalists need a publisher&#8217;s skills when they set out on their own and create their own websites. You need to be able to figure out how to bring in enough money to, first, cover your bills and, then, make a living. I&#8217;m wrestling with how to add publishing skills to the curriculum here at USC and would love to hear how other journalism schools are addressing this need.</p>
<p>Ultimately, all journalists&#8217; incomes are tied to the popularity of their work. If a newspaper loses readers (and therefore, advertisers), journalists lose their raises and some lose their jobs. So, on a conceptual level, what Gawker is doing is nothing new. It&#8217;s just that at a Gawker site, there&#8217;s one blogger determining the popularity of his or her site, not a newsroom of reporters who can bear collectively the success or failure of their reporting&#8217;s popularity. And that potentially exposes a writer to immediate, daily financial pressure that he or she would not have to deal with in a newsroom.</p>
<p>Every independent reporter publishing online has to deal with this issue at some point. Which is why I think that online publishing skills, not just the techie stuff, but the business side, ought to be part of j-school curricula. And that&#8217;s why we&#8217;ve got a wiki going on <a href=/ojr/wiki/ethics/ rel="nofollow">journalism ethics</a> that I hope online journalists will contribute to and debate.</p>
<p>Personally, I&#8217;ve dealt with this issue on my sites by outsourcing the advertising on those sites to Google AdSense and a handful of affiliate vendors. Unlike Rafat&#8217;s site, my sites (not OJR, my personal sites) publish in well-defined niches where Google has attracted plenty of advertisers. So I have not encountered the targeting problem he has. And allowing an outside agency to place, bill and manage the ads on my site allows me to preserve a </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dala barabir</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/advertising-editorial-lines-blur-as-bloggers-salaries-tied-to-traffic/#comment-158</link>
		<dc:creator>Dala barabir</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:23:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=442#comment-158</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve been an avid follower of the blog creep/explosion that has happened. But watching some of the quality decline has been a bummer, albeit an inevitable one. I&#039;m more likely to be exposed to Ana Marie Cox&#039;s nervous, irritating personality via listening to her nervously stammering and stuttering her way through a panel or interview now than by visiting her site. Knowing that she gets a dirty kickback for the traffic on her site is reason enough to stop visiting Wonkette, at least for me. I&#039;m not opposed to a new salary/pay system, but it has to be linked to quality, and this system is not. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been an avid follower of the blog creep/explosion that has happened. But watching some of the quality decline has been a bummer, albeit an inevitable one. I&#8217;m more likely to be exposed to Ana Marie Cox&#8217;s nervous, irritating personality via listening to her nervously stammering and stuttering her way through a panel or interview now than by visiting her site. Knowing that she gets a dirty kickback for the traffic on her site is reason enough to stop visiting Wonkette, at least for me. I&#8217;m not opposed to a new salary/pay system, but it has to be linked to quality, and this system is not. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Kukral</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/advertising-editorial-lines-blur-as-bloggers-salaries-tied-to-traffic/#comment-157</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Kukral</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:52:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=442#comment-157</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the end, getting more traffic just means that you can charge more for ads and sponsorships, which is great, a typical business model. Logically, more traffic then equals more conversions/clicks as well. It all makes sense.

However, it&#039;s when you get to the stage where you&#039;re writing, just for the sake of writing, or choosing topics that you know will be read, or writing sensationalized headlines, etc... I&#039;ve done it...every writer has done it at least once to get some attention.

That&#039;s the point when the work, the writing, gets messed up. I doubt that the most respected newspapers it the world made their bones the same way that the tabloid rags like the Enquirior did.

I&#039;m quick to want to not associate blogging with the likes of Drudge and Gawker, simply because we&#039;re more than that. The rest of the world may not know it yet, but there are blogs out there that don&#039;t talk about Paris Hilton&#039;s podcast.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the end, getting more traffic just means that you can charge more for ads and sponsorships, which is great, a typical business model. Logically, more traffic then equals more conversions/clicks as well. It all makes sense.</p>
<p>However, it&#8217;s when you get to the stage where you&#8217;re writing, just for the sake of writing, or choosing topics that you know will be read, or writing sensationalized headlines, etc&#8230; I&#8217;ve done it&#8230;every writer has done it at least once to get some attention.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s the point when the work, the writing, gets messed up. I doubt that the most respected newspapers it the world made their bones the same way that the tabloid rags like the Enquirior did.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m quick to want to not associate blogging with the likes of Drudge and Gawker, simply because we&#8217;re more than that. The rest of the world may not know it yet, but there are blogs out there that don&#8217;t talk about Paris Hilton&#8217;s podcast.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>