I don’t actually want to pay for the news.
Why should I? Everything I need is served up to me for free. And that’s not
just the news websites. It’s my social media feed that blinks rapidly 140
characters upon another telling me about an earthquake or a fire or an
announcement someone just made.
On the other hand, this is how I make my
living. I write words for an audience, and the audience is meant to pay for my
words. I have a dog in this fight, as it were, and it makes sense that my money
comes from the people who read me. However, it doesn’t, for the most part. If
I—as a writer—want free news and free articles—what is the incentive for
someone who does not do this to pay rent to want to pay me? After all, my need
for free news overcomes the need I have to read something, no matter how good,
and if faced by a paywall on a website, I click away, thinking I’ll come back
to it next month for my quota of five free articles. I am a traditionalist when
it comes to paying for my news: I pay for three newspapers and one magazine,
somehow the idea of paying for something and having it arrive at your doorstep
is a concept I understand more than the far more ephemeral idea of paying for a
web link to load. Where’s the thing to touch online, how can I hold it, it’s
just a concept, and concepts are hard to put money behind.
All this because I’ve been reading articles
lately on small news websites about how if you like the content of a website,
you shouldn’t have an ad blocker enabled. The ad blocker stops ads, the website
doesn’t get a revenue, but apart from that, the experience is fuss-free and
beautiful. No annoying products in your face, no auto music that loads as soon
as you click on an article, why would anyone not have an ad-blocker?
Advertising and the internet go together.
As advertisers figure out how to best reach their consumers, they tie up with
content creators to “borrow” their audience as it were. I have had a blog for
the past eleven years, which has a fairly good readership for a personal blog,
which everyone knows is a dying art form. In its heyday, it got as many as 2000
to 5000 visitors per day. Now, at a more modest 1000 average, it’s still fairly
widely read, but the total income I’ve made from Google ads in the last decade
is a princely sum of $100. It was then I started to realize that traditional
models of advertising were not going to work for me. I do my blog as a labour
of love, something I enjoy doing, and in return it also works as public relations
for me. If I want to announce a new book, my blog readers can read about it,
and click a link to follow through and
buy something. I also received a book deal from the blog, and several writing
assignments. But making money traditionally off the blog didn’t seem like
something that would happen to me, until both I and the advertisers figured out
something called native advertising. In un-commercial-jargon, this is when you
place the content for an ad within a text post, an advertorial, as it were, and
serve it up as regular blog content, which your readers should click through
on, thus spreading the message further than an ad which could be ignored (or
blocked.) I began by marking these “sponsored posts,” but of late, people who
wanted my words or my audience, want me to make the tags smaller and smaller,
so it’s only when you read the post that you figure out its motive.
Other bloggers have been doing this for far
longer than I –and with far greater subtlety. But as a reader as well as a
writer, I checked with my audience to see if they’d be okay with getting the
occasional sponsored post, since it kept the bread on my table. Overwhelmingly,
the response was positive. “You do what you have to do,” said one commenter,
“And people can either read the post or not.” With the backing of my readers, I
was able to monetize myself---not greatly, not multi-millionaire certainly (I
lack the business-negotiating gene)—and the money started to trickle in, little
by little. It’s only not coming through in a torrential flood because I decided
that I’d only do it for a certain amount of money, otherwise it would not be
worth my time. Think of it like tattooing your baby with sponsored stickers.
You’d only do it if the tattoo came with a nice price tag. Otherwise, why ruin
your baby?
The downside of sponsored posts are of
course, the insidious nature of them, when someone doesn’t clearly mark them
out as advertorials (big websites like Buzzfeed are guilty of this), and you’re
reading content which is basically an ad, but no way to figure that out till it
comes to an end. What is a content creator to do? A micro-subscription model
seems to be the best answer. No ads, and you pay directly for the website to
hire writers you’d like to read. Everyone wins. The problem is, would you pay?
If so, how much? And if no one wants to pay, we’ll be forced to read ads after
ads, our news experience completely sullied by how much money a major company
has paid a website to be on their side.
(A version of this appeared as my column)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your feedback! It'll be published once I approve it. Inflammatory/abusive comments will not be posted. Please play nice.