Is the money really in the content?
The money in the business is definitely in creating content on sites you own, or providing a valuable service to networks that do that (like Blogads, or FeedDemon, etc)– but I see 9Rules as a bit murky and in-between.
– Jake Dobkin
In this entry at Blogebrity, Jake Dobkin of Gothamist fame and I have gotten into a great discussion on where the money is in these networks that everyone seems to be creating as of late (note: Kyle, figure out a way to let previous commentors bypass the moderation, you are slowing down a potentially kickass discussion). His argument is that either you are the company that owns the content or you are the company that provides the services to the sites that own the content. He considers 9rules somewhat of an in-between thing with no potential to make money since we don’t own any of the content and obviously I have to whole heartedly disagree.
Of all the blog networks that started in 2005-06, not a single one from my memory had a set salary plan in place for their writers, which is surprising because I do believe the success of Gawker and WIN is totally dependent on this model. Fine Fools would grow much faster if I had a budget to pay the writers. Sure you are supposed to write for your passion, but great writers come at a price and if you can’t get them money in a short amount of time they will more than likely leave for greener pastures.
The question I am trying to answer though is if the money is really in owning the content? I am creating a new Member’s Agreement for the Fine Fools that gives them complete content ownership because that’s what makes the most sense to me. This isn’t revolutionary at all since other networks have already gone this route. For me the money is owning the real estate to place the ads where the content takes place. Content equals money if people have to pay to access it, otherwise do you really need to own the content?
Think about it, what content does Google own? Content is king when it comes to certain things like getting traffic, but I have this lingering feeling that there is something beyond content that takes a higher place on the food chain. I just can’t seem to completely put it into words.
Without getting into too much detail about the future plans of 9rules, look at all the content we have at our disposal and what we could possibly do with it. Discussions have been occurring in our forums with a couple of different models that would help generate revenue for both the members and the Network and we own none of the content. So why is it that so many of us seem to be stuck in the mindset that it is a necessity to have total control of the content?
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Online Money
11 opinions for Is the money really in the content?
Darren
Jan 10, 2006 at 7:32 am
is the money in the content or the real estate?
I’d answer by saying yes.
Why does it have to be an either or arguement? Some of the opportunities that I see opening up at present require ownership of content to make happen - others don’t at all.
For me it’s more about the individual and their skills, experiences and the opportunities before them. Take you for instance Scrivs - you are brilliant at creating real estate so it makes complete sense that you do it and hopefully as a result you’ll make a shitload of money doing so.
Others, perhaps Jake is one of them - although I don’t really know the guy - are content people and for them it makes sense for them to go hard at working at providing content and/or owning content.
I think both can be valid (and there are other ways too).
Interesting discussion though.
Scrivs
Jan 10, 2006 at 10:36 am
Darren, can you provide me with an example where it is required to own the content to make revenue?
Brian Breslin
Jan 10, 2006 at 11:38 am
I think the content goes a long way in making the real estate valuable. This isn’t a situation where the dirt is worth more than the home built on it so to speak. This is a “the land is worth just as much as the home” situation. Separate, they are only half their current value.
Now the real issue with content ownership boils down to redistribution rights. How can you broker a deal to syndicate the content for $ if you don’t have ownership of it. Unless your agreement has some provision in it that gives you agency over it, it would be hard to resell or redistribute all this content. Also on things like Fine Fools, you own the vessel, they the authors, own the fuel right? Well what happens when authorX goes and starts intentionally libeling people? Who is responsible? YOU? or your authors?
Anyway, enough ranting from me. just figured I’d give my 2c.
Scrivs
Jan 10, 2006 at 12:59 pm
I’m not saying content isn’t valuable, I’m just questioning whether you need to own the content to create something valuable.
If someone in the FF Network goes apeshit on someone then they get dropped.
adamsb
Jan 10, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Scrivs I agree with you on this. And by NOT owning the content, I think you are actually at an advantage because (correct me if I’m wrong) if the aforementioned apeshit hits the fan you aren’t left with someone else’s boat to deal with.
Like you said, they just get dropped.
Brian Breslin
Jan 10, 2006 at 5:59 pm
You can’t drop the responsibility of the content, because there is history of your having it up there (google cache, internet archive, etc.). So you are assuming the liability but not the ownership. Its like if Bill O’Reilly states “i own the rights to the broadcast i am performing in, and then goes and calls Bill Clinton a fag. The fact is, that Bill Clinton will sue the shit out of him, and FOXNews. Because they are both responsible for the broadcast even if Bill O’Reilly states he is solely responsible. This is why so many shows now preface their stuff with “the views of this… do not represent company XYZ”
You can’t do that easily on a blog.
I mean you cn try and bury it in your legal jargon in the footer of the site, but good luck.
Cowboy
Jan 11, 2006 at 2:28 am
The man that owns the content is king. Period. The real estate is the land that the king lives on. The domain its just the castle. So you can own a castle but some day your bloggers will walk away with the real estate, and the content and your left with just an empty castle.
Marco
Jan 11, 2006 at 6:56 am
What about a hybrid kind of solution where the writers keep owenership on the content but grant the owner of the blog network a non-exclusive license on it? This means the blogger can walk away with the content he wrote until he got kicked out of the network or left the network himself while the network can just keep the blog going with another blogger. This way the owner of the blog network has somewhat more control and won’t ‘loose everything’ when the blogger leaves for whatever reason and the blogger won’t feel too ‘owned’.
The blogger can take his content and continue elsewhere. The only drawback would be the fact that the beforementioned content would appear on two sites but I find that a minor drawback.
How about that?
Brian Breslin
Jan 11, 2006 at 12:02 pm
I think Marco is heading in the right direction on this.
Cowboy, I think your metaphor is slightly off, how does one take the land out from under the castle?
A more appropriate one would be to say the content is the bricks that make up the castle, and without them, the castle is just a shell or frame of its former self. And in the internet the domain is ALWAYS the land. Thats why some domain flippers make it a practice of buying a domain, building up its traffic and look and then selling it.
Cowboy
Jan 11, 2006 at 9:59 pm
You both have great points. Wow. Nice. Good stuff to think about.
allinfobarn
Feb 21, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Hi,
I had read this blog “writting contents would provide you moneyâ€. Since I am a content writter, so I know very well that it will increase your traffic and even it will not generate online money for you. So forget it. I feel I have to look any other methods for generating revenue.
thanks
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: