Why Blog Networks Will Fail This Year

by Paul on January 13th, 2006

I write this entry as more of a reminder to myself that the Networks I run exhibit many flaws that I continually need to improve upon.

Reader Value

But can you see anything missing from the majority of those networks? Dead right. Where the hell is the value to the end user? Sure, there is plenty of value for network owners in the form of *cough* link farming *cough*, which bumps up technorati ranking and general search engine placement.

– Barry Bell

To a reader is there really any value to a blog network? Does it matter that the site you are reading is part of a particular blog network? For the most part no, but 9rules is trying its best to change that by giving users a central place to find the best blogs in their topic of interests. So yes it will matter that the site your reading is part of 9rules because you know it’s going to be of quality and you know you can easily find more sites just like it. Our Communities have a long way to go before they start to offer the value we have envisioned for them however so we are not out of the red as of yet.

Not owning the sites in the Network enables us to take our ideas to other areas that proprietary networks can’t even touch. It makes no sense for a blog network to have 9 blogs about Apple, but it does in 9rules’ case because that’s 9 different personalities and perspectives we can offer readers.

What’s the value to readers with a site like Fine Fools that follows more of a traditional network model? Until we build up a couple flagship sites there really isn’t any value. People will read the sites that they like and move on, but after the brand becomes more established and if we decide to launch a new blog then the fact that the site is part of Fine Fools should garner it instant traffic for the first couple of days. You can see this effect when both Gawker and WIN launch sites. Really it comes down to how strong is the brand of the network when you are talking about readers.

Money

There’s this fantasy land that many of us live in where we believe we can keep everyone happy by offering them a percentage of the revenue and they will stay on forever. I’m going to say this won’t last if you want to build a blog dynasty so to speak because eventually a better opportunity will come for the writers and they will leave. It’s inevitable. Even Fine Fools offering 100% of the contextual ads to the writers isn’t enough and it’s something I am slowly moving away from. There are many qualities to creating a successful blog and two of them revolve around money.

Consistency. Why should you write daily if you aren’t guaranteed to make any money for that day’s writing? This is where I can see many people just go along the lines of thinking there really is no difference between starting your own site and making $5 or starting a site with network X and making $6. One time I paid a guy one month to write on a site a set number of times per day and you know what? That was the best writing he ever did and the best month of traffic the site ever received.
Quantity. If you are only giving up a percentage of the revenue you really have no ground to dictate how often a person should write. However, we know the more quality entries you pump out per day, the greater chance of receiving traffic you have. Find a quality writer and ask them to write X number of entries per day/week and you will pay them $y and you have a chance of succeeding.

9rules is in a money dilemma so to speak, but not because we can’t pay people. For many sites there is no value in joining 9rules unless they can make more money from it and this is where our new ad network comes into place (I think there is more value than that, but that’s how people view things). Fine Fools will never truly grow unless I can get the authors to write consistently and at a greater rate and I really can’t expect that till I start dropping pennies into their accounts. It’s almost a Catch-22. Actually it is a Catch-22.

It’s not like any of the networks are Google and offering their employees stock options so why should we expect the writers to believe that we will guide them to fame and money if we haven’t at least proved that we can do it ourselves? That is the one thing b5 has over many of the other networks. I am sure many of the writers believe in Darren and believe that he can take them to the level that he is at. That will only last so long though (I do believe Jeremy Wright has said many times that in the future they are going to move away from the scaled payment structure).

Brand

I have harped on this enough in the past, but a lot of these networks get lost because there is no brand value behind them and for many the brand they are building isn’t worth it for readers to take notice. Does great design make a brand? Of course not, but it goes a long way in helping it out. I think too many networks out there believe their brand is “the go to network” and branding goes far beyond that.

Time, Energy, and Patience

I have talked about this in the past and Tyme helped remind me of it in the Cooke Cutter Effect and that is if you are going to start something focus on just that one thing and make it big. From experience and hindsight I can tell you that it is much easier to start a network is one site and work your ass off to make that one site big and then move on to the next site then it is to pump out 10 sites and expect all of them to become big all at once.

If you are going to start a blog network and have no funds to pay writers, I suggest you start with one site and work your ass off to make that site successful and profitable. It’s almost sickening how much common sense is involved in this idea, but why then do so many of us ignore it?

I think what’s unfortunate about all of this is that many more blog networks will continue to popup and head down the exact same path as the rest, like lemmings jumping off a cliff. I’m not saying it isn’t smart to start a blog network, I’m saying it isn’t smart to do it the exact same way many of us in the industry are doing it.

Scrivs
Jan 13, 2006 at 11:55 am

I should also mention that Blog Networks failing has nothing to do with blogs failing. Blogs will be around forever and I guess so will bad business practices.
Barry Bell
Jan 13, 2006 at 1:25 pm

The (lack of) money certainly makes it difficult. Having said that, any VC or angel will tell you that pure content driven businesses (like most networks are) are risky investment opportunites - so getting your hands on some backing in the first place is the barrier.

You can’t pay your writers. Which means you can’t generate a lot of quality content. Which means you can’t attract readers. Which means you can’t monetise your site. Which means you still can’t pay your writers.

It’s a genuine catch 22. But I think it’s still early days, and maybe the most attractive networks will find funding or help in some way this year.

Let’s come back this in 12 months time…
Scrivs
Jan 13, 2006 at 1:39 pm

I agree with everything except for the still early days part because content networks have been around for a very long time on the web, its just now we are using blogs instead of traditional sites. A major problem has to do with advertising, but that’s another entry to write for another day.
Barry Bell
Jan 13, 2006 at 2:22 pm

I meant blog networks as opposed to general content networks, you pedantic ****er.

;o)

I think the whole blogging concept (that absolutely anyone with talent can sit at home, write, click a publish button, make money, instead of having to go through endless rounds of submitting unsolicited manuscripts, articles and ideas to print-based editors) is still so brand new that either advertisers and other financial backers still don’t believe in it yet (which is fair enough) or they’re wary of it in general.

I think 2006 might change that.
Andy Hagans
Jan 13, 2006 at 3:52 pm

We’ve taken a lot of heat at BizNicheMedia, but one mistake we’ve never made is trying to pay writers on rev share.

99% of potential writers want money per post, they want money NOW. That’s just the way it is.
Scrivs
Jan 13, 2006 at 4:20 pm

Barry: That’s the problem though, anybody can blog, but not everyone can blog successfully. Two totally different things there and really there is no money for backers in these concepts if you ask me.

If I saw some things changing with blog networks then yes I would agree that 2006 may be different, but all we keep seeing are the same old concepts with the same old mistakes.

Andy: Good to hear and smart thinking on your part.
Barry
Jan 13, 2006 at 4:22 pm

I don’t think it’s right to call revenue share a ‘mistake’. It’s just another way of doing things. What’s right (or even possible) for one network isn’t necessarily going to be right (or possible) for the next network.

And, in some cases, a revenue share could potentially work out to be a lot more lucrative for a writer than ‘per post’ payments.
Scrivs
Jan 13, 2006 at 4:28 pm

That’s the point I forgot to include in the post. I was going to say that we kind of have the payment thing backwards. Start off with a set payment and down the road give them the option of a % share instead of doing it the other way around. Problem with starting off with a % share for a new network is that it takes time for a site to build up and for the writer to see anything really come of it.

For more established networks starting off with a % might also be viable, but I just don’t see it working too well with the newer networks.
Barry
Jan 13, 2006 at 4:38 pm

The key is being brutally honest with everyone you’re working with on the network about projected income in the first stages of growth.

You’ll generally find a few great people who are OK with that, can see some potential in the network, and will stick around - and you’ll naturally see some people drop away. That’s business.

But one of the problems is all this hype over monetisation. The inexperienced (or gullible) think it’s easy - and lose interest fast when they discover it’s not.
Brian Breslin
Jan 13, 2006 at 5:02 pm

Just out of curiosity, what is the standard per post fee? If you were to pay someone to post individual entries (also what differentiates between a 10 word quick blurb and a 50 word post? in terms of payment)
Scrivs
Jan 13, 2006 at 5:04 pm

Barry: Being upfront with writers? When’s the last time you actually saw a blog network do that? :-P

Brian: To be honest I’m not the right person to ask. I would go more along the lines of paying the writers what they are comfortable with. To me an article on Sexerati is completely different than something on It’s Useless.
Andy Hagans
Jan 13, 2006 at 5:23 pm

Hmm… I do feel compelled to also post about the flip-side of my experience with this — that is, when you pay per post, there is little incentive for QUALITY.

If the criteria for a paid post is, say, 200 words, grammatically correct, etc., that’s all well and good, but there isn’t really much motivation for the writer to put in the extra effort to make it an INTERESTING post.

We know WIN switched to a pay-per-post model (because rev share didnt work for them, either) — and as a result Calacanis has fewer headaches, sure, but let’s be honest the content on most of their blogs is pretty regurgitated / blah / not-valuable-to-the-reader.
Scrivs
Jan 13, 2006 at 5:27 pm

Well then do you see putting in clause stating they only get paid for work that gets past the publisher? Of course that means you have to monitor all of their entries, but if you are going for total quality that might be the step in the direction you need to take.
Andy Hagans
Jan 13, 2006 at 5:33 pm

Well, you could, but what I’m talking about is something really subtle. You say ‘total quality’, but isn’t a post that meets the 200 word quota, uses correct grammar, cites the source correctly, etc. a ‘quality’ post even if it’s boring?

It just seems that writers who are paid on volume / efficiency concentrate, on, well, volume and efficiency. They concentrate more on ‘not screwing up’ and pumping out posts with the bare minimum amount of their time & sweat necessary than really putting their heart and soul into some unique, interesting content. If they don’t get a rev share, what difference does it make to the author whether the post is good link bait or not?
Scrivs
Jan 13, 2006 at 5:38 pm

Well for one I would hope that you find the type of people that don’t pursue that option. Gawker has great writing in my opinion and those writers have quotas they must reach. On a larger scale like WIN it’s definitely hard to manage, but they go for the pageviews = quantity theory so in their case it’s alright.

I’m not saying all WIN writers are like that, but I’m sure there is a point where you just do it for a quick buck, versus taking some pride in what you publish. Gawker kind of carries that aura that the writers know they are part of something bigger and if their writing sucks, then the site will suck.
Andy Hagans
Jan 13, 2006 at 5:46 pm

I agree with you about Gawker vs. WIN. And yes Gawker pulls off quality and creativity even with a posting quota requirement. But I think Gawker is the exception. Writers there know that writing there can be a ’showcase’ to propel their career in other ways, e.g. Ana Marie cox. Thus they have a MOTIVATION to write interesting content, even though ND doesn’t pay them more when they do.

The motivation, IMHO, is the core point. It’s going to be hard to “find [and KEEP] the type of people that donâ€™t pursue that option” — just hoping won’t do it — you have to have some sort of motivation. Something that gives the writer INCENTIVE. Which pay-per-post, alone, will not.
Tyme
Jan 13, 2006 at 5:50 pm

What is going on with blog networks (and I hate that term) is nothing new. It’s been done and could be done much better. That’s what I don’t understand.

The majority of the blog networks don’t have the reader’s best interest as a priority. If they did, they wouldn’t be almost carbon copies of each other. That is the #1 complaint I get from readers. Too many copied WIN (along with the mistakes) and then decided to evolve into something else. That’s backwards. It would have been better to launch with something different and launch strong than to launch weak and have to catch up.

Yet networks need readers - what are networks without readers? Look at most of the networks. No interaction with the readers, nothing but hashed up links to other sites. It’s disappointing.

I look at the blog networks and I see serious flaws that are causing them to be in a weak position. No business can fully excel when they are in a weak position. It’s worse when the weakness is apparent. There are so many amazing opportunities that could be done but aren’t - because networks are copying each other.

2006 will be the time when these networks start to die off because they can’t compete. Remember - these networks are nothing new and there are networks dominating their space, crippling the ability for new networks to expand unless the network truly has something to offer. As a reader, I don’t want to hear “we’re working on it” - I’m thinking “you should have already done it - let me go some place that already has”. There was no valid reason to launch without it from a reader’s standpoint.

Of course the thinning out between networks happened before. The sad thing is that network owners aren’t learning from past mistakes. If the phrase “we don’t have time to do that right now” comes up - guess what? Not enough man power. Doing the job of three people? Are you doing each job to the best of your ability? It’s time to hire someone, take in a partner, do something because it’s taking twice as long (or longer) to reach full potential. If the owners are overworked they aren’t working at their best. People look at WIN as an example but WIN had the money to pay people to get stuff done. When there is limited resources it is crucial to look at what is truly important and focus on it, nothing else. When that’s done move on to the next thing.

9rules might not be a money maker right now, but it also doesn’t need the revenue that the other networks need to survive, yet they have access to 1000x more contentâ€¦and can generate revenue simply by having access.
Scrivs
Jan 13, 2006 at 5:57 pm

Yeah, what Tyme said :)
Barry
Jan 13, 2006 at 6:38 pm

Yeah, I hate that term, too. Who’s gonna ‘fess up to that one?
Mike Rundle
Jan 13, 2006 at 9:31 pm

Tyme, incredibly well said. The final paragraph in your comment absolutely just made my day and week, I’m so glad that you “get” 9rules. Access (with full consent, of course) is the gilded key behind 9rules, our concept of the Network, our company, our revenue plan, how we build value for our readers and members, and many other things.

You’re a genius ;)
adam
Jan 14, 2006 at 3:08 am

scrivs and others, quit writing such intelligent content. others around you are watching for you to provide them content. it will popup as another blog site or even a network stealerati…
Brian Breslin
Jan 14, 2006 at 3:09 pm

Tyme: well done, very astute observation of the matter at hand.
Peter Davis
Jan 15, 2006 at 1:32 am

If the blog network folks would spend less time bashing one another in the comments sections on each others’ network blogs, and more time developing their business, perhaps they might not fail in 2006.
Weekend Link Round Up: Blog Tips at ProBlogger
Jan 15, 2006 at 9:51 am

[…] Scrivs writes a post that has generated some interesting discussion in comments at Why Blog Networks Will Fail This Year […]
HART (1-800-HART)
Jan 15, 2006 at 1:17 pm

.. I suggest you start with one site and work your ass off to make that site successful and profitable. Itâ€™s almost sickening how much common sense is involved in this idea, but why then do so many of us ignore it?

I think the reason many of us ignore this idea of yours - is because it is not common sense and for good reason. People who work smarter and more efficiently will be the ones that will end up with the most successful and profitable sites (i.m.h.o.) - not the people who “work their asses off”.

The majority of the blog networks donâ€™t have the readerâ€™s best interest as a priority .. That’s quite a VAGUE statement .. Can Tyme be more specific? I know myself (being on Matt’s BNL) would like to know which blog networks are trying to screw their readers and blatantly take advantage of them.

That was a terrible thing to say! It had to be said. I’m sure it’s not a reflection of 9rules .. or are blog network members free to be schizoid against other blog networks like someone else we know? I thought it was a generally internet-wide all-knowing decision, that name calling was bad ..
Scrivs
Jan 15, 2006 at 1:55 pm

Hart: Exactly. Don’t you think you can work more efficiently with one site than with 50? I am talking about just you running the sites, not you and 49 other people. That’s different. But another point from that is what are the flagship sites of each network? And by flagship I don’t mean most popular on that network, but that ones that are known outside our community and really do damage to the stat trackers.

How did 9rules even get brought into this one? I mean that model is totally different than what we are talking about here and just because Tyme said it, it doesn’t mean 9rules says it (although we usually agree with what she is saying).
Ed Kohler
Jan 15, 2006 at 2:10 pm

Great post. The concept of networks doesn’t port to the web all that well. People are more interested in “shows” than networks, and will subscribe to whatever shows match their interests. RSS readers split up blog networks just like Tivo does with TV networks.
HART (1-800-HART)
Jan 15, 2006 at 2:31 pm

Well, I know that ~I’m~ struggling with attempts at trying to be more time efficient with all my blogs. It’s definately a learning curve finding ways for me to keep up with my bloglines. But I do think that 99% of all the listed networks out there has something for somebody … there are a lot of different tastes out around the world :)
Tyme
Jan 15, 2006 at 3:55 pm

Um…excuse me but where did I say that blog networks were “trying to screw their readers and blatantly take advantage of them.” Hart, you took one sentence and completely ran with it…in a completely different direction than my intent. If I meant that network owners are screwing their readers that is what I would have said, so please do not put words in my mouth.

But more importantly, “I” stated “my” opinion. What does that have to do with 9r..an opinion I’ve stated way before I was in 9r? Because I’m in 9r now I have to stifle what I say - even when my readers tell me they are sick of new networks launching without offering something new? Read the link Scrivs put in his article to my site…read the comments from readers (not bloggers) - it’s right there. You’ll also see that I don’t put Scrivs on a pedestal because I’m in his network. Scrivs never once told me to stifle my opinion and for that I respect him. We don’t always agree but he ALWAYS listens to what I have to say.

To be clear, if I was 9r staff Hart, you’d have a point. I’ve openly said that the behavior that’s gotten ugly lately needs to stop and my reasons why. If I was 9r staff I wouldn’t be critical of other networks. But I’m not staff, I’m a member (with one of my blogs, not all of them) and I always try to be fair in my criticisms and base them on fact, not emotion.

So to summarize:

1) I did not say any network was blatantly trying to screw their readers.
2) I did not say any network had a purposely bad intent.
3) I did not call any network names because…
4) As Hart said, I didn’t name one.
5) I am the only one responsible for my words…don’t attach that responsiblity to anyone else.

Hart, you’re the only network owner (you might take the person award on that one too) to accuse me of such a thing - completely opposite of who I am and what I stand for. Guess there’s a first time for everything….
DesignerElla
Jan 15, 2006 at 10:24 pm

Very interesting article and great points. What do you think about blog networks with blog topics of different aspects of one genre?

That difference doesn’t solve many problems, but it is a difference.

It it counts for anything, I now value you (even though I never heard of this site or Fine Fools, before), and I’ll be watching you.

And it does make me feel better that you have a network yourself, and you’re in it with us idiots. :-)
DesignerElla
Jan 15, 2006 at 10:27 pm

Whew! My network also has quality and the best workers (I mean I love these girls)! Another mark on the checklist.

I’m a little neurotic and worrisome, so I need reminders of snaps.
DesignerElla
Jan 15, 2006 at 10:33 pm

But maybe when you leave it more vague about money, there’s a chance of finding people who will love to blog for the enjoyment a little bit more. I work with people in the writing field, I’m not sure, but I think most bloggers are bloggers and web people first, and not writers. They might be used to freelancing and low money.

Anyway, it’s worked so far with me, as far as keeping my bloggers happy. They’re more like family.
Scrivs
Jan 15, 2006 at 10:37 pm

Ella: I think you have a good thing going on with a network focused on a specific niche that breaks things down to sub-niches. Clean design as well so I’m sure you will do well if the writing is there.
DesignerElla
Jan 15, 2006 at 11:01 pm

Thank you, Scrivs.
Mike
Jan 17, 2006 at 11:10 pm

I’m an outsider here and my knowledge of networks is limited but I have been following some of these threads over the last day or two. I have no idea what you might call what these people (Newsvine.com - in private beta) are doing but they seem to be inviting bloggers to both write articles and post links to a site which also gets up to the minute news feeds from AP. It’s quickly building into an impressive news site and contributors get to keep all the ad revenue from their own particular pages.
PhogBlog » Archiv » Quo vadis, mainfranken.blogs?
Jan 19, 2006 at 11:27 pm

[…] Der Grundstein hat der Artikel Why Blog Networks Will Fail This Year gemacht, in dem der Autor einige GrÃ¼nde aufzeigt, wegen denen dieses Jahr wahrscheinlich viele Blogger-Netzwerke in den Untiefen des Internets verschwinden und keine grÃ¶ÃŸere Beachtung mehr erhalten werden. […]
We Love Blogs » Good thing we’re not a blog network
Jan 24, 2006 at 10:42 pm

[…] At least we’re not a blog network, which makes it safe (for now) that we will not fail. Scrivs of 9Rules says, “many more blog networks will continue to popup and head down the exact same path as the rest, like lemmings jumping off a cliff.” January 24, 2006 | In Default | […]
RoyT
Jan 27, 2006 at 8:47 pm

Scrivs, do you think that since the model is still pretty new, except for your gawkers and weblongsinc, I think many serious networks are still trying to figure out what the best system is. Of course, if you are in it for the money and don’t care, like some posts I read on cowboys’ spoke pages and bizniche, how can they possibly care to sit and think how to maximize ROI and improve quality…just my thoughts
Home Office Voice - Home Business on the Web
Jan 28, 2006 at 10:09 pm

Quantity over Quality -Yep, You Heard it Right

Oh My…
While running around the web doing research for my latest (and greatest) venture - ePublishingDaily.com - I came across something that really astounded me - BizNicheMedia.
I know nothing of the guys behind it, so it’s not a person…
Quantity over Quality -Yep, You Heard it Right : Home Office Voice - Home Business on the Web
Jan 28, 2006 at 10:13 pm

[…] In a reply to 9Rule’s Paul Scrivens post ‘Why Blog Networks Will Fail This Year’ the guys at BizNicheMedia reponded with ‘Most Blog Networks Have an Identity Crisis (Not Us!)’. […]
Christer Natagren
Feb 21, 2006 at 1:20 am

buy mp3 music online

Why Blog Networks Will…
is-there » Blog Archive » Hypercompetition: Doom for Upstarts?
Mar 7, 2006 at 7:55 am

[…] But is it all doom and gloom? Probably not. Being trim and fit, blog-wise, has always been a prerequisite for success in the blogosphere - with hypercompetition from the big boys or not. It’s going to be a tougher game, yes. But not an impossible one. Predictions of failing blog networks will probably brighten the lives of upcoming bloggers for some time to come as well. But don’t forget the scrapers and stealers, they are likely to pose even more trouble as the blogosphere grows and content-theft becomes less likely to be noticed (or maybe the other way round as blog-readers become more savvy to duplicated content). […]

b5media.com

Work Boxers