“The link economy breaks down online … the experience can be disconnected.”

Where does the link economy exist offline?

[SLYT]

Actually, pretty favorably, from a purely bottom-line perspective.

Let’s say you spend $25 on advertising — a mix of AdWords and Facebook ads. You’ll be lucky to get a handful of leads out of that. You’ll do much better if you send out a bunch of personal, targeted emails to high-traffic sites that are likely to link to you.

The SEO will help a teeny tiny bit, but what’s really required to to establish a good PageRank over time, so SEO has to be a long-term strategy.

And unless you have tremendous traffic, AdSense brings in very very little. Affiliate links and selling your own merch have greater potential for profit.

Making $25 on a post on a blog is kind of unheard of. That’s why blogging needs to be one piece of a larger moneymaking strategy. (If you want to make money. Some bloggers don’t.)

Now, it’s important to note that BC isn’t talking about paying you $25 for each blog post you write — rather, it’s $25 if you happen to write something they want. It won’t be in any way a reliable revenue stream unless you’re licensing in the neighborhood of 50 to 100 posts a month — or 2 to 4 every single day — which I’m guessing is not likely to happen.

As to your questions, yes, there will be a simple contract. I can’t share it because it isn’t done yet, and for various reasons we might not want to publish the contract itself. And yes, there will be a written piece of paper summarizing all the terms, but what’s above is about as close to such a thing as exists for the moment.

More than happy to discuss all of this over a beverage! Depending on where we go it may only take a few drinks to be a member! But seriously I am happy to buy and I look forward to meeting you and, if you’d like, whomever else you might like to invite.

We have too many journalists moving into the online world who want to control and own the media via the narrow channel they’ve been used to, and avoid listening to people, feedback or to other sources. That’s a big reason why formerly monopolistic print media is dying – you no longer HAVE to read the Chronicle to find out what’s going on, and the Chronicle has neglected so many of the stories that people want/need to read to participate in a functioning democracy.

Toot my own horn department: My blog evolved from a side gig that I did for fun into what amounted to a calling out of the political and media bullshit that has clouded the discussion about how a transit first city should operate. I am astounded at the level of mediocrity and foolishness that passes for “journalism” at certain organizations and my blog has spent more time debunking this kind of crap than on the community things I wanted to do.

Yet when I worked with SF Weekly to produce a very thoroughly researched piece where I spent far more time than ANYONE should on Muni issues, I was derided as “not a proper journalist.” Fuck that.

My point is this – if Bay Citizen can be another way for the micro locals and the bloggers and the like to get good stories out, I’m all for that. But if it becomes something that wants to “control” Bay Area news and be the “decider” via cash and whatnot, it’ll be no better than the corporate media that A) hates its guts and B) is dying anyway.

I have an open mind, and I’d like to see how things work out. And if there’s a way I Can contribute, I’m happy to, but not as a “sharecropper” but as someone whose work is valued.

We could certainly debate all day on granular issues like what types of links (front page vs. story) are more valuable, or the benefits of trying to invite folks to a meeting in ways other than by posts on RSS-free blogs on your own site! Or perhaps we could discuss it over some sort of adult beverage. (How many drinks do I need to buy before I become a “founding member“?)

However, I will respond to your remark “Despite what the article above says I know of no other sites that pay for a non-exclusive co-publishing license,” with a “what?” In our piece, we say “Of course, there’s one big upside to Bay Citizen’s plan: no other local sites are doing it.” I believe you are disputing one of the times we said something positive about your plan!

Thanks for telling folks they can ask you questions about the venture. I know our reporter, Matt Baume sent you an email with some questions — since you haven’t responded to him yet, perhaps you can answer them here?

— Does Bay Citizen have a written policy that spells out exactly what content partners get? Since I’ve got you here, I’ll elaborate: is this relationship contractual, or more like a friendly, handshake deal?

— Would it be possible to get a look at the terms of the license?

— And is there a written policy on linking?

Finally, I’d like to get up a highish horse for a moment, if I may:

I do not like hearing journalists attack other journalists as having some sort of dark agenda when they ask questions or raise points! Jonathan, having some sort of agenda is something you accused Matt of when you emailed him this afternoon. (Frances, I think the rules are different in comments, but I still think it’s beneath you.)

If you are truly as committed to the type of open and collaborative relationships those of us working online have been (as Brock noted) enjoying for years, I must urge you not to turn questions about the work your site is doing (the same kind of questions all of us ask about one another!) into an attack on the questioners’ credibility.

But since you implied that Matt’s and/or The Appeal’s ethics were somehow questionable when you emailed him, I’ll say the same thing I’ve been saying since long before I defended your as-yet-unnamed venture when the Chron’s Audrey Cooper vowed to smash it: there are way more Bay Area stories than there are people reporting on them, and my hope is that having more folks reporting will help everyone raise their game, which in the end will be better for all of us news readers and writers in the Bay Area.

And, honestly, I don’t give a shit if these stories are on a tumblr or the BC, as long as they are out there and read. If the BC’s publisher arrangement serves that end, then, yay. But I stand behind the questions Matt raises about why the BC’s arrangement might not serve that end. (Hey, maybe I do have an agenda after all — good fucking reporting that people read!)

But. If you’re going after the integrity of someone who challenges your assumptions (about how the internet works, about “what’s best” for local media), that’s neither collaborative, nor is it a game raiser. It just seems like more of the same Old Media “how dare you question us” bullshit.

I sure hope you prove me wrong.

Becky O’Malley — I sent that tweet to Katherine Mieszkowski, who announced on Twitter today that she had taken a job with the Bay Citizen. We are friendly and I congratulated her.

To clarify:

1) The partner deal we are offering includes a $25, non-exclusive license fee. We are not asking people to write for us for $25. We are asking for permission to use things people have already written or plan to write. So it is not either “I write for my site, or I write for the Bay Citizen for $25.” It’s both! Despite what the article above says I know of no other sites that pay for a non-exclusive co-publishing license.

2) We plan to link to the front page of the partner site, as well as providing a feed of links to other stories on that partner site. If partners prefer that the link go to the story page and not the front page we could certainly do that, but front page links are generally more valuable than story page links and the story will already be there so not sure why people would prefer that. But we’re open.

3) The partner story page will include a logo, description of the site, and the links back to other stories, so this is a branded presence for the partners.

4) Partners will get other benefits, including, as mentioned above, our co-reporting of stories. We’re also having monthly roundtable meetings/ sessions on a variety of topics, and providing a desk for partners in the newsroom. We expect to develop additional partner benefits as we go.

5) As to who was “invited” to the meeting, it was an open invitation, posted on our Website, so no one was invited or not invited. We’re actually having another partner meeting on Wednesday at 5:30 for people who couldn’t make a meeting during the day.

The point here is to try and develop mutually beneficial partner relationships. I’m sure it will be a work in progress, and we’re very open to suggestions on how we could make this program better. Also, anyone who has questions can certainly ask, you can reach me at jonathan_weber@baycitizen.org.

Thanks!

Jonathan Weber
Editor in Chief
The Bay Citizen

Anyway, my two cents.