How The Huffington Post Can Pay Its Bloggers

I recently wrote an article entitled, "The World of Free and The Huffington Post," in which I discuss what The Huffington Post is doing right that so many other online and print publications are doing wrong. In short, Arianna Huffington has figured out that content is king. The more bloggers that contribute to the site, the merrier the ad revenue.

People are willing to write for The Huffington Post for free. I'm one of them. It's great exposure, the tone is unapologetically opinionated and if you've ever met Arianna Huffington you've noticed that she exudes a kind of warmth and authenticity that is rare for people at her level in the media world. But not only are people willing to write for Arianna for free, she is also willing to let us write for her for free, something an old guard institution like the New York Times won't even consider.

Yet as brilliant of a strategy as hiring legions of unpaid writers is, there is a catch. Eventually and, some would argue, already, the only writers that will write for free are writers that can afford to write for free. The voices of the passionate amateurs that The Huffington Post showcases are becoming increasingly homogenous and, in the long-term, a blog dominated by rich people and celebrities will alienate readers that aren't a part of this demographic.

Additionally, and perhaps less capitalistically, The Huffington Post has a responsibility as a new media pioneer to set a payment precedent that values content providers. Perhaps Arianna's only concern is the bottom line, but considering that she is a woman who has been a politician, an author and a radio personality, it would seem that she isn't just in it for the money. She comes across as the type who would welcome the opportunity to shape the future of media in a way that takes into account both profitability and fairness.

To my knowledge, no one has ever proposed a way for The Huffington Post to pay its writers, so that's what I'm going to do. The great thing about Arianna is that even if she has no interest in ever paying her bloggers, The Huffington Post will publish this article. Arianna might even comment on it. I don't expect my proposal to be perfect, but it's a way to get the dialogue started. I hope that whoever is not in favor of this payment structure takes the time to come up with something better.

The proposal is an award system for bloggers. It is not simple because if The Huffington Post were to reward bloggers based solely on page views, bloggers might be inclined to write fluffy, celebrity-focused articles and the site could devolve into PerezHilton.com. If The Huffington Post were to reward bloggers based solely on editorial quality, there would be no incentive for bloggers to send around their stories and encourage friends to bookmark them. So although the following may seem complicated, it aims to check and balance the mixture of elements that make The Huffington Post what it is, while rewarding bloggers for providing this mixture.

According to TNS Media Intelligence, The Huffington Post's advertising revenue from January through April 2009 was $3.4 million. So let's round down and assume that ad revenue for the year is $10 million. I propose that The Huffington Post commit to spending 20% of its revenue rewarding bloggers. For 2009, this would be $2 million.

Not all bloggers will be rewarded. There are 4,000 bloggers that contribute to the site, and this structure only rewards those who contribute the most to the site's business and editorial goals.

$2 million a year is $166,666 a month.

Every month authors of the 200 articles that receive the highest number of page views would receive $250 bonuses.

Every month authors of the 200 articles that result in the most time spent on the site would receive $250 bonuses.

Every month authors of the 200 articles that are of the highest editorial quality would receive $250 bonuses.*

Every month authors of the 165 or so articles with the highest number of inbound links would receive $100 bonuses. (Methodology would have to be determined to ensure the validity of inbound links. Potentially the links would be weighted based on page rank.)

*How is editorial quality determined?

Initially The Huffington Post would select 200 bloggers to nominate three articles that they deem to be of superior editorial quality that month (a story that is well-written, timely, original, etc.). They will list their first, second and third choices, in case more than one blogger nominates the same article. Bloggers will not be permitted to nominate their own articles. The August winners will nominate the September articles, the September winners will nominate the October articles, and so on.

Paying it forward:

Since so many wealthy people write for The Huffington Post and those articles are often the ones featured most prominently on the site, every blogger will have the option to pay his/her bonus forward. On the 15th of each month a winning blogger will receive an email that allows her to either decline or accept payment for that month. If a blogger declines payment, that reward will go to the next article (after the original group of winners). So for example, Alec Baldwin might receive a bonus for the month of July for page views for his "Man of the People" article, but if he chooses to decline payment, the 201st author with the most page views will receive it instead.

If revenue numbers change, the formula can change along with them. So, for example, if The Huffington Post ends up making $20 million in ad revenue in 2009, it can start paying authors of the 400 articles with the highest number of page views. Not only will more bloggers will be rewarded, but each blogger will be motivated to produce even more content since bloggers can be rewarded for more than one article.

As always, whether or not an article is published would be at the discretion of the editors. If a writer tries to abuse the system by pumping out poorly written blog entries, the editors can simply choose not to publish them. Salaried employees of The Huffington Post would not be eligible for these bonuses.

I should add that even though I was able gather revenue estimates online, The Huffington Post does not disclose its earnings. I imagine that this proposal would sacrifice profitability in the near term, but would argue that it is more important for The Huffington Post to create a sustainable business model in the long term.

Comments

[Stewart Nusbaumer - Huffpost Blogger]

First, the site needs to be fixed. Presently blogs are buried and never given a chance to acquire readers. That’s unfair. Second, I’m very willing to blog on HuffPo for free, but my stomach has strong objections. Some say content wants to be free, which is fine when food is free. Third, this will be a complicated, drawn out process. The first step is, let the discussion begin! Thanks Michelle.

[Virginia M. Moncrieff - Huffpost Blogger]

Hey Michelle - Interesting reading and great to see an idea that has been doing the rounds and being discussed being put 'down on paper' - so to speak. Thanks for throwing your ideas out there.

[ptullis]

Nice idea, but not a model for sustaining journalism. $250 a month is essentially the same as paying the writers nothing. Nobody's going to be able to conduct research, interviews etc. for that amount of money; it would basically be a courtesy stipend in return for people riffing off the top of their head. Soon there'll be a divide of content on the Internet: That which people are willing to pay for--which will subsidize its producers-- and that which people aren't, which pretty much describes 99% of what's out there. For a professional journalist (like me) whose means of producing income has been obliterated by free content, that day can't come soon enough.

[ADENE]

I'm no LIBERAL, yes the bloggers should be paid, a lot of big blogging sites have a revenue share thing going. Remember its all about sharing the wealth right liberals???.

[Jodi Lampert - Huffpost Blogger]

My three cents. I don't think Huffington Post should follow conventional journalism. I think that's what makes this place so great! It's a great, living breathing working experiment. Someone such as myself or Mayhill Fowler can carve out a niche in a way that is brand new.

I started on Off The Bus/Roadkill, under the amazing Amanda Michael. Talk about accessible! My problem with the suggestions in this post are that, since Off the Bus, my articles seem to go straight to Archive. So now, the only people that 'comment' are those I literally e-mail or Facebook to. If I could figure out how to Twitter, I could do that, too, but I'm too much of a twit! (It seems everyone who understands computers is always one year younger than me).

And, maybe, in this way, mirroring the world, it's become 'who you know' in terms of placement and/or getting e-mails answered. That I don't know. But if anything, that's my issue. It's difficult to get responses. Of course, reading that there are 4000 bloggers and 3 - 4 people answering e-mails does make the word 'Herculean' come to mind. I tried sleeping my way to the top, but you can't do that via e-mail, either, darn it!

[leonardo dc]

The subject of compensation for writters deserves attention. I believe a formula can be created where writters can be rewarded in a proper manner, without sacrificing integrity. We should be the generation that changes the starving artist concept. in my opinion a great writter is a gifted artist. We should reward creativity. Lets not underestimate the readers inteligence. The readers are smart enough to identify the great artists. The readers would appreciate originality, and authenticity. The readers will be happy to know that a percentage of the revenues are awarded to the writters.

[Stephen C. Rose - Huffpost Blogger]

Before Huffington Post Pays Bloggers, Its System Needs A Tweak

At present all blog posts show up on a short list at the BOTTOM of their category page (POLITICS, WORLD, etc.) when they are posted -- assuming the blogger has an account which enables posting.

These posts fall off the page within hours. I call these buried posts.

Only featured posts can get the traction needed to gain page views, multiple comments and buzz. How does a post get featured? There are clearly preferential factors at work. Example: Check any blogger's profile and see how many comments a post had gotten. If the number is under five, the chances are the post fell off the category page within a few hours.

The solution?

Place new and recent posts at the TOP of each category page. Give a post up to a full day to genenerate views and comments. If the post is humming along, feature it until it loses traction.

On other matters:

I believe all bloggers should receive a base rate for their work and be limited to a post or two each week. Other factors such as quality of work, page views, comments and such should result in bonuses. If the wealthy forgo pay, this should be transparent.

Pay would increase the number of bloggers. There should be some transparent criteria both for acceptance and removal.

[Steven G. Kellman - Huffpost Blogger]

Samuel Johnson: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."

[nantucketsunset]

Comment part 3:

I would also appreciate a way of seeing all the "current" articles displayed on one page (it could be a long page and require a lot of scrolling), instead of having to jump around to different topic pages and still feel that lurking behind the top 20 articles showing on any given page that there are 20 other current articles in that topic that you are not seeing.

If the prediction proves correct that most newspapers will start charging for viewing their online content in the next year, then the current model of this site might be in danger anyway, as it doesn't seem likely that all the linkages they do now to articles that are originally from other websites will still remain free for HuffPo readers to access; although, maybe they are working on a way to provide such limited access free, because they are driving substantial numbers of readers to those other sites.

Therefore, if they have extra money to spend, beyond paying for a sprinkling of excellent, in-house journalistic work, I'd spend it on behind-the-scenes staff to streamline and continuously improve the site design; staff to prepare the site to survive in the medium-term--given the tumult in the newspaper industry, to develop alliances with other publishers, etc.; and staff to work on creating ways to give even more talented newcomers a chance to post a few articles here and boost their careers.

[nantucketsunset]

Comment Part 2:

I read the Huffpo regularly, and I apologize for being unkind, but I don't think that most of the bloggers' articles here are so good, groundbreaking or interesting as to rate much financial compensation. The articles here are often worth a headline-only-read or a skim, some capture my attention enough that I devote time to reading them completely, and a few inspire me to post a comment, though usually that happens only if I disagree strongly enough with something in the article that I want to express my opinion too.

If the bloggers here want to gain more from this site, I would encourage them to see how they can take better advantage of the benefits outlined in the first paragraph of my Comment number 1 (and other benefits that I surely missed).

If the site wants to spend its money on quality improvements, I think it would benefit from hiring a couple of professional journalists (which I had thought was already announced as being in the works - last month or so?) or from developing some proposals for key projects/articles that many professional (and unprofessional) journalists could bid on doing, and then get paid for.

If some money could be spent, I also think that the site could be cleaned up, appearance-wise. I would appreciate having a master list of all articles that could be arranged by topic, writer, date published, etc.

[julesolder]

I think it's a smart idea. Like everyone else, writers have to eat.

[nantucketsunset]

(Apologies - Given the character limit, I'll have to break this up across two comments.)

Comment part 1:

The bloggers who create articles for free on this site may not be paid money, but they are paid in other ways - gaining a wide public exposure to their name, writing quality, views; getting some publications to put on their resumes; becoming part of a kind of "club" in terms of building credibility and links with the other Huffpo writers; being able to promote their own personal blogs, websites, books, etc. in their Huffpo articles; and so on.

For those benefits alone, I can imagine that not just 4,000 more, but probably 400,000 more, other aspiring writers would love the chance to post articles on this website without receiving monetary compensation for it.

Many people, especially those who are unemployed, underemployed, and newly graduated from an educational institution, are prepared and happy to do unpaid work so they can prove themselves and build a network. Sometimes it's called an internship, sometimes it's called volunteer work, sometimes it's called building a portfolio, sometimes it's called an exchange of favors, sometimes it's called investing in your own future.

[BarkingUnicorn]

"The Huffington Post has a responsibility as a new media pioneer to set a payment precedent that values content providers. "

Responsibility? Really?

[CharlesWarner]

This is really a dumb idea. I blog for free for The Huffington Post and I don't want to get paid. I want the Huff Po to make a profit so it can stay in business and continue to distribute my blogs. If it adopted your proposal, it could never make a profit.

Research by Teresa Amabile of the Harvard Business School shows that rewards, especially monetary rewards, hurt creativity -- people start trying to please editors and readers and stop creating for the fun of creating, which the biggest motivation for most of the bloggers on the Huff Po.

Also, read Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational which brilliantly and simply puts forth the findings from his and his colleagues experiments that show the difference between the social economy and the market economy. Essentially what Ariely shows is that people (and this includes experts) will either do something for free because it makes them feel good or if they get paid, they want their going market rate. Thus, the Huff Po couldn't afford to pay Alex Baldwin or Nora Ephron their going rate, but they are glad to write for free to get their ideas distributed.

[JackHudson]

My read of the concept differs. A few thoughts to your comment:
1. if you don't want pay, you can waive it, thus supporting someone else who would benefit. (And who might need it.)
2. rewards hurt creativity? tell Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Beethoven, Mozart, Shakespeare, Picasso, and my landlord.
3. Ariely's book is brilliant (or at least his work in behavioral economics is; the book is slightly fluffy). Ariely got paid for the book, and also for the research. Incidentally, it's pretty clear in the original concept that Alec Baldwin can waive his pay, and probably would.
Why does an idea like this matter? The leveled online playing field, and Huffington Post, are disrupting traditional (professional) journalism. Some kind of intermediate payment structure would provide a bridge to a system that could work both for readers and for content producers.

[TravelingMom]

We already have a model for paying our bloggers at TravelingMom.com. We use a revenue sharing plan similar to yours, but more egalitarian. When we have income, a portion goes to TravelingMom, a portion goes to bloggers who have participated in a promotion and a portion goes into a pool to be split equally among all of the bloggers. Sadly, unlike Huffington, we are not splitting millions. But at least I can look myself in the mirror every day and know I am doing what I can to ensure writers don't toil for free.