Pay 'em what they're worth?

Continuing a theme from a Sunday post, here's some more views on how journalists might be compensated in a digital world where every click is a metric:

Patrick Beeson: "I'm not sure dangling CPM as a sole means for earning a paycheck would be appropriate at this point however. Though it would be interesting to use it as a metric for bonuses or raises." (See comments from Mindy McAdams, Ryan Berg ...)

Lucas Grindley: "But I have long supported a bonus structure based on the number of page views generated by a reporter's or columnist's stories.  ... A page view bonus structure favors neither quantity or quality more. Sometimes cranking out posts creates the most page views, and sometimes writing one really good post can do the same." (See comments: Mark Evans, Tish Grier, Jeremy Wright ...)

Yoni Greenbaum sees some value in at least enlightening writers about what is read:  "I think it’s important for desk editors and reporters to understand the habits of their online readers. Desk editors should know what stories play best online; this is not to say that you don't report some stories, but editors should understand of what plays best and where."

Katie Allison Granju: "We online scribes live or die by our ad impressions."