Incentivising is a very bad word, but maybe a good idea

Some more thoughts on how to compensate online content creators.

Yoni Greenbaum says extend a performance bonus plan beyond writers to online producers and editors, too! (Bring it on!)

Scott Karp says pay for performance plans might spur traffic, but they may or may not improve quality becuase the Internet “turns a blind eye to quality.” (Quality? Just kidding.)

Mathew Ingram says on balance incentivizing writers “in the long run it is likely to make them more intimately involved in their blogs, and more interested in developing a relationship with their readers, and that’s a good thing.”( Like in taking more ownership of their worK?)

Dan Blank says to find sustainable online success, we must stop calling people bloggers – and work to create more journalists… who just happen to write for blogs. (How true.)

I have some other blog postings here on the pay issue, including one that has a link to the full Nick Denton new-pay-plan memo (a must read for this subject). And there is more react at this search results link.

While people can certainly pick at Nick Denton’s plan, mainstream media hoping to make their way fully into digital  need to look at whether their compensation systems reflect their old business or their new.

1 comment

  1. I think this needs something like context. What’s epidemic right now? (I’m skipping over “psychopathy” because there has to be a little bit of theoretical grounding for that to make sense. That we’ve “optimized conditions for the manifestation of psychopathic tendencies” doesn’t ramify properly w/o that.)
    On the one hand: ADHD and whatever new accros depict “serial partial attention” … human beings proceeding with all the self-possession of pigeons. Catastrophic entailments for any civil society.
    And what are “incentives”? (I’ll depart from your meaning here for just a moment.) I saw a new Web2.0 service that offers “7 days free” … and then, having given over credit-card or PayPal arrangements, you are expected to opt out. So, of course, like with magazine subscriptions, a sizable portion of the “Free Trial” role blithely carry on.
    Or the PDF reader that’s got such good buzz: you can pay outright, or go through a whole Skinnerian process of testing out various “Free Offers” at the end of which you get the little utility no charge.
    The “ratropomorphic” view of man has returned with a nasty #Matrix vengeance.
    Concerning your examples here, there exist 2 bodies of knowledge I know: 1) volunteerism and cash; paying volunteers results in a foundational shift in their relationship to the entity, and 2) from cog-psych, having people do/write something that induces cognitive dissonance … pay one portion … interview later: those who got paid have a lucid appreciation of their mercenary act while those who acted “freely” engaged in all manners of rationalization.
    thanks for the 5 minutes of good fun!

Comments are closed.