Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Friday, April 3, 2009

How Journalism Can Make Money on the Internet, According to an Expert: "It's Really Fucking Depressing"

Posted by on Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 9:32 AM

A certain young lady who used to live in Seattle and now lives in Another City wrote me a couple of days ago. She works for "a soul-sucking (but well-paying) media company" that makes money off original, online-only content.

I asked her for the secret, since it might save journalism and all.

She answered with a thousand-word email: "It is the industrialization of the written word. It is very Theodore Dreiser. And it is terribly depressing."

The first few paragraphs are here, the rest are below the jump—because a thousand words is too long for the internet—but the whole thing is required reading: a tour of the factory where media companies, which she works for and fears, are learning how to turn words into money.

The secret ingredient? The blood of fact checkers, journalists, and intelligent readers.

I work in editorial at an online media company; a company you probably haven’t heard of. My job has no resemblance to a newspaper or magazine editor. Instead of finding good pieces of content and assigning people to write them well, my time is spent figuring out how to create many stories at little cost that will make money. I’ve always wanted to be a professional writer. I’m afraid that isn’t going to be an avenue open to me in the future.

You asked me how media companies made money on the internet, and it took me a few days to write you back because I didn’t know how to answer the question. The answer is, I’m afraid, really fucking depressing.

As far as I can gather, making money with content on the internet is about reaching a sweet spot between good SEO practices and scalability. (SEO = Search Engine Optimization, the practice of littering internet copy with keywords with high search volume, thus driving traffic — and revenue — to your site.) So good SEO practices means that you are molding your content based on what people are searching for and the phrases they are searching with (people dumber than you; people who can’t spell or form a sentence to save their lives).

Half-assed SEO practices — like using the keyword “car” instead of “auto” occasionally or something — are middling at best. You have to commit to all or nothing, and you have to commit to doing it a lot, over and over and over, until you have tens of thousands of pages rich with hundreds of thousands of keywords. Then (and, I'm afraid, only then) will the model start working for you.

Just imagine every search you make on google on a given day — you, a professional journalist, who probably uses shitty grammar and sometimes misspells things — and THOSE HALF-PHRASES becoming the backbone for the content of the future. It horrifies me to even imagine.

The problem is, articles based on SEO and little else monetize like crazy, because they get great pageviews… and because the pay is insultingly low for them on sites like Associated Content and Suite 101, the ROI (return-on-investment) is very high. If all the metrics are working out, the one thing you can’t quantitatively measure — quality — falls completely by the wayside. When you’re hitting and exceeding your numbers every month, suddenly, an article can be “better” than another in a lot of different ways (better monetization? better pageviews? better… grammar? you see where I’m going here).

Obviously this kind of thing has been tried before, and failed, because The People still wanted well-researched, well-written articles to read. But. Newspapers are closing every week because people, it seems, no longer put the most value on quality. People are freaked out about paying the mortgage and losing their jobs and at a time when they need newspapers the most, they don’t give a shit. Now the journalists who are losing their jobs, who have no money and no skills except writing, are turning to these soulless content-factory sites because making a little money per shitty article is better than working at McDonald’s.

So suddenly these sites have legitimate writers willing to accept next to nothing for articles, which they write as fast as they can, with as little research as they can get away with, in order to make money. Often, research is being conducted on sites like wikipedia, and rewritten slightly, using synonyms that slightly skew the meaning, like a giant game of telephone. Fact-checkers are as arcane as telephone operators. And I’m talking about the writing practices of trained journalists. Most of the people who are writing content for the internet have never published an article in their lives.

It is the industrialization of the written word. It is very Theodore Dreiser. And it is terribly depressing.

I don’t have a solution. Moreover, as part of the system, I have to tell myself that I’m learning these Dark Arts to work for the greater good somewhere down the line. I can’t shake the nagging feeling, however, that I am contributing to the extinction of everything I believe in. I’ve heard writers say that we just Shouldn’t Stand For It, and stop writing for less money, but that kind of seems to me, and it might be totally cynical and offbase, like college sophomores boycotting classes to protest the government (“then they’ll really see!”). So many more people want to write who can write, and their relative skill level no longer matters. In this model, mediocrity is rewarded.

I know this is all gloom and doom, and it might come off sounding part-crazy. But I’ve seen it working, man! My entire life I’ve assumed that people will always push back, that they will always choose quality in the end. But what is happening on the internet frightens me. It frightens me because professionalism is being reduced every day to the role of the quirky “expert” on websites, and even then, those people are usually just users who have maybe read a book on the subject. Context, deep knowledge, multiple points of view, reliable research — these are all being lost, and rapidly, because they are rarified and do not monetize. Good writing, especially if you like to use metaphors and complex sentence structures, is antithetical to what search engines stand for.

Anyway. Like I said, gloom and doom. If you have thoughts in the opposite direction, I would love love love to hear them, because generally I am in despair. (When I am not in despair, I am usually of this school: "Well, if I am acing myself out of a career as a professional writer, I will just go live in a cabin and write novels only for me. And THEN THEY'LL SEE").

Ummm, on the other hand, it's almost the weekend and I get paid tomorrow?

 

Comments (18) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
this lady should use her insider knowledge and write an in-depth tell all on the decline and fall of journalism. if anything, she has a wonderful opportunity to blow the lid off of something very few people know about.

so hunker down, take notes, and do some good old fashioned investigative journalism.

Posted by mwesh on April 3, 2009 at 9:52 AM
2
I'm not sure how possible this is, but it would be really helpful to have some examples of websites that are doing this (maybe not the specific one(s) she works for but others like it). I just don't have a sense of the scale of this problem (is it a site like cnn.com doing this? or much less "reputable"-types of sites?).

Basically, what I want to know is, is the quality of what I, personally, am reading suffering because of practices like this? I mean, if I scan through Google News or whatever, I'm going to go to the NYT site, or the Wash. Post, or cnn.com...
Posted by Julie in Eugene on April 3, 2009 at 9:54 AM
3
Visit textbroker (dot) com. You can order any kind of article you want...for as low as a penny per word.

Who are these people that can write for a penny a word?

Of course, you get what you pay for. You might have to go as high as 5 cents a word.
Posted by Mark on April 3, 2009 at 10:04 AM
4
Nice pedestal. We’ve all doomed the English language, al for no gud gramer or raisin . Curse you both Spellcheck and Flesch Reading Ease scale!!! Curse you both.



Can any writer climb up or is it for a Printed Knight of the Holy Order of Journalism Trades and Associated Authors?

Posted by phenic on April 3, 2009 at 10:08 AM
5
Writers, especially newspaper writers refusing to work for less pay would be like GM workers going on strike to protest layoffs.

What is most interesting about the internet is that the people with the best content often work for free. For example the folks at Panda's Thumb or PZ over at Pharyngula produce some amazing content, but they don't get paid for it.

I think one model is where the internet is something done by writers to advertise themselves. For example Phil at Bad Astronomy has his blog, which is free, but also sells his books which he hypes up through the blog.

That and maybe a site needs to just bite the bullet and try charging for all content. I mean I would pay 10-20 bucks a month to access quality journalism so long as it was convenient (no pay per article or other annoying bullshit).
Posted by sgiffy on April 3, 2009 at 10:09 AM
6
All this has happened before and it will happen again.

Thinking back to the days of the muckrakers and yellow journalism of a century ago, the pendulum had swayed over to about where it is now, really. At some point, the model of news gathering and reporting news that is emerging now (low cost, wide distribution, blogger-based) will likewise give way to some crisis or scandal, and the pendulum will sway back to the middle.

I think we just kind of have to let this phase run its course, while being vocal about objectionable activities by pseudojournalists.
Posted by Simac on April 3, 2009 at 10:11 AM
7
When a friend passed away recently and I was interviewed by a reporter from a daily about it, there were so many things wrong in the article -- things I tried to make as clear as possible during the chat with the writer -- that it was a nightmare. I called him a chef and they called him a "foodie." I was described as a musician when everyone knows I stopped playing music long ago (I'm a publicist; hey, it's the "music scene" right?). I am quoted saying something I never said at all (I have a phone recorder for my own interviews and use it whenever I talk with mainstream press). Finally, and the most darkly humorous part of this, is when she repeated the origin story of the band the beloved deceased played for, but that was a hoax he himself had told a previous, also pretty careless reporter. She didn't bother to fact check even that, but reprinted it whole. It added a lot of "joy" to the mourning (let's see how much more horrible we can make a tragic thing) but could have been taken care of with one good fact check phone call to me, or someone in the family, or another friend. Feel free to feel even more depressed now, Brendan. BTW, great review of that China Underground book in the new issue -- you captured the author's unique charm and the unusual aspects of the work perfectly.
Posted by Chris Estey on April 3, 2009 at 10:13 AM
8
Academia has been monitoring this and projecting its collapse for years.

Media Studies....Communications....if you want to make money off of this, learn how to teach it and research it.
Posted by College wins on April 3, 2009 at 10:38 AM
9
I maintain that the internet is a hall of mirrors.
Posted by arts&letters on April 3, 2009 at 10:43 AM
10
@6: Thank you for putting this in historical context. I was starting to panic.
Posted by TVDinner on April 3, 2009 at 11:00 AM
11
I use Slog and only Slog as my source for factual information and will continue to do so until I find something untrue in it.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on April 3, 2009 at 11:06 AM
12
As someone who works for the web arm of a national publication, I'd make the point that what your friend is talking about isn't journalism. While we of course consider reader interest in deciding what stories to do, it's by far not the only thing we look at, and we know we're going to do stories that don't get a lot of clicks in addition to ones that are catnip for the Web audience, simply because they're important stories. And we'd never consider rewriting a piece with different words or synonyms for SEO reasons.

So take heart, anonymous Friend of Brendan! There are still people who care about doing good journalism online, and there is still an audience for that stuff out there (ours, for instance). And there are still jobs for good journalists and writers out there, though most of them are probably freelance gigs.
Posted by Superfurry Animal on April 3, 2009 at 11:34 AM
13
It's all about the comics pages. And monetizing the online sports vids of hot "soccer" (football) players.
Posted by Will in Seattle on April 3, 2009 at 12:58 PM
14
Addressing College Wins: Academia, like journalism, is in many regards a failing American institution. While we certainly do need talented writers researching important issues, like this one, and getting the word out, I think we could all do without another angry young media studies professor turned sour by the grim realities of the tenure-track spewing the predictable vitriol of academic group-think as she publishes ridiculous articles in obscure journals in order to keep her job.
Posted by hippopotamus Q on April 4, 2009 at 5:09 PM
15
@2/12: I worked for the web arm of a large national print publication and our writers endured many workshops and meetings about writing for SEO. They hated it, some left angry, others complained but it's definitely becoming a fact of life.

I almost walked out when one of the trainers suggested we "misspell commonly misspelled words or at least include them in metatags. it will help your hits on google!"
Posted by Jigae on April 5, 2009 at 10:23 PM
16

you can make money online if you go to the right sites. My name is Adam i live in IL and I'm with GID....and i have made money online. This isn't a get rich scam. It takes time to make a good income. its $10 a month to start and you get a 7 day free trail. if anyone's interested please check out my site.

Thanks from Adam

http://www.makemoneywithadam.ws/cash

Posted by Adam on April 18, 2009 at 8:47 PM
17
Strength of words and the information has changed business and industrial in the world.

Thanks,
Make Money On The Internet
http://www.internetzine.co.uk
Posted by Make Money On The Internet on May 1, 2009 at 2:28 AM
18
Interesting point and very well made, it certainly gets the point across!
20 minute payday
Posted by suzie on September 29, 2010 at 2:03 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy