According to the Wall Street Journal, a coalition of left-wing bloggers is trying to form a labor union that they hope will help them receive health insurance, conduct collective bargaining and set professional standards.
As much as the days where bloggers were a novelty has passed, is blogging, or for that matter the various content creation forms of Web 2.0 ready for organized labor?
Most people contributing to new media sites, including user generated sites such as About.com and Mahalo do so on a contractual basis. Most content creators do not work under employer/ employee relationships, most are paid without tax being deducted; in the most these are not regular style jobs. There is a reason for this, because in the vast majority of cases bloggers or content creators take these jobs as hobbies; the income earned being additional pay to existing employment.
And yet the going rate for a blogger is remarkably low. Whilst the top networks such as Weblogs Inc. and Gawker pay their writers starting payments of around $500 per month, many smaller networks tended to favor a revenue sharing model that rewards popular topics over effort. They do so whilst the network operators keep the majority of profits for themselves.
As David Krug at Telegraphik puts it:
While some bloggers in networks are making pennies per the hour the network CEO’s and support staff are raking in huge salaries and getting VC Money to help furnish their homes. I don’t like it. It smells funny.
The reality for most chasing a quick buck from blogging is that few except those at the top of the blogosphere succeed in raking in a lot of money. A quick look at the various Problogger style sites and ebook salesman is like looking at an Amway presentation: it promises riches but for the vast majority always fails to deliver.
I’m not entirely against unionized blogging; in a free society there should be no limitations on organized labor, but any realist will know that ultimately the market decides upon what is reasonable pay and conditions. The vast number of people looking to make a second income from blogging already own and write their own blogs and don’t make much money; simply a low paid network blogging job is often more than what they are making from their own blogs.
As long as the supply of labor that will accept low rates exists, no amount of organization will create a marketplace that provides pay rates that are equal to that of comparable fields such as journalism. Exploitation only exists where those being paid do so because they have no alternative; bloggers have many alternatives, although most do not involve blogging itself. A fair wage is a noble cause, but one that will always be undercut as long as there are more potential writers than positions available.
Disclosure: I was previously involved in the blog network industry and hired bloggers.
The problem comes in when they use the government to enforce rules like “you must be a member of the union to work for this company”. That it, if a group of people want to get together for health care, etc, that’s cool. If they want to try to drive up wages by preventing other people from getting involved (which seems to be a common union thing, but I’m no expert), that seems unethical to me.
Oh, and David Krug’s comment that the VCs will give you money to furnish your home? Yeah, right.
There are so many potential candidates throughout the world to select good bloggers from - the business model is unlike the brick and mortar tradional businesses or the past century
I was merely pointing out that much of the VC money for blog networks goes into salaries.
Not really a furniture clause.
Bob
In my experience at least (and it is one thing I believe I’m at least reasonably qualified to comment on, having taken a blog network to VC etc…) I think David’s description is accurate. Maybe I’m old school but I’ve always believed you should put your talent before yourself, a lot of people in the industry don’t.
unionizing bloggers makes about as much sense and will go about as far as unionizing strippers….and as is typical, left wings of any sort don’t think, they just emote.
Regarding: “Exploitation only exists where those being paid do so because they have no alternative …”
I would disagree with that sentence - I would say “exploitation” also exists where there is misleading or manipulative promotion, even if not legally fraudulent.
For example, I have no problem with the sentence “Pyramid schemes are exploitative”, meaning they prey on human weakness for the enrichment of those at the top. I would claim it apologism to argue that pyramid schemes are not exploitation because the participants have alternatives.
Yes, exploitation has one meaning being coercive. But that’s not the only meaning of the word.
ex·ploi·ta·tion (ksploi-tshn)
n.
1. The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage: exploitation of copper deposits.
2. Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes: exploitation of unwary consumers.
3. An advertising or a publicity program.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
“Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes” seems to fit blog-evangelism perfectly.
Seth
fair call, although as a self prescribed blog evangelist (my speaking gigs in Australia are always about the advantages of blogging, hence the title) I don’t believe that blog evangelism and exploitation are in the same group. Certainly when I speak on the benefits of blogging its always from how blogging can open up communication to a wider audience, particularly from PR perspective, as opposed to exploiting others. The type of people you talk about are more snake oil salesman than blog evangelists; you’ll never find me selling false dreams.
Fortunately this will be a waste of time and go nowhere. It’s dumb. Period. There are so many alternatives for both labor and business, I mean go ahead an unionize. There’s a large English-speaking world out there that would love the opportunity you volunteered for and now scoff at. And on the other side, if you’re as good as you think, there are a million free ways to start your own blog.
I’ll enjoy watching this. I support the ability to unionize, while I both support and applaud a business that dismisses the whole crew.
For a blogger that would want to unionize, what is it about your skills that is such a commodity that you can’t negotiate a deal for yourself? Are you such a forgettable worker that the only leverage you have is some kind of mass work stoppage? And if that’s the case, why couldn’t or shouldn’t you be replaced by someone else that’s willing?
Another reason this won’t work particluarly well is geography. How are you going to break windshields, pop tires, threaten people and coerce pro-union votes when you don’t see people physically? How hard would it be to cross a virtual picket line?
Man I love the Internet.
I don’t see it going great lengths simply because not all the contributors are American. There cannot be universal rules..
Another fact is that for every person who wants to go for Unionized blogforce, there are atleast 3-4 who are ready to do a similar job, even if it pays lesser, because of a blognetwork that can give him and his blog more exposure and traffic…So, its just a fad..
——————————
Anand
Feedrer (Private beta)
Unpaid interns at a certain tech website (ahem) should consider carefully paragraphs 4, 5 and 8 of this post.
What stands out to me about David Krug’s statement is that it is predicated by suspicion and not fact. This has been the argument of unions throughout history. When unions began workers were exposed to horrible working conditions and circumstances. They were deplorable. But Krug’s statement implies that blog network owners make a lot more money off of their backs without any real information to support it: “It smells funny”.
That’s a mistake that is leading to the downfall of unions throughout the U.S. (AFL-CIO break-up). Many unionized businesses (Auto, grocery stores, etc) are in really low margin industries that really can’t afford better pay (although they could do better). While in some cases executives are overpaid with respect to their performance (airlines), the notion that workers should exert power simply because someone else makes more money than them is just sour grapes. I have one response to that:
Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
Unions have a great opportunity to provide and support a skilled, active, labor force (as is found in construction). But this particular instance sounds like the bloggers want more money than they are really worth. They data is out there for them to find that out for themselves. I hope if these guys want to be successful, they find a better leadership mantra than “I don’t like it. It smells funny.”
Here’s what’s interesting about this story:
Blogging is new but the dynamics of the blogging networks are the same as many other traditional media — the talent depends on the middleman for distribution and revenue generation, and the middleman takes the biggest cut (unless the talent has star power in which case the balance of power shifts).
This is how it works and has always worked in print media, television, music and whatever. So despite the fact that “blogger” is a new professional title, the conditions of the profession are hardly different at all.
Unionization is one way to try to affect the balance of power so that it is more in favor of the talent. However since the tools are readily available for blog contributors to publish to their audiences directly and keep the lion’s share of revenues for themselves — whether subscription, advertising or e-commerce — I am not sure why more of them aren’t considering this route.
The biggest difference between the internet and other traditional media is that the means of production and distribution are more freely available to all — so it should not be possible for middlemen to build businesses based on the high cost and unattainability of these elements. Yet many blog contributors still seem to accept the old rules for this new game. I wonder why?
Kind regards,
Evan Rudowski
With Evan on this one…Zipf’s Law and all that.
Interesting that even in New Media, the creators conspire to create Aggregators, and then allow same New Aggregators to rip them off in the first place….the “new media’s ” main impact is to automate aggregation far more than previously, so - in theory anyway - value goes to the ends of the chain - creator and consumer.
Supply and Demand is a bitch, huh?
I don’t get it. Whose gonna be the shop steward at a blog? Where’s the union hall gonna be? What politicians can we shake down?
Remember, as the bricklayers say, never works you self outta a job
If one of the requirements of being in a union is training in basic grammar, and use of a spellchecker, then I’m all for it.
Why don’t we all just move to communist China?
Unions are dangerous. A person’s wage should be based on their output, not their friends.
I just don’t see this as going anywhere. Unlike traditional media, the cost of entry for blogging is so low, that the bloggers are not tied to the publishers. If a blogger doesn’t like the site he/she is blogging for, they can simply move on. And if there is no other site they want to work for, they can start their own. None of those options are really available in the traditional print media mainly due to cost. In the blogging world, cost is not as big a concern. It just isn’t that hard to control your own destiny in the blogging world.
We have seen it before in other industries, unionization simply fails when the majority of workers do not need the union to protect them. So while bloggers have every right to unionize, I doubt that many will. At least as long as the choice remains up to the blogger.
‘how blogging can open up communication to a wider audience, particularly from PR perspective’
What do you mean, Duncan? Isn’t blogging different to old media by being outside PR influence?
Debbie
This is very silly–when most bloggers don’t consider what they do to be journalism, yet they want to unionize? And what about other writer’s unions (esp. since many bloggers make income doing other kinds of wriing too?) As a blogger whose worked on a number of different projects, I don’t see how a union would help me or be beneificial. My state (Massachusetts) has recently implemented a fairly decent insurnace plan–better than any of the ones I’ve seen offered by any of the writer’s unions–so that’s fine. Since I’m independent, I take care of my own taxes, too.
As for exploitation–that’s an issue that bloggers need to deal with among one another. At a recent conference I attended, there were many marketing professionals there (including some from AOL) who were trying mighty hard to pick the brains of bloggers to get free advice–and many bloggers are quite willing to give away their success secrets for nothing (probably because they were dazzled by celebrity status.) So, I see Seth’s point about blog evangelism differently from you, Duncan. I’ve seen, with my own eyes and among some groups, how getting all rah, rah and telling folks they’re “blog evangelists” can work to exploit bloggers and help desperate corporate folks get information they *should* be paying decent consulting fees to obtain.
So, bloggers need to start standing up for themselves, and start fighting back–and maybe joining writers unions or other established organizations. Established organizations also can lend some old-school credibility to blogging. This is something that many in the corporate world are comfortable with and helps. Remember, outside of the Silicon Valley, blogging is still a fringe-y pursuit, and so lots of us are bridging the old school with the new. This could help us to start leveraging blogging to our advantage. Because of the vastness of the blogosphere, and the vastness of opinons about the purpose and nature of blogging, we might not be able to get all bloggers on the same page (with a union) any more than we can get all of us to obey O’Reilly’s Code of Conduct. But we can stop being our own worst enemies by not giving away our hard-earned information and not working on the cheap.
Really? Take the single most individual expression of thoughts and information and bring it into “group speak?”
Inane…
@ Doug - Amen, Amen - you are so right on point!
The idea that “I” need to unionize sometimes comes from a fear that you cannot find well-paying work suited to your skill level. I’ve been blogging for pay for 1.5 years and have been increasingly paid more with almost each new contract - as my increasing skill level warrants. If I still blog at a lower wage at some sites, I do so because I like the person and know what they are capable of paying and accept that. There are other benefits of doing so such as increased exposure, friendship, future opportunities, etc.
I would still make more money writing for print, but it isn’t as easy to get freelance work in print as it is online.
After writing everything on Brownstoner.com myself for the past 2.5 years, I just hired my first writer. I can assure you she’s making multiples of the $500 a month figure–and it’s not even for full-time work.
It is to be hoped that bloggers will continue to earn less than journalists until the time that they master basic grammar.
The real reason that Unions continue to exist is to collect dues and
bribeinfluence politicians.Think about the potential - write some legislation that all bloggers have to be in a union and pay a fee every time they post. I can hear the cash registers now!
It’s funny how predictable some folks are. Unions = China. Hahaha. Just don’t tell that activists who risk their freedom whild doing some real labor organizing in China …
As far as paid blogging goes - I think a Union could be really valuable, but you might have to rethink of what a Union would do for a mostly self-employed, subcontracted workforce. There are a lot of service elements that could eventually lead to organizing.
One example: I’m a member of the German Verdi union that offers freelancers a simple online forum to anonymously post their wages, which proves to be a great tool for negotiations. I bet writers of a certain big US-based entertainment blog wouldn’t endure writing 100 posts per month for 1000 dollars if they knew how much people got paid at other blogs …
Unionizing bloggers is a stupid notion, since anyone can start a blog and get writing.
If you are a “professional” blogger who is working for the”man” and are feeling oppressed, what to do?
If your writing stands up and you create compelling content, your audience will grow, so why write for someone else?
Start your own website “blog” and you will make ALL the income, of course that does come with risks and costs such as hosting, design, SEO etc…
This is what I did, I write, program and produce my site. I spend a LOT of time tweaking the site code and design.
I do get to keep my earning and I do what I want on the site, in turn it pays my rent. But is took a long time to get there.
Stop whining, if you don’t like writing for nothing or for the man, do your own thing. That is the American way.
In my opinion, two Google-related issues are overlooked:
1) AdSense (the bread and butter of many bloggers) is not disclosing the % of compensation going to the sites. They should be forced to disclose how much they pay.
2) We should be allowed to specify (in robots.txt or otherwise) how to treat excerpts from our sites. Using them in search engine is fine. But Google is shamelessly using structural information and photos culled from blogs in its own products (like restaurant search in Google maps). Bloggers who collected the info and took photos get no money and in almost all cases, no clicks! At the very least, they should be allowed to say whether or not their information should be there.
Duncan wants unionization because he’s afraid of being fired from TechCrunch.
Seriously though:
1. Unionization limits supply meaning consumers are hurt
2. Blogs don’t generate that much money so there’s no reason to have minimum wages and benefits for bloggers
3. Bloggers can start their own blog if they’re unhappy with their pay. The barriers to entry are extremely low.
Read TechDumpster for a more detailed discussion.
@ Rover
Not sure what your comment has to do with Unionizing Bloggers?
There are many other, more profitable, ways to monetize a site other than Google.
Google is the at the end of my backfill chain
just remembered: there’s the Media Bloggers Association which is kinda-sorta-a union. MBA helped a group of bloggers get credentials to cover the Scooter Libby Trial. Yes, some of those bloggers were high profile, but some of them weren’t.
The MBA really isn’t all that concerned about wages though–I think their sentiment is that wage-earning is up to us to figure out. They’re more about “blogger’s rights” and protection from false libel claims, as well as fairness and transparency.
Quite frankly, given the number of tech conferences that are all of a sudden limiting the number of press creds they give out (NOT to most bloggers–but lots to what they consider “working” journalists) we might need a credentialling arm more than we might need a wage-fighting arm.
(and yes, I’m an MBA member)
Like anything leftist, this will
(a) probably not work
(b) only help those in charge (yet again)
Or (c) be something that some sh*tbag pothead talks to you about all night at some party in the Haight that you didn’t want to go to but your friend promised they would.
Unions are an archaic relic from yesteryear. Back when you had child labor and unsafe working conditions I could see a point for unions. But these days? Unless you’re in the meat packing business, which I hear has some of the worst working conditions of any industry, unions are way past due.
I think Warren Meyer hits the nail on this issue (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/bloggers-union.html). This isn’t so much about creating a useful organization to represent individuals, but rather about bragging rights at cocktail parties.
Aside from time, the barriers to entry and start-up capital in this industry are effectively zero point nada. If you know that everyone and their cousin is capable of entering this market, what exactly is there to complain about?
Don’t think you are getting paid enough? Wish you could get rich quick? Holding your breath for a new car? Uhh, trying to be a professional blogger is probably not the best industry for you to spend much time in.
[Note: this is not directed at anyone but unionists]
Bloggers deserve health care? My god, from who? Blogspot? I don’t think any more than 5% of the blogs out there, and less than 50% of the popular ones, are even networks … the blogger is the boss on the most of these and a lot don’t have more than one contributor.
I say go for it, I know Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, parts of India and South Africa are just waiting for the chance to replace the American bloggers who try to get healthcare from a site that earns less than a taxi driver.
This is insane, the whole idea of the internet is you don’t need to be at the whim of corporations, you don’t need lots of money or a degree to start your own blog, there isn’t bags of red tap to wade through like starting a small business … you really can just do it yourself, if your current blogging network/editor isn’t paying enough, just start your own, it would take less than 2 hours to do so!
Why are they trying to bureaucratize the internet? The whole point of the internet and its success is the lack of bureaucrats.
There are two fundamental flaws with this idea.
One. Most bloggers are independent contractors. You must be and employee to be represented by a union. This is a federal law. And you will probably have an easier time changing the law than your employment status.
Two. There are so many people who write and want their words to be read that there is a limitless supply of strikebreakers available. Most bloggers are easily replaceable. Their words are more valuable to them than anyone else (harsh reality). The only way not to get dumped in a labor dispute is to build up a large personal following. But if you’ve already done that you can achieve the same results by threatening to take your words elsewhere. So if you are really good, you don’t need the union. And good is defined not by the quality of your writing but by your ability to make a large number of people actually care about your writing and to want more.
Sindicato de Bloggers ? Para q?
Para q empiece a haber corrupcion donde, por ahora, no la hay ?
Para q una par de sindicos se llenen los bolsillos con el trabajo de toda la blogsfera?
Para seguir creando puestos de trabajos para delincuentes y holgazanes ?
Para q un grupo de matones ignorantes nos digan que, como y cuando bloggear?
Si ahora no se garantiza la libertad de expresion de los blogs, con un sindicato, mucho menos…Q pasaria si uno quiere bloggear contra el sindicato o contra las empresas o entes con los que el sindicato tiene negocios o acuerdos?
Si se reune un grupo de bloggers disconformes con la politica del sindicato de bloggers y forma un sindicato paralelo a fin de captar a todos los disconformes, empezariamos con multiples fracturas irreconciliables en la blogsfera, pero esta vez por razones politicas, lo q llevaria a la desunion total, como lo vemos cada dia en el escenario politico de nuestros respectivos paises.
La idea es malisima y obviamente viene de un Norteamericano, terroristas mundiales, asesinos de mujeres y niños, piratas del petroleo, usurpadores de soberanias, golpistas y confabuladores en tierras extrajeras, creadores de asesinos seriales, sociopatas y parias.
Q mas se puede esperar de gente asi q la creacion de un sindicato?
Morons like this are the reason the Western world is starting to decay. For technical people that is one truly stupid idea.