I’ve been yakking (here and here) about how bloggers are frequently offered “exposure” instead of money for their work. What “exposure” really means, of course, is “We could help you become famous.” Hard for the average human to resist. Very hard. But exposure doesn’t buy the groceries (at least not in the immediate). So we need to figure out a way to get cash into bloggers’ pockets, especially if the sites they’re blogging for can’t or won’t pay them.
Another part of the equation is the readers, who are very free with their likes (easy to be generous when it costs you nothing), but likes don’t pay the rent any more than exposure does.
Speaking of readers, permit me to draw your attention to Flattr, which I affectionately refer to as “likes with balls.” It’s a revolutionary idea, though most people don’t seem to have grasped that just yet. (Or maybe they have, and they’re just selfish and lazy. Or maybe they’ve lost their jobs and homes and are living in their vans and eating uncooked Top Ramens every day. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.)
Read the rest of If content is king, why are content creators slaves? on frogblog.
ralph
October 10, 2011
The answer is that barrier to entry is so damned low. Any creative writer with access to the internet can compete for eyeballs. This is also why cafes do not pay very well, either.