Blogger vs Journalist 2

A few more thoughts on the "blogger vs journalist" debate concerning the "money" issue.

Like it or not, it all does boil down to money like this: journalists make money in the form of salaries from writing [their salaries represent a small share of the income of the newspaper which comes from advertising]. Bloggers also make money from writing but not in the form of salaries but directly from advertising deals. The essential difference between the two lies in the amount. While journalists do not get a significant share from the advertising in the newspaper they write for, bloggers get all the money from advertising on their blog. Also, journalists have to share the advertising income with owners, shareholders and the other members of the staff. Bloggers, if they know any coding at all, do not have to share revenue with anyone. So, the reason journalists are pissed off at bloggers is that, supposedly by the logic above, they make more money.

Secondly, bloggers are more famous. Journalists write for the brand of the newspaper, so their personal brand is secondary. [On an aside here, editorialists, very much like bloggers, are more famous kinda proving my point]. Bloggers only write about and for themselves. So, the reason journalists are pissed off at bloggers is that, supposedly by this logic, they are more famous.

Interestingly enough, again, both sides are missing some points, namely:
- one blogger with one blog can only make a limited amount of money: because there is only this many banners and this many endorsement deals you can have. You cannot, unlike a newspaper, endorse both Coke and Pepsi. You lose credibility and then you, as a blogger, lose money.
- one blogger makes less money the more famous he gets - simply because he gets famous by pushing some very strong points of view. Advertising means compromise so the more extreme the blogger's views the less likely advertising money is to be directed towards him.
- journalists make a steady pay despite newspaper performance because salaries are fixed and not always connected to revenue [especially for lower ranking staff]
- journalists usually get a wider audience to begin with as newspapers have wider distribution than a blog [at first].

So, the reason bloggers are pissed off at journalists is that they make a steady paycheck despite performance while bloggers have to hustle for every buck, and the reason journalists dislike bloggers is that they feel these are stealing their advertising money and limelight.

Again, as I was trying to point out below, journalists objectives and performance are different from those of bloggers and should be remunerated differently. And if, as a journalist, you want personal fortune and personal fame, get an effing blog and start taking shit from your former colleagues! :-)