Blog Networks Re-examined
Pramit Singh, an “information professional working in New Delhi”, has written an interesting piece on blog networks over at MediaVidea.
Trawling through various opinions and scenarios, the main emphasis of the post is on the downside risks and problem areas of digital networks. Many of these points have been aired on other sites, not least on this one.
Here’s the take on Syntagma : “In fact, one blog network, Syntagma Media, which had more than 50 blogs, cut down on all redundant blogs and ended up with just 3 sites, which are now being run along the Engadget model – as magazines.”
That’s not quite accurate since we still have 55 sites. We’ve simply packaged them around three (soon four) portals under a concept we call “network magazines”. It does worry me that some intelligent and otherwise informed individuals can still get this wrong. But then maybe that’s a positive outcome. If visitors now see our inventory as three magazines, rather than a collection of “blogs”, that indicates that the system is working.
Even b5media gets a bit of excessive pidgeon-holing : “B5media specializes in Celeb blogs.” Whatever happened to the other 13 channels?
The fact is, the average surfer is not going to grasp your wonderful arrangements and system concepts while flicking through your inventory. When people who know the ground get it wrong, though, some head-scratching is clearly in order.
It is good to be reminded of these points from time to time, obvious though they are. One thing I’ve learned since coming into this business is that quality of traffic is preferable to tidal waves of Digg- or Slashdot-type invasions. Some of our low trafficked sites make more money than our highly visited ones. The secret of success is not to close down the bigger sites, but to divert specific segments of the tidal traffic flows onto the higher-paying inventory — and that’s the basis of our network magazine theory. It does work too.
There’s one simple principle that’s always drummed into new entrepreneurs : it’s no good making wonderful products if you can’t sell them. This is why our Retailz USA portal will be a step change from what we’ve done before, and will introduce a wholly new concept of managing, producing and presenting content online. What we are dreaming up is nothing less than a revolution in the portalization of commercial content.
Network magazines Mark II will be far in advance of the original concept of blog networks. In fact, you’ll hardly recognize it.
Hi there John,
This is the ‘information professional in New Delhi’ Pramit here.
I am sorry for not fully writing about Syntagmamedia, that it still has 55 blogs arranged 3 channels.
I have posted a correction on my blog.
However, one of the main idea of the overview was how to manage content across 50-100-200 blogs.
I was managing editor of one of the blog networks mentioned in my article and I can tell from personal opinion that 1. you have to be deep pocketed (money for 24 + months) and 2. focused on quality, so as to be able to challenge the big new sites, blogs etc.
I left the job as I found the emphasis to be more on rewriting than original writing. Besides, we had a hard time recruiting good writers.
I am working on starting a couple of news sites at present.
Again, I am sorry for the mistake with the story.
By Pramit on April 24th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
One more thing.
When I said b5Media specializes in celeb sites ( i know like all other blog networks they have other channels as well), I meant that they do have a number of good celeb blogs.
Wouldn’t you agree that it is very important to:
1. Be known for your coverage strengths, be it your unique editorial opinion, coverage style, writing style, among a host of other things. I am not saying b5Media is known for its celeb blogs, rather, its celeb blogs have done well.
2. Have some flagship brand, instead of an all-encompassing blog network brand. When we focus on the content for a specific topic, there are more chances of good things happening rather than out of a bulbous, ‘under-staffed’ blog network.
In end, I would like to remind that my post was just a constructive look at the blog network field, which is still promising if you have the resources. It doesn’t aim to criticize any particular brand or network.
All the best.
By Pramit on April 24th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
The piece would have been more useful if it was more inaccurate. While the BBC has a blog network of sorts, bbc.co.uk certainly isn’t the homepage. What the piece fails to capture is the evolution of the space, the strengths of the respective types of networks and the challenges that lay ahead.
Also, John, I always find it ironic when you lead others to think you created the network portals concept when you and I both know it was something we talked about when you first joined b5. It’s taken us awhile to get ours up to snuff certainly, but if we didn’t invent it (and we didn’t), then you certainly didn’t (since most of what you’ve done is a carbon-copy of b5).
You’ve done really, really well. I’m not knocking what you’ve accomplished in any way whatsoever. You just have a tendency to claim ownership for things you didn’t think up, which is a little insulting to those of us who did. Kind of like the Instablogs social networking thing (it was our idea as well, and I mentioned it in passing to Nandini).
Every network has its strengths. Maybe ours is thinking up good ideas that others get to use before we do
By Jeremy Wright on April 24th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Thanks for the clarification, Pramit. I agree with most of what you write in your post — except the little matter of losing 52 Syntagma sites.
The idea of our network magazines is to focus the content of 20 or so similar sites into one funnel for advertising. It seems to be working, although we still have some way to go to get up to MSM standards.
I also agree that getting good writers and keeping them is not easy. But, for me, it’s the admin that comes with producing original content that is the hardest part — unless, that is, you employ people to do it for you, and that’s not easy in the first two years of operation.
But no doubt it’s all worth it in the end.
By John Evans on April 24th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
But you still haven’t portalized your stuff at b5, Jeremy. Where are the portals?
I’ve never claimed to have invented portals, as you keep insisting. That would be ridiculous. The network magazine concept, with fully branded portals is totally different from what you’re doing. And our next venture after Moneyizor, Retailz USA, will take the concept a long country mile further on.
By John Evans on April 24th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Actually, we always planned to do branded portals. Where are they? Coming. As you can imagine, doing 15 portals is a bit more work than doing 3. We should have the first to show off in the next few weeks though.
Branded portals. It was what b5 has always talked about. Glad you got to it first, but it’s not unique.
By Jeremy Wright on April 24th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
You’re not Tony Blair in disguise, are you Jeremy? Sometimes you sound just like him.
Actually, we’ve got three portals up, another coming within days, and two big shopping portals within a few months. And all with a fraction of your staff and a smidgeon of your funding.
However, I’m well aware of our weaknesses at the present time, but also the timescale for solving them.
By John Evans on April 24th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Is that supposed to be a potshot? Cause it sure didn’t feel like one.
I already said you’d done 3. So you’ll have done 4. That’s great. My guess is that your portals are largely just WP installs where you write new posts and then link to your other sites. Not the biggest technical challenge in the world.
With a network our size, that solution would be impractical, so we’re having to write a boat-load of software to manage them. Hence the delay. Plus, we’re looking to brand them effectively, which is a challenge with 15 of them to do
Either way, as you’ve always said, don’t criticize for things that don’t exist yet
Y’know, like when you called Syntagma a “magazine business” 6 months before the magazines launched? 
Besides, while you may not have all of our staff, you’ve certainly enjoyed using our staff and ideas and technology and principles and lessons learned. Which has undoubtedly saved you time (which is good, that’s the way it should be)
By Jeremy Wright on April 24th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
you’ve certainly enjoyed using our staff and ideas and technology and principles and lessons learned. Which has undoubtedly saved you time
Wordpress isn’t your technology. We’ve employed two of your staff, neither of whom is still with us — and they applied to us. The main lessons I took from b5 were what not to do : internal forums and chatter groups, for example, travelling to meetups etc.
Syntagma has similarities with b5 in the way all blog networks are basically the same. But our style, look, temperament and content are different and very recognizable.
Retailz USA will be very different from what you describe, Jeremy. It really is revolutionary because it eliminates much of the admin that gets in the way at the present time. Watch this space.
By John Evans on April 24th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
John, you’ve freely utilized our blog concepts, bloggers, CE’s, plugins, backend tech, design concepts, ad suppliers, concepts, etc.
Are there differences? Sure. But if you feel less internal community and less interaction is somehow your biggest differentiator… Well, you can have that one mate
In terms of the revolutionary (same word you used for the magazines, btw), I can’t wait to see. Changes are upheaval are needed in the industry and if you have a great idea and way to make that happen, that’s fantastic, go for it!
I’m all for giving credit where it’s due, John, and you’ve done a great job at implementing one part of where b5 left off. If you’re able to take that to the next level, all the better and kudos to you!
By Jeremy Wright on April 24th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
And you know, Jeremy, it’s you who are following us down the road. Have you signed up Thord yet?
By John Evans on April 24th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I hope you two keep picking away at each other in this fashion - I learn a helluva lot about the side of the business that I never see otherwise, being a mere blo… oops, I mean journalist.
By Clive on April 24th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
you’ve freely utilized our blog concepts, bloggers, CE’s, plugins, backend tech, design concepts, ad suppliers, concepts, etc
No, Jeremy, you’re taking credit for stuff that was around way before b5 was a gleam in your eye. Remember b5 grew out of Weblog Empire, of which I was a part, which grew out of Weblogs Inc. You haven’t reinvented the universe, as you claim.
What are you on.
By John Evans on April 24th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Some things are better not seen, Clive.
By John Evans on April 24th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Not true of the exchanges between yourself and Jeremy, John. Highly entertaining is what I call it.
By Clive on April 24th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
b5 didn’t grow out of WE. And Weblogs, Inc. wasn’t even that popular in March of 2005 when the b5 idea first sprang up. If you think we just suddenly appeared the week after the WIN sale, you need to read up on your history John.
We didn’t invent the universe. But we did create the first network with groups of blogs (channels), that was WP-based, and dozens of other things. Most of which others (including yourself) have freely used. Which, again, is fine. It’s why we shared so much internal info, to progress the industy.
Speaking of early history, maybe you’re forgetting Syntagma’s? I mean, feel free to look at your early posts where you say you’re branching out (left b5) for 3 reasons:
1. Big networks suck, you’d rather have 13 blogs to concentrate on than 50 (our size at the time, oh the irony)
2. Bloggers deserve to earn more, and revenue share really sucks
3. A lack of focus on 1-2 areas will kill every network
Syntagma grew entirely out of your frustration with b5 (which would explain the 60+ posts you’ve written about us). Which is fine. But the irony is that you’ve gone and dropped each of those 3 things and continued to follow the vision we’ve been pitching is pretty ironic.
Go on and innovate John. We were pretty cocky too when we launched with a tagline of “a new kind of blog network” way ahead of our time.
And we’re following you? How’s that, when everything you’re doing that’s public is stuff we told you or showed you how to do? Hired Thord? No. Great guy, but no.
I mean obviously you aren’t totally following us. I mean you don’t promote your bloggers, , don’t participate in industry stuff, don’t look to build community… And those are all founding parts of b5. Our bloggers are what make every bit of magic happen, and every bit of success we have is thanks to them. Me? I only know folk are your bloggers when they (like Clive) comment here.
Which is too bad, because I’m sure you have some fantastic authors tht deserve every bit of praise imaginable
By Jeremy Wright on April 24th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Where to start?
I left b5 because I wanted to own the inventory. Your three numbered points I don’t recognize, although, like you, I probably wrote some tosh in my rookie days. Get over it.
Each time I write about b5 (even in passing, like today) you add 10 onto the score. It was 50 last time. Are you using a logorithmic method of counting?
As for our authors, they get lots of coverage around Syntagma and the mag portals. Some even have their names up in lights. Others don’t like that. Their choice.
Your claiming ownership of WP amazes me. My first “network” was on blogger.com and I was influenced over to Wordpress by Duncan’s Blog Herald and familiarity with WP while writing for Weblog Empire. I don’t recognize the overwhelming influence of b5 you’re heaping on me. It simply wasn’t like that, old chum.
Incidentally, your newish design on Ensight etc has a lot of similarities with our own. But do I charge you with plagiarism? Never! Not my style.
By John Evans on April 24th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
It was 50 last time because it was 2 months ago and you’d written about us 10 less times.
In terms of author, the only way I can find an author is to go to a blog and click on “Author” up top (if it exists, some blogs don’t have it).
There’s no authors list. No author profile on the blog. Many blogs don’t even attribute blog posts to the authors!
And if the Ensight design reminds you of Syntagma it’s only because you started out using the b5 design and then made it white. It’s only an evolution of the design we’ve always had. Unless of course you mean the totally dynamic, totally unique footer which brings in all the content from across the network and allows you to explore the network?
Is that what you mean? Or the author bit on the side? Or the ease of subscribing to or sharing the site? Or the blogroll that only lists the sites in that channel?
Oh, you just mant having a white layout?! Sorry, didn’t realize you’d invented that too
Seriously though, there are very few differences between the two networks. Tone is one. How you brand is another. How you highlight your authors is another. How you pay… But for visitors, it’s increasingly difficult to tell networks apart. Instablogs has the social networking aspect, 9rules has the portal, Weblogs, Inc. has the large blogs…
More is needed. And if you’re able to bring more to the table, then that just rocks
By Jeremy Wright on April 24th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
We have dynamic footers too. And the author is highlighted in the footer. Some sites are written by a number of in-house people on an availability basis, so are not highlighted. But all non-staff authors are there.
As for design : footer, bar across the top, dynamic network elements (which you’ll find in our footers predating yours). Too, too close. In fact every time I visit your inventory I get an eerie feeling of deja vu … again.
I don’t mind you following us down the road so long as you carry your own baggage.
As for the future, we really have some humdinging ideas rapidly maturing. But I expect you’ll adapt them to b5 as well. Do I complain? It’s much easier to carry on rocking.
By John Evans on April 24th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
I’ll field part of this one. My partner, Andrea, and I have 13 Syntagma sites between us currently; some are written exclusively by Andrea, some just by me, and we both write for the rest. For those that we share, we used to sign our names at the end of the post but forgot to do it so often that it became pointless - now we let readers guess. It doesn’t really matter - it’s the quality of the blog/site/whatever that counts.
There is a short bio in the footer to each site but we’re not interested in boring the readers with long explanations of who we are. John had to nag to get even those brief statements out of us. The point remains: it’s the quality of the site that will make it stand or fall, not the name of the author.
Just for you, Jeremy, here’s the list:
Andrea’s - Beauty on a Budget, Fifty-Something Women (although I admit to doing one or two posts in the past), Money Finesse, Mind Matters, Global Warming (I can see myself getting involved in this one soon) and Parenting & Childcare
Mine - Formula 1 Latest, Auto-Exotica, Arts & Mind (soon to be canned - I just have too much to say on the subject)
Both - Rhythms & Riffs, Golden Agers, Great Romances, Starstruck
By Clive on April 24th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Umm…
1. Bar across the top: invented by Weblogs, Inc. Creative-Weblogging then went on to stuff more things into it.
2. Footer: You’re using a standard footer that was popularized by Dave Shea (if not created by him). The Blog Herald was one of the first blogs in our circle to use YOUR style of footer (which is nothing like ours).
3. What area of your footer is dynamic? I see nothing dynamic there.
If you compare your footer (click on links and go away) to ours it’s not really any comparison at all:
1. Click on a channel in ours and it loads up the channel pane.
2. The pane shows the channel title, feed and description (something users love)
3. It loads up an accurate list of blogs, as well as the most recent content
Not sure how that compares AT ALL to yours which is pretty damn static… Unless, of course, you mean that you randomize the blogs that show up in the “Syntagma Network List” portion. If you’re *REALLY* comparing that to what ours does, and saying that based on you having random blogs somehow inspired us or that we’re somehow following you…
Yeah, wow.
Again, you grabbed our subjects (office, microsoft), our bloggers, our CE’s, our blog names, our platform, our advertisers (BizRate? I mean, c’mon, we were the first network to sign a deal with them period), our size (you wanted small then went big), our focuses (feel free to highlight areas we aren’t covering that you are, and then highlight where you were covering those areas FIRST)…
Hell, what was the last channel we launched? Business. What’s the “Magazine” you’re about to do? Business & Finance.
Honestly, John, you don’t want to get into a tit for tat battle. Inspiration happens. We didn’t invent everything. Hell, we didn’t invent a lot of things. We learned a lot of lessons from others, which is the way it should be. But when you leave a company, and then start something that’s almost exactly the same in structure, focus, software, advertisers… You have a very real uphill battle to try and show that you’re doing something new.
Imagine if a senior guy at Adobe left and then went and launched a new company that had competitors to Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. Almost all the same features, etc. Even if he was doing lots of great new stuff, the comparisons and similarities will always be attributed to the company he left.
My point is that when you launched Syntagma you said you were going to do be totally different. And I don’t see that difference. And every difference I *do* see right now are things we talked about (me personally with you when pitching you on being the Tech Channel CE, in the forums and lists and in public). Portals. Footers. Dynamic elements. Even specific subject areas. Top bars.
And I find it amusing that us suggesting something to the industry, you going and using it, and then us doing what we first suggested… is somehow us following you.
It’s really, really quite amusing. If you can give me a list of the things you were the first network to propose and implement that we went and took, I’ll happily applaud you.
End of the day, similarities are fine. In the past I never complained about the things you did. The opposite wasn’t true, but whatever. You’ve railed at b5 since day 1. Pretty typical of folk who leave a company, after all.
But you’ll have a pretty uphill battle saying you left b5, took on 50% of what we did, tweaked another 30% and then did 20% of stuff that was truly new….
And then trying to say we somehow copied you? Riiight…
By Jeremy Wright on April 24th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Good networking, Clive.
By John Evans on April 24th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Clive, you had to sign the post yourself?!!
The software you’re using does that AUTOMATICALLY!
Saying it’s too much work would be like saying you wouldn’t want a byline on a magazine article or a bio in a book.
As an expert article, you deserve every bit of credit you can get. The link to you in the post is *critical* to long-term success online. Right now if you go to Google and search for “Clive”, you aren’t even on the first page. Hell, not even in the first 100 results.
If you were automatically linked to from the bottom of posts, you’d almost certainly be in the top 10 results. So when publishers searched for your name, readers searched for your name, etc.
As another example, Christina Jones, one of our team members / CE’s / bloggers, is in the top 40 results for “Christina” in Google.
It might seem silly, but increasingly, Google ranking = success.
By Jeremy Wright on April 24th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Er .. I brought my Microsoft blog (Vista) across to b5 and suggested an MS company blog plus Office 12 (as it then was). These were my ideas.
I see you’ve followed my Royal Anecdotes idea and our Starstruck site among others. I could go on, but it would get awfully tedious.
Syntagma is on the brink of a Summer of Innovation. You’ll need to get your skates on Jeremy, or you’ll be left gasping in our wake.
By John Evans on April 24th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Try “Clive Allen”, Jeremy. He’s near the top.
Anyway, he prefers a degree of anonymity.
By John Evans on April 24th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
I know it can sign for us, Jeremy - provided we have separate usernames and passwords. For ease of use and speed, we use one username for each site.
Google “Clive Allen” and you’ll find me on the first page (Gone Away is my personal blog). I’m not surprised that I’m hard to find if you google “Clive” - it seems to be a rare name in the States but in the UK it’s as common as muck. As for finding success through Google, how likely is that? When my personal blog was the only one I had, I was first on Google’s list for a while (slipped a bit since then - I don’t post there as often as I used to) and what good did it do me? With John I get paid and don’t have to worry about fame. That’ll come anyway as soon as I can persuade a publisher to accept one or more of my books (are you reading, Steve
).
But you’re right - it would be nice to head for the top of Google’s list again, if only for the ego boost. Let me see if I can get John to sort the credited posts for Andrea and myself…
By Clive on April 24th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
If that’s what you want, Clive, we’re onto it.
By John Evans on April 24th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
If you Google “John Evans” you get “John Evans posesses [sic] a unique talent. There is nobody else in the world quite like him. John can balance immensely heavy objects on his head, such as bricks …”
Now you know the awful truth.
By John Evans on April 24th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Clive: John could make the tagline one for both you and your wife, thus solving both issues
(also, on top I have the wikipedia entry for a footballer, is that you? if so, tres cool :-D)
John: Do you really want to do a blow-by-blow on when each blog was launched? Our astronomy one was launched 2 weeks after yours. Since it took us 3 months to launch a blog at the time, that would make it scientifically impossible for us to have been inspired by you.
And on the MS/Office ones, so you’re agreeing that Syntagma launched blogs b5 already had launched. Whether you were the writer or not doesn’t change that you are using the same subjects see the Adobe example above). We didn’t claim ownership over the idea (Weblogs, Inc., had the first network-run blog for both subjects), but of your first dozen blogs, roughly 80% were ideas that we’d already launched or had talked about internally.
The only one I can think of that wasn’t was the royalty one, which is a blog you’ve done very, very well with
Part of the difference between us and you, John, that you seem to forget… We don’t come up with the blog ideas generally. Authors do. And since it’s doubtful our new authors who’ve never blogged before read your blogs for inspiration on subjects, I can’t imagine very many scenarios in which we’d grab subjects from Syntagma.
The inverse isn’t true, though. You come up with the vast majority of ideas for your blogs, or your very small pool (of fantastic) writers do (I’m assuming). Either way, you watch us like a hawk, and write about us every couple of weeks. And since your authors read this blog it’d be hard for them no to be at least tangentially aware of what b5’s doing.
Transference requires awareness. Us getting ideas from you is hard to imagine. You getting ideas from us would be pretty easy (and totally fine).
Again, feel free to go tit for tat John. Just make sure you do your research first.
Do we make mistakes? Hell yeah. Maybe one of those was being so open with you on our plans.
Our 3 priorities are:
1. Treat our authors like stars and promote them every way we can.
2. Continue to contribute to the community and industry so everyone can thrive.
3. Create very real community both internally to the b5 team and externally.
4. Create unique content offerings that satisfy both the demand for deep niche content as well as mainstream drive-by readers.
5. Push the industry towards better blogger pay, better technology and better exposure for quality content.
We have a long way to go on each, but they are things we’ve invested heavily in (time, money and people). If it takes us a little while to get one thing done (portals), it’s probably because we’ve been concentrating on other things.
Can we please everyone? No. But the only folk who are vocally critical of us are (drum roll please)… our competitors. And if the worst feedback we ever receive is that a competitor who was vastly inspired by us thinks we’re copying them…
I can live with that.
By Jeremy Wright on April 24th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Top 3 = Top 5
By Jeremy Wright on April 24th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Well … I have b5media.com in my feed reader and I look at Ensight and Merry Monarchs regularly, but I “don’t watch you like hawks”. Believe me, I have far too much to do. I don’t read any other b5 sites, except Problogger and Technosailor, but note the new ones on the b5 blog.
You’re doing a great job, Jeremy, I’ve never denied that. But you excel on the technology side, we concentrate on the publishing angle.
We’re very different operations when it comes down to it.
By John Evans on April 24th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
John: Yeah, let’s do that for all of them - then, if I suddenly get inspired to write a post for the glamblog, it’s no hassle.
Jeremy: That footballer is the bane of my life. He was named after me (chronologically, at least) yet, thanks to his fame in the UK, pushed me off the top of Google’s list. But he’s retired now so he is doomed to fade whereas I shall return!
By Clive on April 24th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Clive: … Well, then you come up #7 for me (cliveallen.com)
Anyways, I’m just a huge believer in authors’ amazingness being shouted from the rooftops. Having dealt with too many publishers who felt their contribution was more important than mine (written 3 books, btw), I just got sick of it. b5 was founded on the principle of giving authors every bit of the spotlight we could
By Jeremy Wright on April 24th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Look at Marshall Sponder at ArtNewYorkCity.com. He gets top billing in the header and strides the mean streets of NYC for his site. He’s becoming a well-known name on the scene because of his site/blog.
We have a number of similar sites too : Guy Adams is promoted on his three, Steve Newman on his. It’s not so easy on some of the product sites, though.
Check out this promotion of two of our authors.
By John Evans on April 24th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Actually, I’m #6 - madtv.me.uk (Mad is my son and a web designer - the site is his creation). My middle name is a closely guarded secret but at least it’s not as bad as Darren!
John said this in his post: “it’s no good making wonderful products if you can’t sell them.” Only too true and that’s one of the two reasons I work for John (the other is that he’s been a friend since I started blogging and I trust him) - I’m no salesman. This way I can do what I do best and let him have the problem of getting people to read it.
Oh, hang on, there are three reasons. The third is the money, of course. He pays much better than he should (don’t tell him I said so).
By Clive on April 24th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Clive: Of course
One of the reasons b5 was founded was to take all the pain of blogging away so bloggers can *just write*. Take away all the tech issues, design issues, branding issues, SEO issues, etc. And let great writers just write.
I’d be curious what you make at Syntagma, since writing sites at b5 would net you between 2000-4000$/month. John never talks about what his writers make, he prefers to talk percentages of revenue. Personally I’ve always that (like in book publishing) writers deserve to make an up-front amount that’s guaranteed plus a performance bonus
By Jeremy Wright on April 24th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Your turn to trust me, John. I’ll answer that by email, Jeremy. Not just yet, however, as I have to rush off to an appointment.
By Clive on April 24th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Trying to poach my authors, are you, Jeremy? Go ahead. If people are not satisfied, I’m glad to help them on their way to the Elysian Fields.
They should note though, that lots of people have left b5 because it’s not all its cracked up to be.
By John Evans on April 24th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Never trying to poach. I’m a firm believer in authors finding the network that’s right for them. If Clive’s happy, then Syntagma is that network for him
Also, John, “lots”? Feel free to back-up both the number of people have left and why they’ve done so. Seriously. Back them up or retract the statement. That kind of thing is considered libelous in most countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel).
Sure people leave, but at any company with 150 employees a turnover rate of 3-5% would be completely normal. Ours is well below that (in the 1-2% rate). What does that say about us? Dunno, but our last satisfaction survey (anonymous) had overall blogger satisfaction at 77% (unnormalized) and 87% (normalized).
We aren’t perfect, we have a LOT of work to do. But we don’t have “lots” of people leaving becuase it’s “not all its cracked up to be”.
By Jeremy Wright on April 24th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
I get a lot of emails from people over time who tell me things in confidence. That’s not a getout, just true.
By John Evans on April 24th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
John, I’m quite serious. Saying “lots” of people leave because “it’s not all it’s cracked up to be” is a very, very serious charge. One that you’re either going to need to back up, or retract.
And, no, “lots of emails over time” doesn’t count. “Lots” would be at least half, and they’d all need to singularly agree on the reason they left. So unless you have emails from 50 folk all saying “I left b5 because it isn’t all it’s cracked up to be”, your comments fall firmly under the purview of libel and defamation.
I’ll take almost any criticism on the chin, but saying we have tonnes of bloggers leaving because we don’t treat them right goes over the line.
I repeat, either retract it or provide proof of both “lots” and of a singular reason behind these “lots” leaving.
If you said “hey, I’ve talked to a half dozen folk who had bad experiences at b5″ I’d buy that. But “lots” means a big number.
By Jeremy Wright on April 24th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
I don’t remember saying I didn’t want fame, fortune, my name up in lights… of course I am just perverse enough to want my name in tacky, flashing neon, but no matter.
Google Andrea Paulsen and I come up first on the first page, in fact I take up most of the first three pages - mainly because there aren’t a lot of people named Andrea Paulsen (if I added my middle name, there’d be no competition whatsoever). There’s one woman who is a college professor (feel free to believe that’s me) and some unfortunate woman who was tortured by Pinochet but after that you mostly get stories about the Andrea Doria.
I have nothing to add to the conversation, but I saw my name and was drawn to it.
By Andrea on April 24th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Flashing neon isn’t tacky, Andrea…it’s retro! Therefore it’s very chic. I happen to want neon lights too. But dangit! Cyndi Lauper comes up before me, both alphabetically and in popularity {pout}
By Cyndi L on April 25th, 2007 at 12:26 am
I also have nothing to add to the main conversation, but I wanted to stand up for John by saying that he does promote the writers who blog for him. When I first started writing for him, he posted an announcement on this blog. BlogTalk (?) picked up on the story and posted a blurb.
My author information in the footer shows up in Google quite frequently. The latest reference shows up on Page 3 of my name search, headed by my own efforts to build my online presence.
By Deborah on April 25th, 2007 at 3:21 am
There are many ways of promoting an online presence. Generally, it’s up to authors to do that in their posts. The current configuration was set by Thord when he did the design, but any changes to promote authors more will be acted on. In fact, it’s a good time now, since Thord will be working with us again on Moneyizor as soon as he’s got over his house move.
So speak now, or forever hold thy peace (or should that be “piece”?).
By John Evans on April 25th, 2007 at 9:16 am