Saturday, February 7, 2004

previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (3)

Blogging for dollars

John Hawkins provides a run-down on possible ways that bloggers can make a buck off their blogs. There's an excellent discussion of all the possible revenue streams, but his first point is the most salient: "if your primary motivation is to make money, don't bother with blogging."

James Joyner adds: "The short answer is to either 1) become Andrew Sullivan or 2) forget about it."

[Hey, you became Andrew Sullivan for a spell. You should be set!--ed. I've been less aggressive on this front than I could be -- mostly because the opportunity costs of caring outweigh the paltry amounts I suspect such efforts would generate. The Amazon click-throughs do generate enough money to pay for the site, however.]

posted by Dan on 02.07.04 at 10:55 AM


The marketplace of ideas has a life of its own...It's mainly about managing one's online reputation, I think...

posted by: Sissy Willis on 02.07.04 at 10:55 AM [permalink]

On Chris Lydon's show, between a stupid unfounded smear of Atrios, Sully claimed a) he does his site entirely alone, b) three people do his site -- sully, someone to answer all the letters, and someone to work out the financials, and c) his site pulls in $50,000 a year.

And you, Daniel Drezner, Ph.D., consider Sully a reliable source and pundit?

I don't know who's the bigger fool. What's your take?

posted by: sully lies on 02.07.04 at 10:55 AM [permalink]

FYI, Matt Haughey (one of the original old school bloggers) has written what most in the professional blog world consider the definitive word on how to make (or not make) money from their blogs.

posted by: Scott on 02.07.04 at 10:55 AM [permalink]

We know Sullivan's usual tilts, and we also know he's been doing his PBS style 'begging for bloggers' routine on and off for quite a while.It's one of the things that's been turning me of on him of late.

I wonder, though what kind of lines can be drawn, here, as regards the quality of a given blog vs the ads run. Bloggers, after all can seldom be considered as objective... particualrly those who claim, ironiclly, the title 'objectivist'... But does blogging for ad dollars alter the editorial content of the blog?

Consider POLITICAL WIRE, who clearly is running political ads for hire, as an example.

[repeat: as an example]

It's hard to tell sometimes if the ads are altering his percepion, or if he really sees things that way, and the ads he's runnning are merely a happy (for him) reflection of his editorial policy.

[Fairness statement: Yes, I have some graphics and links on my own pages, supporting President Bush... but am not taking money for them.... I've never laid claim to political objectivity as some do.

And yes, my Blog's been vitim to google's rotating ads which promote Dean and Kerry relentlessly... apparently their ad system is picking up on the idea that I've been writing quite a bit about the two of them of late. It's apparently not smart enough that I don't think either of them qualified or trustworthy enough to clean my toilet...]

posted by: Bithead on 02.07.04 at 10:55 AM [permalink]

It's apparently not smart enough that I don't think either of them qualified or trustworthy enough to clean my toilet...]

Arrgh. damned editor.

"It's apparently not smart enough to understand from my writing that I don't think either of them qualified or trustworthy enough to clean my toilet..."

posted by: Bithead on 02.07.04 at 10:55 AM [permalink]

Post a Comment:


Email Address:



Remember your info?