Digga, Please!
July 26, 2006
Some tenets:
- Contributing to a community, online or offline has value.
- As long as that value is recognized and rewarded, a community will thrive.
- Rewards can take the form of money, recognition, or just personal satisfaction.
The premises having been stated, let's review some of the latest blogosphere fuss. The current wave of conversation around recognizing the value of community contributions began with Jason Calacanis offering to pay the top contributors of link aggregation sites to migrate to the new Netscape site he's managing. Like many things Jason does, it's clever, a smart recognition of a new market and opportunity, and not particularly elegant.
To me, it was initially most notable because of the reuse of the phrase "Netscape Navigator" to describe the users who make the most contributions to the site. A friend referred to it as "brand necrophilia" on a private blog, and I find that a particularly apt description. But of course, the post got a lot of attention for being a fairly brash attempt to grab both users and attention.
Jason also offered the following false assertion, I suspect not because he believed it, but because it's effective propaganda:
The concept of "free" content producers, which I think WIRED called crowdsourcing, is going to be a short-lived joke. A loophole in the content business that will be closed by savvy startups which identify the top 5% of the audience and buy their time.
There were some immediate responses, such as Thomas Hawk's overwrought contribution, titled "Did Jason Calacanis Just Offer to Hire me for $12,000 a Year?" I mention Thomas' post because it references my post from last year, The Interesting Economy, along with the response it inspired from Caterina Fake, Economies of Interest. I wanted to revisit those posts because it gives me a chance to clarify something.
I wrote the "Interesting Economy" post as a half-formed thought, literally thinking out loud, right before I jumped on a plane. Foolishly, I had asked the (honest) question "So does that mean the right answer for cashing in on my interesting work is to ask for a penny from Yahoo?" Naturally, by the time my flight landed, people seized on this as if I had said "OMG FLICKR OWES ME MONEY".
Which, um, is incorrect. My goal was to have a conversation that I would have easily had over dinner with Caterina and Stewart, not recognizing how that could be colored by the hysterical contributions of the blogosphere peanut gallery. A conversation about how most great web efforts will have to appeal to both people's emotional motivations as well as their financial motivations
The good news is, some great conclusions came out of it. Simply, money is a useful way to reward people, but some things are rewarded by things far more meaningful than mere money. Caterina explained this rather eloquently:
Giving and caring include even the simple acts of putting pieces of yourself on the internet -- your photos, your poems, your words -- and these too are fraught with difficulty when it comes to money.
People will contribute to a community if they feel it's worth their time. Now here's where things get tricky. Some people get mad or defensive when you point out that pontification, punditry, and politics are only a tiny part of the reason people communicate through blogs. Similarly, a lot of people have emotional reactions to the fact that contributions are made to online communities like Wikipedia, Craigslist, Flickr, or yes, Digg, for reasons other than pure monetary value.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to make money; That's just not why most people use communication tools.
But there's more than one reason to make a brash offer on the web. Business 2.0 points out, "If nothing else, it's a good PR move to raise the awareness among the Digg-erati that Netscape wants their attention." Even the usually mild-mannered Leo Laporte weighs in, stating a truism that should be obvious: "Digg is what it is because of the entire community that participates there. Ditto del.icio.us, and Flicker, and Newsvine."
And that's the most reassuring part for me about Kevin Rose's response to the latest kerfuffle. He addresses the most critical point in making a successful effort on the web.
Listen to your existing community. Think of what your loyal Netscape users must think - you're essentially telling them that they aren't good enough and that you have to buy better users. You can have the best submitters in the world, but if your community doesn't support you it will never work.
I have met both Jason Calacanis and Kevin Rose a number of times, and I genuinely wish them both well with their efforts. They've both built good sites. If either one's a successful, scalable business, then both sites likely are. But you get what you design for.
Netscape will end up with users who value getting paid for their work. Digg will end up with users who are motivated by the desire to contribute to the community. The question is which kind of site you want to participate in, which one makes the web better, which one makes people happier.
Three weeks ago I said I feel strongly we all need to make something meaningful. I think that we're seeing a clear example of how there's going to be a reckoning between the two types of motivations. I'm pretty comfortable with the side I'm on.
3:40 PM
|
22 Comments
Leave a comment
- Earlier: I Put Links In The Blog...
- Next: Antipedia
A friend referred to it as "brand necrophilia" on a private blog, and I find that a particularly apt description.
Blogga, please. That's a JWZism.
Of all the commentary bouncing around on this, you've at least got the best post title.
;)
D'oh! I didn't realize it was a reference, though I'm sure the person I quoted it from did. Points deducted for me not knowing the source. :)
This whole flap has been very interesting to observe from the front of the school bus. By which I mean: I don't personally know Jason (Calcanis or Kottke), Caterina, Kevin or you, Anil, but I'm embedded enough to immediately know those first names and see various dynamics unfold.
I'm also in business and can completely appreciate Jason's proposition. It's interesting and it's obviously disruptive. I think your description: "Like many things Jason does, it's clever, a smart recognition of a new market and opportunity, and not particularly elegant." is incredibly on point.
Barons--and this is clearly the clan Jason is part of/aspires to--are seldom elegant. They're bold and I tip my hat to him on that front. It's Brooklyn wheeling and dealing.
An observation from a distance based on incomplete and totally inferred information, an observation which may instantly marginalize my position in some people's eyes and in others will seem completely off topic, is the following: When I first started reading Jason's blog a couple of years ago his schedule page included "Burning Man?" and then as the year unfolded this event was crossed off. In parallel I noticed photos of Stewart and Caterina dusty as hell, hanging out at Black Rock City.
As someone at the front of the bus, my synapses have conspired to conclude that Jason is smart as hell within a particular and popular/dominant paradigm (crap, I just used *that* word), while the Flickr folks are smart (cashed out with Yahoo! and didn't get greedy) *and* "get it" where "it" is a felt understanding of the fact that humans have needs that are non-monetary and are about feeling creative and connective.
How do you monetize this? Work in progress. (But a great work in progress.)
It's easy and obvious to assume that money changes everything. And I'll admit that it might.
But by approaching this puzzle from a fundamentally different standpoint--that humans (when not starved or being bombed) naturally aspire to create and connect--seems to change completely the way that we consider their motivations, can amplify their creativity, and can (shouldn't this be the #1 stacked ranked goal in every business plan?) make people feel happier.
Blogging/Web Contribution has never been about money for me. I think Blogging and contributing/participating in communities like Digg are two totally different things. It seems to me that when you throw some sort of monetary reward at such a community the content may be compromised. Participation will shift from genuine to contrived.
Hi there,
I saw your presentation at OSCON -on "sucking less". You did a great job.
Cheers.
Thanks for taking the time to express your views on this topic. I think that if more people would actually think about this issue, they would realize that it is a good thing.
Thanks for taking the time to express your views on this topic. I think that if more people would actually think about this issue, they would realize that it is a good thing.
I think it's great that sites (DIG for example) are spending more time looking past the typical success metrics, numbers of unique users for example, and more at the participation metrics - call them community metrics. It forces the sites to really listen to and support the needs of their users - it isn't just a numbers game anymore. I think DIG management is doing a great job listening - I doubt Jason's "old school" tricks will do much for the long-term success of his Netscape project.
Great post! You did a great job of referring to other informed posts on the subject, providing great background and alternative views.
- Cale Bruckner http://www.palmit.com
P.S. - I'm using cocomment to track my comments in the blogosphere and it's changing the way I blog. Conversations are an important part of what makes blogging, blogging - give it a try, it will make you a better blogger.
"Netscape will end up with users who value getting paid for their work. Digg will end up with users who are motivated by the desire to contribute to the community. The question is which kind of site you want to participate in, which one makes the web better, which one makes people happier."
This was an interesting take on the situation, but why are these two things mutually exclusive in your conclusion? Why can't Netscape end up with members who are motivated by the desire to contribute to the community while hiring a small handful of leaders in the space who value getting paid for their work? We already have a lot of members who are in it for the community and we're not hiring everyone.
The offer, as Jason has stated it, is for about 12 people who we want to hire for their skills in picking good stories, and we're looking in more places than just Digg.
Kevin Rose decided to begin mudslinging on Diggnation and end the show shouting "Netscape sucks!" I've never said a negative word about Digg. I like Digg and I use Digg. I also like and use (and work for) Netscape.
The Internet is big enough for both sites, just as it has been big enough for Slashdot, Del.icio.us, Digg, Newsvine, Reddit, Flickr, and countless other social sites, and no one is asking the entire web to abandon one for the other.
So why all the hub-bub?
Why do people want to belong to communities in the first place?
Something I picked off a random website:
http://www.threeleggeddragon.com/writings/simply/simple.social.html
"But what we think of ourselves--our self-esteem--is fashioned in large part by what we think other people think of us. Our self worth depends on our notion of how worthy we are to others, and on how we were taught by others to view ourselves.
From nowhere but the relationships we have with others can come pride, love, honor, shame, trust, envy, or hate."
So, belonging to a community is a really basic need. Now this is where it gets really interesting.
Question 2: What makes one community different from another? The members who come together are motivated by the same darned thing.
And that's where Anil's post comes in really handy to continue this one.
"Netscape will end up with users who value getting paid for their work. Digg will end up with users who are motivated by the desire to contribute to the community. The question is which kind of site you want to participate in, which one makes the web better, which one makes people happier.
Three weeks ago I said I feel strongly we all need to make something meaningful. I think that we're seeing a clear example of how there's going to be a reckoning between the two types of motivations. I'm pretty comfortable with the side I'm on."
Cliche: Money does not make everyone's world go around. Some folks are plain nutty. And you gotta love them for it. If this weren't the case people wouldn't be making video games call "Pie Bill".
Headhunting for content submitters? So simple and obvious, I don't know why anyone didn't think of it before. Maybe it has to do with not violating that sense of community Anil writes about.
Still, I doubt that we are going to see a watershed moment in the evolution of user-managed content websites just because Netscape is professionalizing some of its submitters. It doesn't sound like they're going to be paid oodles and oodles of money, and it doesn't sound like they're going to be reduced to peddling Microsoft-brand press releases and faux news.
So everybody can relax, and we don't have to have this pointless discussion over whether or not it's "better" to do something without being paid for it. What Calacanis has done is not "better" or "worse" than anything or anyone else; it just pays more. Whether it will be successful will depend, as Rose said, on the strength of Netscape's community.
I didn't read this post since I don't really care what these two overrated tech babies are whining about, but I have to say... the title of this post is pretty damn funny.
If I just wanted what the top users of Digg reel in, I'd read two or three blogs: One about Tech, one about Gadgets, and one about Nerd Entertainment.
I like Digg because there's a whooole lot more than that, stuff submitted by people well outside of the top 100.
The Long tail is why the whole Crowdsourcing thing works, any schmo could get the big stuff, but it takes the mass to catch the diverse bits at the end that bring your divergent users together.
It's a valid discussion to have. From someone who does this (Internet work) for a living, I know the probono aspect can get tiring, especially when--what is it?--10% of the Internet community creates content and the other 90% enjoy that content.
On the other side of the same coin, I very much enjoy this network of friends. I enjoy the comments. I enjoy the relationships. I enjoy the shared lives. But like any other relationship, it takes work and can get tiring/frustrating.
So should we get paid for it? I guess that's like asking whether or not you should get paid to help people. Everyone should help people; but the people who make that their sole mission in life (nurses, teachers, etc.) often get paid for the work they do.
You make some good points. I am one of the top submitters of content to Digg.com and I enjoy what I do. I didn't start submitting content to Digg because I wanted something out of it, I was just having fun seeing the sucess of my stories and having community feedback on topics I found interesting. Although, your statement that Netscape will become a site with members valuing payment for their work, may not be so. I think Calacanis is trying to get some hype up around Netscape, but in turn, I do believe he wants quality content submitted to his site. Therefore, hiring on some of the best content providers to sites like Digg, Newsvine, and such. . . Seems the best way to get that done.
That is a strange debate actually.
The only aim for this was to have the whole community speak about the "new Netscape.com", and it is a great success!! So much free advertising (Sorry Google AdWords. ;) )
At the end, the only think which is important is the quality offered by the site... not the motivation of the uploader (1/20th of the community?!)
Honestly... would you stop reading wired.com, wsj.com, ... articles because some journalists are only doing their job to get money to offer a nice car to their wife?!
How cares....
"Netscape will end up with users who value getting paid for their work. Digg will end up with users who are motivated by the desire to contribute to the community. The question is which kind of site you want to participate in, which one makes the web better, which one makes people happier."
It would be interesting to see how this particular view of the web community phenomenon intersects with the recently suggested breakdown of community members into a very small fraction that are highly-active participants, the somewhat larger group that are occasional participants and the vast majority that are simply passive consumers of the available information.
The latter group could probably care less if the "committed" members are driven by love or money as long as the info and conversations are worthwhile. It is that small group of minor participants who will be interesting to watch. They might decline to show up if they think they are not going to ever break into the category of "paid pathfinders" but if that particular carrot were to be dangled before them it might be suffcient motivation for them to show up.
As to whether or not either model "makes the web better [or] which one makes the people happier" I have a feeling that Mr. Dash and the rest of the digital "salon society" will be quite surprised to learn that most people do not visit information community sites for self-validation or to make themselves feel happy but instead to become better informed and maybe participate in a conversation or two.
C.K. SAMPLE III's comment above wondering why the two communities (free posters, paid posters) can't co-exist on the same site, gets me all flustered.
Sorry, I am miffed. And I am going to be closed to reason and downright passionate from here on.
No! The two communities cannot co-exist on the same site. Because their IDEALS are different. I want to, I like to, I will continue to believe this till I am shut up by a thriving Netscape (if that happens) after it's managed to rope in the free-spirited.
When did we forget about things like ideals, passion, free speech and graffiti?
What's this deal with Jason trying to do a sort of "Paid Free Speech"?
Isn't free speech supposed to be free?
Next you'll tell me you're hiring Graffiti artists to make wallpapers for you. I think the largest reason why they put their art on public canvases is because they revel in the mystique associated with being too hip and cool to worry about things like money, jobs and Corporate America.
LAND OF THE FREE, HOME OF THE BRAVE. Woot woot.
Long live the Pirate Bays and the Linuxes of the world!
Netscape rocks!
please send me the telephone # of netscape communications, I have a problem nobody seems to be able to solve.I have been told to call netscape, they are the only ones who can solve my problem.