Lewis, I think we each blog for our own reasons, which you've outlined pretty well here. I don't have a problem with a blogger making money from his blog by advertising, as long as that arrangement dosn't taint the content of the blog itself. If I see a blogger letting sponsorship or freebies from p.r. campaigns seriously color what he writes and how he says it, then I'm off to the next blog and that one drops down on my must-read list.

My feeling on this subject: make money from blogging, if you like, but maintain the integrity of your content.

I'm not quite sure how a blogger who takes ads would be able to share revenues with others. How would that work? And why should he?

I wrote about this at my 2 cents ( http://reichcomm.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/07/i-noted-some-li.html ) also, after seeing Mack's post the other day.

By the way, for some this is a subject that presses buttons. Let's discuss as much as feel we need to, but let's not let differing feelings split us apart.

David,

I agree: the bottom line is that this is individual choice that comes out of each person's conscience and/or goals.

Issues should never split us apart; they should instead bring us closer together. And that is why I believe we should discuss issues, especially emotional ones. Blogging probably isn't for the thin of skin or for those who see only black and white. It is for those who wish to converse and to share and to enlighten and to learn.

"In conclusion, if we monetize our blogs, I believe we insult our readers by sharing that revenue with them and cause harm to the basic business principal of fair exchange. If we share our revenue, it is bad business and doing so implies that our posts are crap and offer no value in and of themselves."

I disagree Lewis. I see it as an admission that my readers are ALSO creating value with their comments. Take my latest post about Jaffe's iPhone experiment. It's now up to 26 comments and 11 links. The comments are value that YOU and other readers have created. What if I had taken Seth's stance and turned off comments to that post? Think the post would have been as interesting or valuable without comments from readers? Of course not.

I guess it's a personal choice, but I'm just so thankful to my readers that I wouldn't feel right in getting compensation from my blog, and not sharing that with them, if I could. I don't see it as 'cheapening' my content, but instead saying 'Thank You'.

Maybe it's a completely unfeasible idea that would never fly. But you know what, when we discuss these crazy ideas, more often than not, we come up with some pretty interesting points that better everyone.

David -- Great post on your blog, and interesting discussion as well. As I said over there, I take a journalist's approach to blogging, which maybe is applying old school rules to a new medium. But I don't think so -- to me, it's a question of ethics. Advertising is fine -- but freebies and other similar "sponsorships" the influence or muddy the content are not.

I see advertising as benefitting readers, too, in that it supports an entity/operation that they then enjoy and value. So maybe it doesn't put cash (or an iPhone) in their pockets, but it does benefit them in other ways.

Mack and Ann,

I agree with Ann and Mack I just think you are wrong here,and, furthermore, I think you would devalue your blog. If you paid commenters, I would stop trusting your posts and especially the comments. Here's why:

First, I question your motivation, no matter how you parsed it; second, I would be insulted that you think you have to pay me to participate in a conversation that you started; and third, I would believe people were commenting to get paid, compromising the value of their comments.

Commenting is how we take part in a conversation freely that allows us to speak our minds. Paying commenters is no different from payola, where bands pay disc jockeys to spin their records.

Mack, I love and respect you but this is a very bad idea. I think paying commenters is no different than we bloggers taking money and then writing positive things about the person who gave us the money. In this case, how could we ever know that the commenter was truly and honestly agreeing with the blogger's post when they did so? How would we know that the fix wasn't in?

Lewis,
I understand what Mack is saying and he has a point about reader contribution, but I don't think it's a realistic approach. People come to the site to take value from what the blogger has written and what the community has to say. At the end of the day, the blogger has organized and driven that interaction with valuable content. A blog is about 'environment' and if the advertising can fit into that environment without upsetting the balance, I'm all for it!

I think Ann stated it best when she said that advertising is fine as long as it does not drive content. There is a place for content being driven by advertising, but not on a blog where community and interactions are important.

Thanks,
Pat

One more thought on "paying" commenters: The Huffington Post recently added a feature to encourage interaction where it's "awarding" a guest blogger post to the most articulate commenter in any given month. Granted, it's a little off topic here, but it reminds me of the spirit of what Mack is talking about: rewarding commenters who add value to a community.

"If you paid commenters, I would stop trusting your posts and especially the comments."

That's not really what I am talking about. I'm not thinking along the lines of 'Hey if Lewis leaves a good comment, I'll give him $5. A GREAT one gets him $10.' Actually I'm not sure how it could work out, but my thinking was that I wanted to 'give back' something to the readers. But if it gets to the point where some are wondering if readers are trying to contribute 'just to get the reward', then obviously that's a bad idea that needs to be scrapped.

I saw it more as a way to reward readers for past behavior, moreso than giving them an incentive to have a type of future behavior.

Then Ann adds: "The Huffington Post recently added a feature to encourage interaction where it's "awarding" a guest blogger post to the most articulate commenter in any given month. Granted, it's a little off topic here, but it reminds me of the spirit of what Mack is talking about: rewarding commenters who add value to a community."

Exactly Ann, this is more in line with what I am talking about. Again, not sure how this would work, or IF it could work, but I'd just like to have some sort of system in place where if I get 'compensation' for my blogging, that my readers share in that, because they are helping to create the content that I will have gotten compensated for. Maybe that's totally unfeasible and makes me look like an idiot, I dunno. But either way I think it's great that we can discuss it.

Okay. Now Ann may have something. How about if every month, Mack, you chose the top three contributors and offered them each an award. And if you wanted it to have monetary value, how about a gift certificate to Amazon.com books at various levels, say $15, $10, and $5? That, assumes, blog monetization, of course, with or without advertising from Amazon.com

I'm not opposed to blog monetization at all, as long as it's done the right way. No pop ups, pop unders, overlays that scream "NOTICE ME OR ELSE I WON'T ALLOW YOU TO READ THIS PAGE."

In other words, the same rules that apply to other companies doing advertising should apply to bloggers - particularly so to us, since we are the ones clamoring for a dialog.

What the bloggers who successfully monetize their blogs do with that money is their business, but it should no way be done in a way that could be construed by a reasonable person as a bribe.

I guess I wouldn't even object, however, if the blogger used the money to run promotions and sweepstakes designed to increase readership (which extends the reach and increases potential revenue), but there comes a point when doing so much of that transforms the nature of the site, and it becomes something other than a blog.

I'll state once again that advertising on or sponsorships of a site can be of value to the readers, providing the ad is sufficiently non-intrusive, plainly identified, and clearly relevant to the topic at hand, and therefore the readers.

Cam,

"I'll state once again that advertising on or sponsorships of a site can be of value to the readers, providing the ad is sufficiently non-intrusive, plainly identified, and clearly relevant to the topic at hand, and therefore the readers."

I couldn't agree more! Thanks!

Lewis - The "open only to docs", who have been confirmed against a data base, community Sermo.com has an interesting model. All of its content initially begins with a question from a member of the community. A survey is included with the post pertaining to the topic.

Members are paid by Sermo based on the value to the community. But not all members receive payment. It's a random system as determined by the "sermo gods." I'm interviewing Dr. Daniel Palestrant, Founder & Chief Executive Officer, and if Ann agrees, will be happy to post on DF.

Who would have imagined that 3 years or even 1 year ago we would be having type of conversation regarding paid comments?

To clarify, since I had a few inquiries, here's what HuffPo is doing:

"... we will choose one commenter a month to become a featured blogger at HuffPost. Yes, a blogger! Reading through the comments on our site, we realized that our readers are an underutilized resource – smart and opinionated. Our decisions will be based on how many fans a commenter has, how often their comment is selected as a favorite and our moderators' favorites. Every comment has an I'm A Fan Of and a Favorite link so start voting for the comments and commenters you like best. We will announce the first one at the end of this month!"

Apologies if the use of the word "articulate" was misleading -- that's not quite accurate.

Ann and Toby:

Good stuff! Thank you.

I know a thing or two about blog monetization. It basically comes down to one major factor, and that is...

Does your advertising attempt to deceive your reader, or not.

If it doesn't, then no problem. If it does, then you run the huge risk of trying to fool your friends.

Personally, I think it's a decision each blog owner needs to make on their own.

I've been working for years to help blog owners find new ways to do this, and lately, specifically, to have fun doing it.

Maybe it isn't so much about compensating people that leave comments, but providing a value in return for their time and participation.

For instance, providing special perks to individuals that actively participate in the community. This could include things like free content that would otherwise require payment. This could be achieved with some type of point system that rewards with access to special articles, ebook, etc.

Lewis,

I really appreciate the fact that Mack recognizes the value of reader contributions to the overall value of a blog. [DISCLOSURE: I am a reader making a contribution that is hopefully increasing the value of this blog.] I think you should cut him a little slack on this.

You say he is just plain "wrong" on this...I would say that you are both wrong, or right.

Look, it is an interesting intellectual exercise to debate the value of the reader's contribution to the overall value of the blog. Your position suggests that we come here for your genius and your genius only. Not true...you have some very smart commentators, including other bloggers...making very smart contributions to your topics. This does have value to me and is part of why I read your blog.

On the other hand, as one of your contributors, I admit, I am not looking for compensation. Your compensation to me is to keep publishing a blog of interesting topics and information for my personal development.

So Mack is right...my (and others) comments add value to your blog. But you're right, the real currency I'm paid with is my increased skills and knowledge gleaned from your blog.

I think we need to look at blogs for what they are: online evolutions of newspapers and magazines.
Much as we'd like to think that they're some revolutionary new thing, they're basically not that different than what newspapers were about a few hundred years ago: one persons opinion.
Now our blogs may be more similar to magazines in that they focus on an esoteric subject like marketing, but they're still in the same ballpark.

And readers of newspapers and magazines have come to accept that a certain amount of advertising is necessary to get the content they want. Provided, as many have mentioned, it's clear that the advertising doesn't impact the editorial.

Now what gets dodgy and what's causing you and Mack and Jaffe such tsouris, is the fact that the money marketing bloggers-- especially opinion bloggers (as opposed to aggregators) can make from advertising is pretty minimal. Certainly not enough to support themselves or to enable them to provide better or different content.

So then it starts to seem like a vanity project. Jaffe asking for an iPhone becomes "Is my blog that cool that you'd give up an iPhone to be associated with it?"

And that's a whole different question than "Are the readers of your blog valuable enough as potential consumers for me to pay money to advertise my iPhone to them?"

Seeing ads on blogs I read doesn't bother me. I mean more power to you if you can get someone to pay you. But when you start letting the advertising creep into the editorial (e.g. Jaffe's Nikon camera) then you've pissed me off and likely lost me as a reader.