One reader, Carson Brackney, asked a question in the comments here this morning, that I decided to respond to in a post to answer it more completely. According to Carson’s website, he is a, “Consultant, Copywriter,
Content Provider, Factotum,” who has not written for eHow, but who seems to understand how the game is played.
Carson’s comment:
Hi. I’ve noticed your coverage of this whole eHow mess and I personally noted some of my reactions to it today at my blog.
I’m curious. What’s your end game here? I mean, what do you want to happen at this point? Do you want eHow to pony up some cash because of their horribly-managed UK foray? Or is this more of a “name and shame” exercise?
And my response:
Ah, The Question, Carson.
This eHow fiasco is a fight that I don’t have the time or energy for.
But there is the big picture, greater good, and all that stuff.
That eHow owes its writers money, there is no doubt. But there is more at play here on several fronts:
1. The future of the Internet as our primary source of published information. We all see that one coming. And if content mills continue to drop the compensation bar, the quality bar goes with it. Discussing the implications of that could fill another blog post or 50. But bottom line, we could end up with an Internet where everyone has to pay for quality content. So that children whose families cannot afford that content end up even further behind. With libraries and bookstores now closing their doors at an alarming rate, that scenario does not bode well for anyone’s future.
2. The future of the Internet as a source of residual income. Internet advertising earns residual income. You place an ad widget on your blog or web page, and as long as the content on that page is worth reading or viewing, the ads will continue to draw a profit. So in theory, the person who owns that content can, and should, continue to reap the benefits of those profits.
Content aggregator sites that share residual income with writers, rather than paying one lump sum for each article, offer an ideal income model for many. Writers can invest and then continue to earn on their investments, like putting money in the bank for a rainy day. It’s a great model in principle, and for it to remain a viable option, we have to be able to trust the banker.
3. The future of the Internet as a civilized venue. We are still settling this global frontier, so we may as well do it right. Because as goes the Internet today, so goes our world tomorrow.
Now is the time to set positive precedents and prevent greedy opportunists from establishing harmful precedents. If user-generated content sites are allowed to exploit, mislead, and betray their contributors today, the future of earning a living by writing online for the average Joe is grim. And Joe Writer is to the Information Age as Joe Assembly Worker was to the dawn of the Industrial Age. We can either learn from history or be doomed to repeat it, to paraphrase George Santayana.
So there you have it, Carson. I suppose the short answer is that I’m pragmatically idealistic. I know I can’t change the world, but I’m sure as hell going to try to change my corner of it for the better when I can.
And thanks for asking.
I do appreciate your attitude and it’s wonderful to make a stand when you feel something is important.
I don’t necessarily agree with the the underpinnings of your three rationales, but I think we do both agree the eHow acted inappropriately, even if they didn’t act illegally.
Thanks for the reply.
Carson
Very selfless post, Kim….and, very well-thought out and educated response. To allow this to occur could simply tarnish the landscape of article submission websites as we know it. I’m glad you are able to see the BIG picture.
If it’s not about the big picture, then it’s all for nothing. We’ve all got better things to do than to be petty and vindictive. Sometimes it’s just our turn to stay and fight, rather than to turn and walk away from a serious issue with real victims. And you’ve definitely helped shed light on this issue, so thank you, Howie.
Very good, Kim, and I agree it is important to stand up for what is right, even if walking away is much easier.
Carson, I appreciate your comments, but I do believe you are missing a few important bits of information about what happened and everything that eHow did. Let’s just say the jury is still out on whether they were acting inappropriately, illegally, or both. Absolutely underhanded and inappropriate is a good starting point, and we all seem to agree on that.
Thanks, AJ. I’m with you–I don’t understand how people can think eHow did not orchestrate this entire situation well in advance. All it takes is a few searches online to see how prolifically Demand Media’s CEO has boasted about knowing everything there is to know about profiting from well-optimized content. Demand Media is a top content provider for a reason, and a top domain registrar, too, for anyone who wasn’t aware of that.
eHow thought their writers were too stupid to notice and hold them accountable. Now they seem to think they can shut them up by banning them from their forums–even their top members who have contributed so much–which only drives those people to post their complaints more publicly. And that is the only part of this mess they failed to account for in advance.
As for the jury being out on legalities, you are correct there, too. Legal investigations by qualified experts take time and are not generally publicized while in process.