Awhile ago, Mark Morgan and I had a friendly give and take about the commercialization of web logs and of what I call “hobby” sites — web sites that are maintained not for any dreams of dot.com millions, but rather because of the interests and dedication of the people maintaining the site. Mark’s site, as well as mine, fall into the latter category. I would love to get rich off my sites, but I’ll keep updating them and matinaing them regardless simply because I enjoy doing so.
But the bottom line is that not everybody is this motivated which is why I hope that small web logs and niche specialty sites find ways to be commercially profitable. Why?
Today I received a pleasant e-mail from a woman who works at one of the largest publishers in the world. The publisher is putting together a text book and wanted to include a URL in the book to a page on one of my sites. But since the book will likely be in print for several years (and then in libraries, private residences, etc., much longer) she wanted to know: is this site still going to be maintained and updated two years from now? Is your site likely to be stable and avaiable for students read our book for the next few years?
As I wrote in my reply, I know where she’s coming from — the disappering site act is an increasingly common one. Typically, I see people create sites and initially there is this enormous level of enthusiasm. They’re updating the site everyday, they’re starting to get visitors, they develop all these huge plans for the future; and then everything falls apart. They wake up 12 to 18 months later realizing that they are devoting a large chunk of their time to something that is making them little if any money (in fact they’re almost certainly paying all their expenses out of their own pockets), and more importantly they it begins to dawn on them that its questionable whether their site will ever be anything but a time and money drain.
The weird thing is that a lot of these folks not only stop updating their site but they then take it down completely even when the site is hosted free on a Geocities-like service or where they’re still maintaing other sites on their web server.
Within the space of one week in October, two sites that I visited on a daily basis simply threw up their hands and said “We give up.” One of the sites had the most complete directory of some niche sites that I found on the web, but the author was angry that he never got sort of cooperation from those niche sites that he hoped, so he took down his niche directory and put up an angry rant.
This webmaster’s expectations were highly unrealistic, but this is the sort of thing that will happen if people stick to the “profits are bad” line too severely. Besides which the nature of the web really turns the “sellout” problem on its head. Mark worried, for example, about the impact of advertisers on content. “If Microsoft were to invest in Voices Of Unreason, could I go ahead and tell the world just how utterly I hate the conspicuous consumption of Bill Gates’ new technologically advanced playhouse?”
That’s the beauty of the web — he’d have to, if that’s what he believes, because on the web nobody might know if you’re a dog but they can tell insantly when you’re feeding them BS. I see this all the time on some of the independent technology sites. Just by reading their reviews, it’s not too hard to see who is giving a product a good review because they’re being swayed by other factors such as advertising and who isn’t afraid to say “screw the advertisers, I’m going to say what I want.”
And really that attitude is the only successful long-term one. In fact I’ve been known to actually rip on the ads that appear on my sites in my discussion groups. There was a banner ad that ran (still might be running) that depicted a monkey with a boxing glove moving left to right, and the user was encouraged to “punch the monkey” by clicking on the monkey when the glove was centered on it. There were several discussions on that thread in which I and others pretty much tore the ad apart (especially since it made implied claims that were borderline false advertising).
One of the things that has always bothered me about traditional media is they will not accept ads by their competitors or even featuring employess of their competitors. Other networks refused to run ads that featured NYPD Blue actors because, they reasoned, that would be helping promote a competing product. Dumb.
On the other hand, I’ve actually tried to solicit ads from competitors and/or opponents. I’d sell People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ad space in a heartbeat on AnimalRights.Net. If an environmental group wants to create a site debunking the claims I make on Overpopulation.Com, I’ll sell them all the ad space they want to promote it.
What is the point in cowering in a corner out of fear of a little comeptiton or a different viewpoint as traditional media do?
How scared are traditional media of their critics and competitors? In a famous libel case, a newspaper refused to run a woman’s angry letter to the editor, but they agreed to allow her to buy ad space in the newspaper to print her letter. She did, and the newspaper promptly sued her for libel! (The case was eventually decided in the woman’s favor).
You see this at a lot of big, expensive web sites for different companies where either there is no discussion forum system or the discussion is heavily censored and monitored and not just for porn, obscenities, and flame wars — a lot of these sites are scared to death that the people who shell out their money for their products will come back and report their problems and difficulties with them for everyone to see.
Smaller web sites are far less likely to fall in these traps over the long run because if I come across I site that I see is more interested in selling me things than anything else, I’ll just go to any of a half dozen similar sites or start up my own (or point out to a friend who is interested in the niche area that here’s her big opportunity).