on making money online
posted 2005.02.23
You know, I so was not going to write about this. But I do have something to say, dammit, so I'm putting away my revulsion for metablogging (aka navelgazing) for a few moments.
Odds are at least a few of you have heard about this whole Kottke thing. I hate to go into any argument misinformed, so I not only read his post, but a good chunk of his trackbacks as well as this absolutely enormous MeFi thread.
It took me a while to figure out what was bothering me about Jason's move. Why should it disturb me? Obviously, I'm a big fan of making a living from a web site. (Ahem.) I'm all about living your dreams, too. Ditto to the enjoying spending the day in my comfies typing madly.
What Jason's trying isn't completely new. Web sites can make money. Lots of them make money from subscriptions or donations. (I believe Wikipedia is funded this way?). But then again, what he's trying is new. Because he's basically saying: my name is my brand. The looseleaf collection of things I write about, at times elegantly and at times far less so, up to and including my cat, should be enough for me to make a living from.
That's it. Blammo. No business model, no theme, no hint of what kind of content might be planned, other than the possibility that, like Seinfeld, it may very well be about nothing.
And this, after some consideration for the past 24 hours, is what's bothering me. After the first rush of "good for him! following his dream! living the dream, buddy! go for it!" wears off, you begin to realize that there's not a vast amount of difference between this idea and most of the dotcoms of the late 90's - no business plan, no growth plan, vaporware at its finest.
Donating to a museum is not the same thing, no matter what he says. When you donate to a museum, you know what you're going to see there. Art. Not movies or books or food. Art. It's focused. You donate because you love art, believe in art.
There's no focus here. Donate, and you have no idea (and neither does he, based on what I've seen in his descriptions) what you're going to get. You are to donate because you love him, believe in him. And that's just self-aggrandizement at it's finest.
Don't get me wrong. He may very well have some great ideas planned. But that's not what I'm seeing here, not so far. And really, shouldn't he know better? He was right there during the boom and crash.
The thing that's bothering me the most, though, and this took the longest to figure out - is that he'll succeed. He's networked well enough and high-profile enough that he'll make the money he needs to live on - my guess is, and then some. But it's not his success that will bother me. It's what will be spread as a message to every other curiosa: you really can make money on the Internet with no focus.
And oh, that bothers me. Bothers me the same way it bothers me when people continually slap up horrifying plug-n-play e-commerce web sites and then have the gall to look surprised when they don't hit their $30,000 sales targets the first month.
There's just no there there. Or if there is, I can't see it.
There are 24 comment(s) so far for this entry.
Join in the discussion below!
comments
As you said Angie, Jason is a well enough brand to get away with this for a while, perhaps two or three years tops. Once the hype has died down though people wont bother with (or will forget about) their 'subscriptions', and I imagine he will struggle.
It cannot be a long term business prospect for him on its own.
What I imagine he is relying on as well are certain other avenues such as writing at other publications, guest speaking, etc. The fuss around the 'launch' of his project is probably enough to generate a little of this type of work already.
The suggested donation is $30 which would seem fare enough if we knew what we were getting but that's not the case. I do not know if his high profile is enough to keep this afloat.
I reckon it's no different from getting a free newspaper (there's one in the UK you get at train stations called METRO), but they soon realise they could make a little bit of cash if they ask you to donate to the upkeep.
I've read Kottke for nearly five years now. In fact, he's the reason I started blogging. I met him at Net-Media in London, and my own blog was born two days later.
I don't think it's much to stick out the begging bowl; his bandwidth charges must be considerable (he's amongst the top 10 most popular blogs in the world).
The only thing I'd be concerned about, if I were him, is whether he'll be able to repeat this feat next year. I doubt he will.
As for his website, I'm sure the content will be much the same - or better, hopefully. In my own humble opinion, when he's good - he's very good (and everyone follows) - but when he's not so good, he's a bit bland.
Either way, he's a trailblazer - and it won;t be too long before every other blogger on the planet tries what he's doing.
But isn't this what we do when we buy books or magazines?
we read the last one, we liked it, we're willing to pay for the next one by the same author on the basis that it might be as good or better than the last stuff we read.
I can see how it might work, I certainly wouldn't contribute more than the cost of a magazine, but I might be persuaded to contribute small amounts regularly...
Thanks to everyone for your comments, and for keeping it civil. :)
Just to be clear: I'm not offended by the suggestion that I pay him. (I likely won't; although I've read him on and off for years, I've never found his content to be remarkable enough to warrant a donation.)
What's bothering me is the lack of focus. Were we to see this coming from Dave Shea, Cameron Moll, or Dane Carlson (to name just a very few), it wouldn't bother me so much. Their sites have focus, there is a purpose and continuity to their content, and it would be clear what a donation would be helping to maintain - more and better of this content.
Ditto to magazines. When I buy Wired, I know what I'm going to get. Or Fast Company. Etc.
But the site in question has no such focus. As the site itself reads: "kottke.org will also not become any less personal or any more professional. This is still my personal web site and is not going to mutate into a vertical blog about tech, design, politics, pop culture, or even asbestos. I'm not turning into a journalist. I'm still going to write and post almost exclusively about things I am interested in, whatever those may be at any particular moment. Just so you know, I may occasionally post cat photos, as is my right as the editor of a personal web site."
Nor are the donations to offset the costs of hosting and bandwidth. The gist of this business model is "please give me some money so I can play - and you can watch!".
The MSRP of $30 bothers me in other ways, but I can't deny its marketing brilliance.
Wow, does this mean I begin asking for donations, Angie?
Very interesting write-up. Utterly thought provoking.
I have my doubts about him staying afloat also. Yes, he may make it in the first year or two, but after that...he'll be old news and people will forget about donating to him. His stance on not taking advertising money is grand, but I don't think he'll last long without advertisments.
Be a believer, not a hater Ang. :)
It's a test, a change, maybe a harbinger.
I for one am pulling for him.
Thanks for all the continuing comments, all! To clarify:
1. I don't doubt his personal ability to stay afloat (as I said, his contacts will guarantee he'll stay afloat, at least for a few years). I'm saying it's a bad way to run a business - and since he's hoping to make this trend work so *others* can follow, therein lies my concern.
2. KK: I think it's pretty clear I'm not a hater. Don't hate Jason, nor do I dislike him (in fact I've read him off and on for 6 years or so). I just disagree with his business model. All businesses need focus, a mission statement, something other than "stuff I like", in my opinion. Even this blog - which will never make a dime - has a mission statement, as do countless others including the excellent people I mentioned in my previous comment.
3. Cam: you decide to give it a whirl, you've got my donation. :)
We seem to have struck a similar note - I MAY donate if it turns out he starts offering something worthwhile.
And if I may I'll quote from my post "Now, I’m guessing that he has a good idea how many people visit his site every day, and I’m guessing this played a large part in his decision. He suggests a nominal $30 ‘donation’ (micropatronage if you will) and I’ll bet a pound to a penny that he has factored in a percentage of his visitors donating that amount."
I don't wish him any ill feeling at all but I really don't get all the hoo-haa over this. If it succeeds well.. then what? As you say, this is no repeatable business model (it's not even a 'business per se) and if he fails, well it'll be surprising but again won't really prove much that we didn't already know.
His recent post offers this: "There's a transaction here; you're paying me in return for a (hopefully) interesting, engaging, timely site that's full of information and creative projects and updated on a daily basis."
Hopefully? I thought he'd been planning this for months?!! EEk.
I'm in full agreement with you... My original assumption was it will only work because this is done by THE Jason Kottke, and bloggers are an incestuous bunch with most falling over themselves to kiss his ass and call it ice cream... If anyone else said "hey, I've quit my job, give me $30 as a donation so I can blog full time," they would be laughed at, ridiculed and told to get a job or most likely ignored.
The fact I’m being dismissed on other blogs as someone who "missed the point" of what Kottke is trying to do simply by voicing a negative opinion says more you could possibly imagine... OMG, how dare I question Jason Kottke! He’s a visionary and should be respected for sticking it to the man by quitting the ol' 9 to 5 in favour of making blogging a viable vocation!
But judging by the first few days of Kottke:Pro, it’s pretty disappointing thus far...
Angie,
He is asking for help. And he is asking his daily readers. That is really important. If you read something daily for some time, then you might as well pay some money if someone asks for help.
I think it would be too loud to say something about business model. It's not. He has been blogging for 7 years and he is at the stage of allowing himself to be a bit impudent. He deserved it for at least a year.
I don't read him. I read his blog sometimes throught the links from other blogs.
Some people might be addicted or not, but if they like to read about his life, see his cat, then if person asks for some money, then why not?
I found out about your site through his trackback
When you buy a magazine, you have to pay no matter if it turns out there isn't single article worth reading.
Looking at "Kottke Pro" you could argue that this is the other way around, that he's not asking for money up front, but that you're paying him restrospectively. Like what you've read for the past week or month... why not donate a small amount.
That way the business plan becomes pretty simple. Write good stuff - get payed. Not unlike how most "normal" authors make their living.
To me his business plan seems to be using his celebrity and hoping that there is enough 'fans' to give him a few bucks. Don't get me wrong, I like Jason and subscribe to his feeds but I don't hang on his every word. I think the mistake he is making is not offering something other than prizes (big deal) to those who support him like John Gruber does. When you buy a magazine or a cup of coffee you get something for your money. If you donate to Jason your only getting what you got before for free and nothing more than anyone else who doesn't donate can get for free.
Yes, it's bothering me too. Indeed, I also felt the need to blog about it - although I exercised considerable restraint.
The thing that really gets me is that, in my opinion, Kottke's output doesn't have any monetary value to me, in any way. If he were actually producing something tangible (software, wallpapers, icon sets, templates, etc.) then I would probably reconsider - but observations of his cat (an extreme example I know) are worthless to me.
So I find I have to question the motives of his "micropatrons". Are their contrbutions derived from hubris, charity, A-lister worship?
I sincerely hope it all works out for Jason, I really do. Sadly I think his 'fund drive' will dry up once the novelty's worn off - unless he produces something tangible.
I'm all ready to get my degree in entrepreneurship, and then I read this. My mouth dropped after that initial feeling of wanting to congratulate him for having that entrepreneurial spirit.
I also wrote about it, and although I tried to restrain myself, I don't think it worked. I agree with Jonathan on the fact that he has no product other than his blog. How can it be "share-ware" like if he has no wares to share?
Personally, I think he needs to rethink the whole situation, do some cost-benefit thinking and see what the missing piece in this puzzle is. That is, if he thinks there is one missing.
When it comes to magazines, I like to flip through one before buying it. If I can't flip through, I look at the cover to read the articles inside. I will subscribe to a magazine if it consistantly offers what I like. And most of my year-long magazine subs in recent memory cost me less than $30.
I'm sure he'll do okay, as his blog buddies will all chip in so they can get the cool button for their page. And the upwardly mobile bloggers will as well, so they can get a link from his site to theirs. (Kottke linked to me!!!111!!)
I wonder if this can be this era's new type of "rent party?"
Hmm.. ok. But ust look at the list of patrons.
What you haven’t considered is the support 2005 page. He lists every micropatron with a link back to there url. That is a powerful motivator for otherwise on the fence readers. Not to mention regular linkwhores. In a way, he is selling advertising. The tongue in check interview at airbag makes a reference to this.
Airbag: Jason, this morning you announced that you're going pro...did you make a deal with the devil to pull this off? Does she really have cloven feet?
Kottke: Turns out the devil needs PageRank. Who knew? We've got a sweet little arrangement going, a souls-for-placement deal.
who?
never heard of him...I'll keep my $30 bucks.. only a fool would support someone like that.
"Kottke's output doesn't have any monetary value to me, in any way. If he were actually producing something tangible (software, wallpapers, icon sets, templates, etc.) then I would probably reconsider - but observations of his cat (an extreme example I know) are worthless to me.... I think his 'fund drive' will dry up once the novelty's worn off - unless he produces something tangible."
Whaaa?! Jason produced perhaps the world's most popular bitmap font - Silkscreen. He continues to offer it for free.
"He's asking for help."
But he doesn't really NEED help. He quit his job of his own volition.
I don't see why he should be paid to do something many of us do as a side-job/activity.
excellent post. any further insights now that he's called it quits?
The whole kottke affair left me a little confused too. A comparison you could draw I guess is that you subscribe to magazines, only knowing its general subject matter, and Jason’s site will be no different, we know what to expect, even if that is a more eclectic mix than the average magazine.
I a way, I hope it crashes and burns, not because I dislike Jason or his site, but because it could signal the start of a trend which as far as I’m concerned can only serve to fragment what is, at the minute, a very strong community of blogs and bloggers providing social commentaries outside of the mainstream media.
If only blogs could just BE blogs.