Why do you blog for your newspaper?

I ask this not to pick a fight, because I'm more curious than debating you, but isn't it possible one is eating the other, rather than the two feeding off each other?

 

It could very well be. I've had 12-inch stories not run this year because we just don't have space. The lack of newshole is a real concern. But I still want to work my beat the right way, so some of that stuff just ends up online in note form.

 

I'm playing devil's advocate with this thread a bit Clutch. In fact, if I was still a beat writer I certainly would blog and use it as an avenue to engage and inform readers. I would try to work as many radio and TV talk shows as possible to get my face, voice and brand out there, use live blogs, Twitter and whatever other social media comes along. I would encourage fellow writers to do the same. I would do this not only at home but also on the road.

Papers do not encourage this enough in my opinion. Blogs at our paper are seen more as a gift than an extension of the paper or brand, and they were deemphasized until recently because "well, we don't just want everybody to have a blog."

All that said don't you think the guy generating 2 million page views per month (and say it is only does produce 10 cents per thousand views, though I'm sure it is much more, that's still $2000 per month) who is working a similar beat to the guy who does not blog should see some reward for his extra effort, at least a bonus once in a while. This is not a case where one guy has more power over the other. They are basically equal in tenure and salary. Both are supposedly "working" 40 hours per week, but you know many beat writers work much more and not always at an OT rate. I just think one loves blogging and the other would rather put extra time into print or his books. But if I was the 2 million-page-view producer's boss I would dole him a bonus whether he asked for it or not. It seems the right thing to do. To me this is above and beyond posting blurbs and a short 10-minute update. And yes, I probably wouldn't last long as a boss.

About 15 years ago I asked why our circulation was dropping at a time when not every newspaper was losing circulation left and right. I was told it was because of the Internet. I asked what we were doing about it and was told "some things." Apparently not enough things as the Internet zoomed by and we stood still thinking it was a passing fad.

I asked why we didn't partner more with local TV stations and was told "we're a newspaper and they are TV. We don't do the same things and besides they are a competitor."

As recently as 6-7 years ago our editors would not run a breaking story on ESPN.com until another more legitimate source was also reporting it. Again a story I'm sure many of you can relate to.

I have no personal stake in this, yet seem to be getting attacked for trying to advocate those who produce real extra revenue for the paper should get some extra pay. Sorry. I wouldn't make it as a publisher as I actually think keeping employees happy and rewarding them for extra effort is something that should be done. They are, after all, people aren't they or are we dealing with commodities.

 

Kickoff: good commentary. What's happening with online revenue is that while it has creeped up over the years, the decline in print advertising revenues has outpaced it. In effect, blogs aren't bringing in extra income (which in theory would carry with it the means to pay writers more for blogging), it's just slowed down the decline of overall revenue.

In a very broad, connect-the-dots sense, I guess you could say that blogs are not generating bonus income to be paid out as extra pay to writers, but what it has done is perhaps saved a job or two. That is, instead of a sports dept. losing, say, 4 staffers, it has lost "only" three because of revenue generated via blogs across the board.