Matthew Yglesias (April 01, 2008) - Show Me The Money (Politics)

Why should anyone feel sympathy for anyone affiliated with Gawker media at all? When your websites are devoted 100% to cruelty and degradation, you don't deserve sympathy.

Posted by Freddie | April 1, 2008 4:49 PM

"I like industrial action myself"

Well, a trust-fund scumbag like yourself "likes industrial action" just as long as it it's not helping folks without inheritances.

That's why you feel so comfortable accusing the half of Democrats who are voting for universal healthcare of being racists.

Posted by Petey | April 1, 2008 4:51 PM

Double? You estimated your site gets 2 million pageviews a month... so your salary would be 200000/1000*9.75*12 = $234k per year. Are you really making $117k per year? Not that you don't deserve it, but man, that would be a pretty sweet gig.

Posted by Christopher M | April 1, 2008 4:54 PM

Deep breaths, Petey, deep breaths.

Posted by Max | April 1, 2008 4:56 PM

Double? You estimated your site gets 2 million pageviews a month... so your salary would be 200000/1000*9.75*12 = $234k per year. Are you really making $117k per year? Not that you don't deserve it, but man, that would be a pretty sweet gig.

No, that would be closer to four times my current salary. I was using a more conservative projection of my readership, figuring that Jan/Feb saw a primary-related traffic spike, to reach the "double" figure.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | April 1, 2008 4:56 PM

How many page-views Do you get? Kotaku gets 4,000,000 a month.

Posted by MNPundit | April 1, 2008 4:57 PM

A reminder, to ponder: What is really at the heart of the definition of a "profession" is payment by salary rather than being on commission. This is why we don't like M.D.'s who have a financial interest in prescribing M.R.I.'s and why we look down upon attorneys who work on contingency as "ambulance chasers," and why we have a salaried civil service.

The pay-per-page-view if it becomes industry standard will help hasten along the death of the radical mid-20th-century idea of journalism as a profession. Maybe that's what "the people" of the blogosphere want. It doesn't happen to be what I want, I happen to like high quality standards, call me an elitist pig.

Posted by artappraiser | April 1, 2008 4:59 PM

I was averaging a bit over 2 million a month in January and February, I don't have the March figures in yet.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | April 1, 2008 4:59 PM

This is the general problem with unions for writers: the talented/successful ones don't need the union, and for the ones just starting out, the union is an obstacle.

Posted by Fred | April 1, 2008 5:01 PM

Sorry Matt, but thats not how it works. Its not total page views, it views for each post. So unless someone clicks to read an individual post, no money.

Posted by Rob | April 1, 2008 5:02 PM

I clicked on - for one of the first times ever - the ad above mATt y's blog for that butcher shop. Those burger packs look quite delicious. No buffalo though. I like that rich, buttery taste of buffalo.

Posted by Linus | April 1, 2008 5:03 PM

Jan/Feb saw a primary-related traffic spike

And a related spike across the liberal blogosphere in ignoring most other news and analysis. The results have been very sad, mho. Within this time frame, I have grown increasingly grateful that a print edition of the New York Times is still delivered to my door every morning, in a format that does not pander to "most popular within demographic." The primary has turned much of the liberal blogosphere to "trashier than CNN's Crossfire" in short order, and it gets worse, the blogosphere's preferences are clearly having strong influence on MSNBC's nightly programming, (Keith Olberman like just another blogger) less so on CNN but it's there as well. Those markets seem to be virtually the same now, a stake through the heart of Ted Turner. I haven't paid attention to broadcast network news that most people still watch, I am hoping that they haven't pandered as much to the primary fans because their demographic is different.

Posted by artappraiser | April 1, 2008 5:10 PM

Petey,

Criticizing Matt for his father having money is still lame, no matter how many times you do it. And it's completely irrelevant to his political views. There are wealthy and super-wealthy Americans of all political persuasions -- even hedge fund and private equity moguls like the guys at Fortress who backed John Edwards.

There are also non-wealthy folks like me who oppose your idea of universal health care.

Artappraiser,

Many physicians do get paid on per-procedure basis -- most surgeons, for example. They aren't considered professionals because they get paid salaries versus getting paid for procedures; they're considered professionals partly because they are supposed to adhere to a code of ethics. For example, the surgeon who declined to operate on Kanye West's mother declined because his ethical concern for the riskiness of operating on her was greater than his desire for the payment for the procedure. Unfortunately for her, another surgeon operating on her and that led to her death.

Posted by Fred | April 1, 2008 5:15 PM

Gotta love Petey. Having money automatically makes you evil.

See you later, gotta go get my $400 haircut.

Posted by Tony Hussein | April 1, 2008 5:31 PM

Scab!

Posted by otto | April 1, 2008 5:32 PM

...They aren't considered professionals because they get paid salaries versus getting paid for procedures; they're considered professionals partly because they are supposed to adhere to a code of ethics....

Posted by Fred | April 1, 2008 5:15 PM

I'm fully aware of code of ethics for professionals (taking the lovely national USPAP test for appraisers every 5 years) and how doctors are paid in this country. I simplified my statement for impact, there was no need to get into details.

Inherent in all codes of ethics for professionals is disclose, disclose, disclose any profit motive, and along with that comes the fact that any profit motive you do disclose will make your judgment suspect. Professionals also usually swear a fidiciary interest in public good or truth or something similar, swearing a duty not to be pandering to their client's every desire. The idea of a profession is an attempt at perfection that cannot be attained, however, it is at least trying to improve things.

You cannot convince that pandering to page views will result in a better-informed public. It is what we've ended up with in television and radio news when the networks decided to make the news rooms and desks pay their own way with advertising, it's called ratings, it's the profit motive rather than the "salary" support the news departments used to have.

Posted by artappraiser | April 1, 2008 5:33 PM

It's difficult not to see this post as a straight brag from MY about how big his audience is. Not his finest moment.

Since there's no way in hell MY would have accrued an audience like this on a pay-per-page-view basis, I don't see how it's relevant. Gawker isn't about to pay that rate for MY's musings on the Washington Bullets, and neither is The Atlantic Monthly.

Posted by Martin | April 1, 2008 5:43 PM

What is really at the heart of the definition of a "profession" is payment by salary rather than being on commission.

I was going to respond to this, but words for once fail me. So I guess I should get back to my paid-by-the-hour blue collar industrial lawyering . . . nickled & dimed, that's me . . .

Posted by rea | April 1, 2008 5:44 PM

No, that would be closer to four times my current salary. I was using a more conservative projection of my readership, figuring that Jan/Feb saw a primary-related traffic spike, to reach the "double" figure.

Your conservative estimate doesn't seem too logical. Since you are seeing these page views now, it stands to reason (seems to me) that you would take home ~4X your current salary during a presidential election year--and closer to 2X in more mundane political environments.

Posted by southpaw | April 1, 2008 5:47 PM

Re artappraiser's comment "The pay-per-page-view if it becomes industry standard will help hasten along the death of the radical mid-20th-century idea of journalism as a profession. Maybe that's what "the people" of the blogosphere want. It doesn't happen to be what I want, I happen to like high quality standards"
--------------
ha ha ha ha. You had me going there for a minute, art.

Two words: "Judith Miller"

Two more words: "Will Durant"

By the way, why do the Islamofascists who attacked us on Sept 11 hate us for our freedom?

Why did the people of Iran overthrow the freedom-loving Shah?

And why did those vicious North Vietnamese speedboats attack our peaceful Navy frigates in the Gulf of Tonkin?

And does anyone know how many nuns have been killed by Commie death squads in El Salvador?

And when is Henry Kissinger going to ask the Argentina military to release all those thousands of citizens arrested in the 1970s?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Charly

Posted by Don Williams | April 1, 2008 5:48 PM

1) So long as the news gathering and dissemination is own by a few superrich men -- and driven by the advertising dollars of a few other superrich men -- then what you see on the nightly TV news and what you read in the "Associated Press" newspapers will be as fictional as a Ford advertisement selling cars.
"Quality is Job One".

2) Do you think Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are paid to tell us the TRUTH?

Posted by Don Williams | April 1, 2008 5:54 PM

Petey:

"That's why you feel so comfortable accusing the half of Democrats who are voting for universal healthcare of being racists."

Petey, still fighting the good fight. Kinda like the Japanese soldier stranded on an island for years, unaware that his Empire had surrendered long ago...

Looks like the narrative about Edwards is shaping up to be that he didn't endorse Obama b/c he didn't think he could beat Hillary. Now he can't, because it would look he's jumping on the bandwagon. Not very well played at all. Probably won't get either the VP or the AG position now.

Posted by Peter K. | April 1, 2008 5:57 PM

Petey needs to bone up on his Dale Carnegie. His poeple skills are slipping. (Assuming that's the real Petey.)

Posted by Led | April 1, 2008 5:57 PM

It's rather interesting that MY gets about 2 million page views a month, but only about 25 regulars make up about 3/4rs of the comments. Either there are a legion of lurkers out there or Petey and Cranky Observer sure know how to hit the Refresh button.

(There have, however, been a higher number of newbies in the past few weeks).

Posted by otto | April 1, 2008 6:04 PM

Matt, you are one of a very few bloggers who could make this argument. It may be the case that the Atlantic couldn't afford your services with that structure of contract.

Are you aware of the research that has shown that people who are driven by relative materialism end up quite unhappy: better (as you are) to cultivate content with the gig you have that meets your needs. (Hey, you forgot to plug your book.)

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 1, 2008 6:09 PM

Petey's always been a huge weirdo, just in a less obvious way. Particularly in 07, his pet arguments and obsessions happened to be mostly sensible you might have missed it.

My favorite Petey moment ever was when he explained that the popularity of blowjobs in pornography is due to women's facial expression when their sucking being - objectively - very flattering, making them seem more appealing.

Posted by David Weman | April 1, 2008 6:23 PM

Petey's always been a huge weirdo, just in a less obvious way. Particularly in 07, his pet arguments and obsessions happened to be mostly sensible, so you might have not noticed.

My favorite Petey moment ever was when he explained that the popularity of blowjobs in pornography is due to women's facial expression when their sucking being - objectively - very flattering, making them seem more appealing.

Posted by David Weman | April 1, 2008 6:25 PM

...might not have noticed.

Christ.

Posted by David Weman | April 1, 2008 6:29 PM

s/b "might not have noticed"

Christ.

Posted by David Weman | April 1, 2008 6:31 PM

I mean, it's nice not to feel under the gun the way a per-pageview salary structure would leave me, but I'd gladly give up that feeling of relief in order to double my take home pay.

It's at times like this when the inner libertarian in all of us shows itself for a while.

Something to consider: would the pageview-whoring stuff you'd end up cranking out generate as many pageviews as what you're writing now? If quickly doubling/quadrupling your take home is a serious driver, you'll need to go the Kissinger/Coulter route and show some leg to a patron.

Posted by cmholm | April 1, 2008 6:35 PM

Gawker is a weird and unpleasant site. "Gawker Stalker"? Bottom feeders.

Posted by mad6798j | April 1, 2008 7:02 PM

I don't think you'd be happy with that $9.95 changing quarterly, with no notice whatsoever.

Besides, the principle of solidarity is right--the less these guys get paid, the less you do. If these guys start getting overpaid relative to you, why wouldn't that improve your bargaining position relative to your employer?

Posted by anon | April 1, 2008 7:18 PM

anent writers unions,

Find the book The Best of Myles and read its section on WAAMA. (Some acronym for a proposed Irish writers union.) IIRC, it's the first thing in the book and it's hysterical. A great introduction to Flann O'Brien.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 1, 2008 7:29 PM

Do you think Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are paid to tell us the TRUTH? Posted by Don Williams

Doh, they get paid higher and higher the more high ratings they produce, same as page views. If you'll read my comment, you'll see I say that, that that's what happened to TV news, they got forced to go for ratings. O'Reilly and Limbaugh types have been at it so long they have a highly identifiable demographic to sell and can't even change their shtick much without losing that.

I think this is currently happening with the blogosphere, all the big blogs are posting on the primary leaving other topics uncovered because it's giving the audience what they want. The bigger blogs, once bewitched by the big audience, start to require continued pandering to big audience to get those ads to pay for the servers et. al. for big audience, it's a vicious circle thing.

Posted by artappraiser | April 1, 2008 7:34 PM

If I got paid on that scale, I'm pretty sure I'd be making a lot more money than my current salary pays.

You'd also be working for Nick Denton. With Denton, as with Felix Dennis, you know what you're getting when you sign up.

Find the book The Best of Myles and read its section on WAAMA. (Some acronym for a proposed Irish writers union.) IIRC, it's the first thing in the book and it's hysterical. A great introduction to Flann O'Brien.

Also in that section: the professional book-handler. Never loses its brilliance.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 1, 2008 8:03 PM

How come Megan makes so much more than you? It doesn't make any sense.

Posted by anony_mouse_ | April 1, 2008 8:58 PM

Matt, remember that only about half of Valleywag's pageviews count towards bonus. Also remember that Valleywag has the highest $/pageview rate in the Gawker Media stable: Gizmodo is

Posted by Felix Salmon | April 1, 2008 9:57 PM

less than $3 per thousand pageviews.

(That'll teach me to use the less-than sign in a blog comment.)

Posted by Felix Salmon | April 1, 2008 10:07 PM

I'm pretty sure the political blogs in Gawker don't get a penny a page view. What is wonkette's rate? That's what you'd be competing with. And do you really want to be wonkette?

Posted by Anonymous | April 1, 2008 10:08 PM

The problem with Yglesias isn't that he was raised in a wealthy family, it is that his experience is rather limited - prep school, Harvard, blog. His posts on class often highlight his rather sheltered upbringing and are some of his weakest offerings.

Petey's off his meds but he has a point on how often Obama supporting writers and commenters went with race and ignored class when discussing downscale Dems preference for Clinton. Affluents recolied from discussing class for some reason preferring to label 48% of the Democratic party as a bunch of ignorant rednecks.

Posted by up the vanguard | April 1, 2008 10:17 PM

"It's rather interesting that MY gets about 2 million page views a month, but only about 25 regulars make up about 3/4rs of the comments. Either there are a legion of lurkers out there or Petey and Cranky Observer sure know how to hit the Refresh button."

And of us 25, how many have ever clicked on an ad here?

Posted by Fred | April 1, 2008 10:20 PM

The problem with Yglesias isn't that he was raised in a wealthy family, it is that his experience is rather limited

My favorite was when he admitted that he had never owned a car. His views on public transit are totally shaped by only ever having lived in Manhattan, Boston, and DC. Add SF to that list and you have the only four American cities where it's really easy to live without a car.

Posted by mq | April 1, 2008 10:58 PM

in response to artappraiser:

How I long for the days when greed hadn't been invented, when humans were motivated only to get the story right. When one looks at the history of American journalism, one sees a noble tradition of public service.

Read a history book some time. Everybody wants money. There is no glorious past when everything was perfect.

Posted by cgaros | April 1, 2008 11:40 PM

Also let me add that money for newspaper writers does not fall from the sky - it has to come from somewhere, which means either paying readers, paying advertisers, or rich patrons. Take your pick, but your journalism funding mechanism cannot be the imaginary rainbow money tree.

Posted by cgaros | April 1, 2008 11:46 PM

Yes, but Petey's a funny clown. He still hasn't come to terms with the hedge fund his hero John Edwards was working for before he cynically decided to run the left of Hilary.

At least Matt never worked for a hedge fund! Score one for him over Chelsea Clinton or Petey's hero John Edwards!

Posted by Petey The Moron Fanclub | April 2, 2008 12:46 AM

His views on public transit are totally shaped by only ever having lived in Manhattan, Boston, and DC. Add SF to that list and you have the only four American cities where it's really easy to live without a car.

Chicago.

Posted by some dude | April 2, 2008 2:26 AM

(Relatively limited) parts of Chicago, not the whole thing. Gets tougher the further you get from the north side lake area.

(I have lived in Chicago without a car for ten years or so.)

Posted by live | April 2, 2008 2:35 AM

What percentage of your readership comes from the masthead?

That may be relevant to blogger pay in a way that defies a straight dollar/hit comparison.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | April 2, 2008 3:49 AM

"how many have ever clicked on an ad here?"

There are ads here?

Posted by Adblock Plus | April 2, 2008 6:30 AM

Mr. Yglesias, I can't tell you how sadly ironic it is that you followed this post up with one about poverty. I work at a major newspaper's website, and if it adopted that structure the maximum salary for a reporter would be below $20,000 per year. I'm glad you're generating a good audience for yourself, but you need news reporters to provide you the information and links that you blog about. Don't argue for a structure that'll put them below the poverty line.

Posted by Jason | April 2, 2008 8:13 AM

Anonymous bile. It's such a strong indicator of future success.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 2, 2008 9:06 AM

One advantage of not paying per click is that it's steady and reliable. Once you have a mortage, a spouse, and/or children, that becomes far more important to your financial picture.

Posted by Persia | April 2, 2008 9:12 AM

"...if it's really true as Felix Salmon reports that Valleywag writers get paid $9.75 per thousand pageviews..."

Wow, Matt, I thought your reading comprehension was better than that. Golson was being paid $9.75 per thousand pageviews. Golson doesn't know what he is currently being paid because his employer has refused to tell him.

"...it's nice not to feel under the gun the way a per-pageview salary structure would leave me but I'd gladly give up that feeling of relief in order to double my take home pay."

Golson probably earns significantly less than you do. That won't change unless he finds an employer who thinks that he is worth as much as you are. He gets--or was getting--significantly more per page hit than you because he writes for a site with lower traffic. If the traffic on the site he works for increases, his employer will decrease the pay per page hit.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | April 2, 2008 12:22 PM

Show Me The Money

Comments (53)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories