The Double Standard on Compensation

Earlier this week I wrote about how ZDNet is compensating its bloggers based on traffic to their posts. What's unclear is how long they track the clicks. Even though a particular post may not get a lot of views immediately, it might later thanks to Google Juice. As John Battelle noted yesterday, nearly 40 percent of blog readers in come directly from Google searches.

Further, The Editor's Weblog yesterday reported that UK newspapers are teaching their reporters how to write search-friendly articles. In addition, newspapers are also buying keywords on Google. Could this all play a role in compensation? Possibly.

Clearly the way journalists and bloggers are being compensated is changing. However, everyone really should disclose the mechanics of how they are rewarded. Why should there be a double standard for the level of disclosure for journalists vs. bloggers when it comes to new models of compensation? We're all part of the media fabric now. This should especially be revealed when anyone is being compensated based on traffic.

The blog community is still not going far enough either. Earlier this week BlogBurst reached out to inform the top 100 performing bloggers in its network that they will be issued a check for their hard work. As an alternative, we can donate the money to charity or not accept it. I donated my $150 to charity.

So did all top 100 disclose? Not yet, according to a Google Blog search. Todd Bivings is one who did. Blogburst isn't exempt here either. Once the checks are doled out, they should be publishing a list of who was paid. Why rely only on us?

Clearly this is going to be a big issue going forward. But the point I want to make here is that no blogger - full-time pro or part-time paid - is exempt from disclosing how (not necessarily how much) they are paid and who is paying them.