Don’t Hit Stacy’s Tip Jar; Hit Mine.

by Little Miss Attila on April 21, 2009

He’ll waste it on clothes for his kids, whereas I’ll put it to good use researching the issue of bacon-flavored vodka. (Does it suck? Not suck? Kinda suck?)

(Or at least paying my cable bill this month. And driving to the NRA convention so I can see about getting some editing work to pay future cable bills. And maybe even groceries, though I’ve been trying to train my husband to go without food. No success, so far. Personally, I’ve gone back to white rice with soy sauce on top.)

Naturally, I agree with Stacy and James: the figures on blogging income in the Wall Street Journal are ridiculous. Furthermore, the bad economy has hit bloggers harder than many others, because one of the first things to go in a recession is paying for the online content that one doesn’t, strictly speaking, have to pay for. And two years ago I never used to go more than a few weeks without any active display ads. Now it’s been months.

Ugh: courses in blogging. That’s even more idiotic than courses in copyediting: “we’ll take your money so we can show you how to be even more impoverished!” What a deal.

More typical is the event I went to wherein one of the bloggers lurked behind at the banquet and lifted a nearly full bottle of wine off one of the tables. (I didn’t think that was a bad idea at the time—hey: why let it go to waste?) Then he placed the vino among some plants outside the bar, and re-filled his glass out of it for the rest of the evening as we lounged at the bar’s patio. Why? Because very few of us have any freakin’ money. That’s why. We live like gypsies.

And if you know anything about the evening to which I refer, please don’t say anything to identify the blogger. It’s just that most of us are as poor as church mice. That’s why the overwhelming majority of us have day jobs (or daytime clients, like me) and just do this in the mornings and evenings as a labor of lust.

Moe weighs in (that would be boy-Moe; we have a girl-Moe, too, who also has a great post up, about how youngsters nowadays are not universally spoiled). Logan also weighs in on poverty in the blogosphere / the fact that this is not a “real” job for most of us. And Stacy McCain, linked above, has a pretty good roundup.

So, remember: if you have a paying job, and you read blogs, think of these blog-thingies as subscriptions you should pay for. Do not make me create a separate class of readership, wherein only paid subscribers get to see the topless photos I planned on posting the more trenchant analyses.

* * * * *

Seriously, boys and girls: blogging is like being in a band. You’re doing it because you love it. If someone appreciates it, that’s fabulous. Someday your hard work might combine with good luck, and you’ll see some remuneration. But probably not.

“This might turn into a steady job.” Yeah. Right.

UPDATE: Rusty: “According to that, I’m making like $500k a year. If only . . . ”

Yeah, well. The Wall Street Journal was looking for hits, and its editors knew that most bloggers consider themselves grossly underpaid—to the point that it’s a sore spot. So they did what they had to do for the Big Hits: they picked a fight.

I feel like I’ve been played like a violin.

UPDATE II: Maybe we need a union! Bloggers’ strike! No political mishmash, strange literary allusions, wacked-out anecdotes about my parents, or snippets of dialogue until I get a freakin’ raise!

UPDATE III: This is turning into quite the meme; I’ve got an update here.

{ 4 trackbacks }

Bloggers For Hire
April 21, 2009 at 9:40 am
Moe Lane » The saddest funniest thing you’ll read today.
April 21, 2009 at 9:45 am
Little Miss Attila « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier
April 21, 2009 at 9:50 am
$45,000 - $75,000 per year blogging? | The Anchoress
April 21, 2009 at 11:59 am

{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }

iowahawk April 21, 2009 at 9:57 am

Snork. 100k uniques / month = $75k income? Here’s my personal experience: I get around 250k-350k pageviews per month, 150k-200k uniques. My gross blog income over the last 12 months was $785, about enough to pay for my internet connection and TypePad account.

Not complaining, I don’t do it for money and would probably still do it if I were getting $7.85 per year. But the WSJ is on totally on crack with this article. I can’t imagine there are more than a couple hundred of professional fulltime bloggers on the planet, let alone a half million.

Reply

William Teach April 21, 2009 at 5:37 pm

Hey, I want my money! Maybe Obambi should read the WSJ article and give us!!! 🙂

I blog simply for fun, not money. Sure, I would like to get some, but, no big deal. Less the $10 a month and my time. I made enough off a McCain/Palin bumper sticker to pay for several years of Dreamhost, plus for my Photobucket account.

Having a good post at my site, Stop The ACLU, or Right Wing News with lots of comments makes me happier.

Reply

Darrell April 21, 2009 at 10:46 pm

Comments here are rhetorical. AG can hear the “amens” if the wind is just right.

You can start collecting naked pictures of all your ‘homies’ should you decide to institute a class structure for your readership. Subscribers are a voracious lot.

Reply

Little Miss Attila April 22, 2009 at 9:35 am

:p

Reply

Darrell April 22, 2009 at 9:40 am

They can pay you not to publish. Win/Win.
Never scoff at additional income streams.

Reply

Dave C April 22, 2009 at 9:40 am

hell, 12 K a year would be an improvement..

google’s A*D* cents is just that.. cents.

Reply

Little Miss Attila April 22, 2009 at 10:26 am

Sure, Darrell. That’s what we do: exchange naked pix of each other. We aren’t swapping recipes, discussing menopause, and cooing over Beth’s latest baby animals at the farm. No: we’re sending each other images of ourselves in various provocative states of undress.

Because who wants to hear about the time challenges faced by the moms, or the career angst of the childless? Who wants to hash over the nutritional value vs. economics of various foodstuffs, when we have all these naked pix we need to send out?

Time is money! Or naked pictures. Or something.

Reply

Darrell April 22, 2009 at 10:35 am

Your link in the bold text doesn’t work. 😉

Sure. You can crap on anything with reality.

Reply

Little Miss Attila April 22, 2009 at 11:07 am

O, I must learn this HTML thingie a bit better . . .

Reply

nohype April 22, 2009 at 11:17 am

The Wall Street Journal Article was careless with its source, which is
http://technorati.com/blogging/state-of-the-blogosphere/blogging-for-profit/

The $75,000 number comes from this:

“Among active bloggers that we surveyed, the average income was $75,000 for those who had 100,000 or more unique visitors per month (some of whom had more than one million visitors each month). The median annual income for this group is significantly lower — $22,000.”

The huge difference between median and average says that there are a few very high numbers out there. It also says that if you are getting “only” 100,000 unique visitors per month, you will be getting a lot less than $22,000 since that is the median of all those getting 100000 or more uniques per month. Half of them are getting less than that amount.

It is good to know something about statistics when writing about them.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: