I read an unsettling piece in the Media Guardian on Monday on Gawker’s ‘pay-per-page view’ system of remunerating journalists.
If you didn’t read it here’s a summary: Nick Denton, founder of Gizmodo and other US-based blogs, has developed a system where journalists are paid advances for a set number of page hits. Failure to make the grade leaves the hapless hack out on his ear.
While it sounds logical enough, for why shouldn’t journos be paid on their results, this insidious scheme has some profound implications for both journalism and PR.
The main problem conveyed in the article is the creation of a sensational, dirt digging, muck-raking culture, that results from the system. Rather than go after stories on merit or interest, journalists are locked in an endless fight over the story most likely to get page views. What’s left is a sensationalist junk-news machine where nothing decent gets a look in.
What the article fails to latch on to is the company’s crass assumption that this system gives readers what they want. Surely readers have to read something before they know if they want to read it? This is a chicken-egg scenario leading to a spiralling decline in quality content. The hacks will continue to dole out sensationalist crud while readers happily addle their brains by reading the most ‘shocking’ or ‘scandalous’ story on the site.
God forbid this type of remuneration gain any foothold in the UK or we could also see a major change in PR payment metrics. What if remuneration was tied not only to getting coverage but to obtaining a certain number of page views regardless of the quality of readers?
This would inevitably drive the sort of sloppy, dangerous and downright deceitful kind of PR practice which perpetually tars the industry. Dodgy research, over-egging of results, sensationalist pitches would all be exacerbated.
What can be done about this – well the power is in your fingers…
Comments