Monetizing the Mommyblog: An ABDPBT Personal Finance Series

This is the third in a series of posts on the topic of monetizing mommy blogs featured on ABDPBT Personal Finance. The models I’ll be discussing have not yet been implemented on a large number of blogs, and thus the use of them is still pretty experimental. You can try these at home, but for the love of God, please BE CAREFUL.

As part of the keynote panel for Mom 2.0, Maggie Mason (Mighty Girl) offered an overview of her experiments in monetizing her blog through using sponsors for her Mighty Life List, as well as with creating content for third party microsites. A microsite, in case you’re not already familiar with the term, is a small blog set up by a company for the specific purpose of promoting a particular product or service. Microsites have been popping up more frequently in recent years, and have started to use well-known bloggers as highly specialized copywriters of sorts to promote their work. The idea with the Microsite Model is that you hire a well-known blogger to create high quality content centered on a consumer product, and then the blogger will direct their audience to the material on another site. As such, there is a monetization of the content column of the blog, but the location of material on a third party site allows the reader to still give his or her permission for the marketing (by being willing to click on a link).

My life scoop blog

The Microsite Model should not be confused with a garden-variety sponsored post, because the content is uniquely tailored to the interest of a blog’s specific readership, and it does not appear directly on the blogger’s main blog, so there is no need for FTC disclosure. The key to the success of the Microblog Model is that the content that is to be promoted on the main site is of a very high quality, with more effort being put in by the blogger than her or she would provide on a regular post. In this way, the blogger can ensure that the reader is getting something in exchange for their willingness to click on a link to an outside site. They are getting something in exchange for their time. For example, a link to Intel’s Microsite, My Life Scoop, appears on Mason’s homepage at Mighty Girl. Clicking on the link takes you to a host of other content written by bloggers (including fellow Federated Media bloggers Asha Dornfest (Parent Hacks), Lindsay Knerl (Wise Bread), David Morgan (Burdastyle), Samuel Axon (Mashable), and Sarah Parsons (Inhabitat)), as well as Mason’s own post, 4 Tips For Creating An Inspiring Office. These kinds of deals are put together for Mason and others by Federated Media, and arranging one for yourself might be a little trickier than it is for bloggers who are represented by an advertising network. However, if you have an established readership that is loyal, the Microsite Model might well be something you can arrange on your own, by approaching sponsors that fit the size and scope of your blog’s readership.

What Are You Buying?

The Microsite Model might be confused with some other models for bloggers making money online — most notably, it is different from just being hired to write for another site, and it is different from simply writing a sponsored post. Whereas a personal blogger might find that opportunities for paid blogging jobs are more accessible as a result of their popularity on their own blog, this kind of arrangement is more like having a guest star appear on Saturday Night Live (and only Saturday Night Live) where Saturday Night Live is being sponsored in its entirety, without other commercial interruptions, by Intel. (Why do I always go for the entertainment industry metaphors? I don’t know.) This is a contract deal — you do it for a little while, a certain number of posts, and that’s it: it’s not a long-term employment thing. But more importantly, this is different because the corporate entity is paying you more for the audience that comes with you and for the space in your content column that ensures that this happens. Whereas anyone with writing skill could potentially get a job as a professional blogger for a large media outlet, these kinds of microsite deals are only going to go to people who already have a community that is heavilly invested in their work, and is likely to follow the blogger wherever they go. The blogger who gets a deal to write for a microsite has to have loyal fans, because their appeal as a partner is largely that they will bring with them some die hard fans who will read whatever they write, wherever they go. Professional bloggers with side writing gigs might eventually earn that kind of clout, but they are not probably being paid in relationship to that, nor are they being asked to do writing that fits with the brand.

The Microblog Model appeals to advertisers because, unlike a sponsored post here or there, it provides them with a sustained opportunity of associating a face with their brands. At Mom 2.0, Maggie Mason said that more and more, advertising is becoming about providing additional information, and that no other medium allows you to put a face on a company like blogging or social media does. (Note: I’m a little skeptical of this claim, given celebrity endorsements and the like, but I do think it’s possible that she means putting a “regular person face” on a company in this particular way, even if I’ve been seeing other companies attempt to do this same thing in other media as well). For Mason, directing her readers to another site feels natural, even if it is advertising, because the information provided by the outside site is a “better product than what my readers are used to seeing” on her blog. They are also associated with brands that are likely to appeal to her readers, because so much care is taken to match her brand partnerships with the brand of the personal blog itself.

The proposed project has to be something that is likely to lead to the production of content that is of particular interest to the blog’s readers. For example, in August of 2009, Mason did a series of interviews of design bloggers for The Gap. The interviews appeared in her content column and among those interviewed were Jeremy Gutsche (Founder, Trend Hunter), Jean Aw (NotCot), Larry Angell (UnCrate); and Jill Fehrenbacher (Inhabitat). All of these people run design-related blogs, and are probably on the Google Reader list of many Mighty Girl readers. Interviews with them are likely to be of interest to the Mighty Girl reader, and the association with the Gap Born To Fit campaign is something that can easily fade into the background of a post. As for The Gap, they presumably got a decent return on their investment, since the interviews appeared on Mighty Girl, as well as all of the blogs of the interviewees. They were also able to promote the campaign and The Gap brand by using photographs of all of the bloggers interviewed in their online marketing.

Mason’s campaign with the Gap took place before the FDC regulations for blogging disclosure went into effect, and there was no requirement at the time that bloggers disclose when they are being compensated for their writing by a company. The campaign was described on Mighty Girl as follows:

Over the next few weeks, I’m doing a campaign for Gap that features profiles of other design bloggers. The interviews are an extension of Gap’s Born To . . . Campaign, which is about pursuing your passion. As you may have noticed, I’m into that. Find out more about the campaign on the Facebook page here. For completists, the whole set of interviews is over here.

While I think that telling your readers that you are participating in a campaign with The Gap should be enough to serve as disclosure of a (form of a) sponsored post, I’m not entirely sure this would be enough disclosure for a similar campaign today. I think that a similar campaign launched today would require a specific statement that said, “I am being paid by The Gap to do these interviews.” Her current sponsorship with Verizon Wireless is described in more explicit terms:

A huge thanks to Verizon Wireless for sponsoring my Mighty Life List and helping me achieve my dreams. They gave me a Palm Pre Plus, which I used to find my way to the dogsledding place because it has GPS, and we were totally lost. Our guide also used it to take the first photo of this post, which I frankly would not have believed was from a camera phone if I hadn’t been there. Well done, everyone.

Mighty Life List

More recent campaigns for Mason have included obtaining corporate sponsorship for her Mighty Life List (a list of activities she wants to accomplish over the course of her life), first by Intel and now by Verizon Wireless. In these Mighty Life List campaigns, Mason writes about what happens when she embarks on checking an item off her life list, and notes that the whole thing is paid for by the sponsor. It was not clear, based on Mason’s talk at Mom 2.0, whether or not these sponsorships are all the compensation she receives from the sponsors, and I think it is possible that, depending upon the size of the Life List item, there may be a dollar amount as well as a payment of the Life List item. For example, her trip to Greece with two friends was a much more expensive endeavor for Intel to sponsor than is, say, the French lessons Verizon Wireless recently began sponsoring. This is why, in some cases, I think there is probably some means of evening out the coverage, either by the payment of a flat fee or else a stipulation that the French lessons get only one post, and the Greece trip got four or five. (However, I was unable to reach Maggie Mason for clarification on that point.)

When a microsite deal works well, it can lead to the production of really original and interesting content. For example, Mason published the idea to create a laptop inside of a moleskine notebook at one point for a content campaign with WePC.com (even though I happen to know that Mason uses a Mac, at least for her laptop needs). She plugged the original idea with a link to her more fully fleshed out idea for a laptop design on the WePC microsite. And I would argue, incidentally, that it’s likely the recent launch of BookBook, a laptop cover by Twelve South was inspired by Mason’s idea, though of course I have no way of knowing for sure. I kind of doubt that either Mason or WePC are currently getting royalties from the sales of Book Book, but perhaps they should be. I bring this example up because it shows how there are circumstances where the collaboration of a blogger and a brand can produce real, original, and noteworthy ideas that are valuable in the blogosphere and the marketplace.

How do you get a deal like this?

Content campaigns and brand partnerships via microblogs are still relatively new to the blogosphere, and Mason uses her advertising network, Federated Media, to negotiate the deals for her. Regarding pricing, she stated at Mom 2.0 that she approaches these kinds of content campaigns as something that is going to be priced out at “much higher rates” than her regular advertising, which makes sense, given that you are being paid to serve as a specialized copywriter for a company, rather than just to display some advertising. But also, the content column is far more valuable placement for a company, even when it is just being used to promote a blog on a microsite, because there is an understood trust being extended there, by placement in the content column, that what is being presented is of high quality and is of great interest to regular readers of the blog. (I did try to contact Maggie Mason to see if I could get any kind of ballpark quotes for the going rate on a deal like this, but she was unfortunately unavailable for comment.)

Bloggers attempting this kind of model might want to approach an advertising network for help in putting together a deal, or begin with smaller companies that want to increase their online presence. During her Mom 2.0 keynote, Mason also suggested that bloggers who form advertising collectives with each other might have more luck in putting together a package that would attract advertisers. Either way, I think it’s clear that you have to have a strong audience and traffic numbers in order to be attractive to a brand, though there’s nobody in the world who knows better than you which brands are the right matches for your blog. If you approach the right brands with a strong presentation for why a microsite pairing with you is a good idea, who knows what kind of results you can achieve.

Last week, I wrote a post in which I made an offhanded reference to the mistaken(?) impression I had that MamaPop did not pay its staff writers. It caused a bit of a stir.

The post on daddybloggers was satirical, meant to poke fun at a pattern of behavior I have recognized in the parenting blogosphere. It was not meant to serve as any kind of in-depth, earnest commentary on the morality of building a blogging business. But as it turns out, some interesting issues were raised in the ensuing shitstorm it caused, and I thought some of these were worthy of further discussion here.

Stumbling Over A Landmine

Why did I make a joke about MamaPop writers being unpaid? Because I have been operating under the impression for several years now that MamaPop could not yet afford to pay its writers a salary from its advertising income. As recently as last July, I know this to have been the case, and I made a note of it when I heard it back then because I found it peculiar that so many writers would be willing to regularly work for free, no matter how great the website for which they were writing.

And yes, I am aware that other websites (most notably The Huffington Post) have relied upon unpaid writers for a significant amount of their content. I find it dumb when people write for those sites for free as well. It’s just not something I’d personally be willing to do absent an ownership stake in the website. I can see a guest post here or there in exchange for the increased publicity a post on a more heavily trafficked website might offer, but I couldn’t (and cannot) see the rationale behind working on a regular basis without being paid for it.

But people can do what they want to do, right? Who cares? And more importantly, who cares what I think about it? I’m just one person with an opinion and you know what they say about opinions and assholes. &c.

This was my prevailing thought on the matter when I made the joke about MamaPop writers being unpaid. Go ahead and work for free, guys, if you want, but I’m going to poke fun at it maybe once in a while, because I think it’s kind of dumb. Please feel free to educate me as to why it is not dumb, in fact.

This one comment caused a lot of commotion. And so what started out as an offhanded remark all of a sudden became very interesting. And I think it’s strange, so I think, “Hey, holy overreaction, Batman, what is going on over there? What the hell do they care if I think of writing for free is dumb?” And then I’m led to believe that it’s because MamaPop writers are, in fact, paid, and thus my jab at them is based on a totally false assumption. Well, no wonder they’re annoyed.

MamaPop writers ARE paid

So then I say, “OK, sorry about that, my bad! When I’m wrong, all you need to do is tell me.” But that makes people even more pissed off at me.

shut the fuck up award

So then I start thinking, what the fuck? What the fuck is going on over there? And, more importantly, what are they hiding? Because when you get an overreaction like that over one line in a throwaway satirical post . . . well, it suggests there must be a backstory to which I’m not privy.

How Much Does MamaPop Bring In Per Year?

Well, around the same time as all of this, I received a piece of information from a credible source regarding the possible earnings of MamaPop which suggested the site could be grossing as much as $175,000 per year or more from advertising sales. So then my brain really starts working, because if there’s any smidgen of truth to this allegation, then (after hosting fees and other assorted overhead), where is the rest of that money going?

So I decided to start running some numbers of my own.

Let me be clear: the question of how much MamaPop, LLC brings in per year is still very much a mystery to me. I don’t have access to financial records of the LLC, and the only reason I looked into this at all was on the basis of a tip that was purely conjecture based on comparing similar hypotheticals. When I’ve gone about getting ballpark estimates for blogging revenues in the past, I’ve used a cross-section of posted advertising rates and inventories filled to come up with a projected possible income per annum, and for kicks I decided to do this with MamaPop after receiving this information. Based on my own calculations of MamaPop’s current advertising inventory, I have come up with a more conservative estimate of between $64,925 and $108,209 in annual revenue for the MamaPop site.

Are The Writers Paid, Or Not?

I have been getting conflicting reports on whether or not the writers at MamaPop are paid. I continue to get conflicting reports, and at some point yesterday, I stopped knowing what to believe. So I decided to contact the owners of MamaPop to clear up the mystery. Here’s the email I sent them:

I wanted to give you a heads up that I’m going to be posting about MamaPop in the next few days. The gist of the post questions the practice of building a blog business with the help of unpaid staff writers, something I’m aware many new media outlets do, but which may be of particular concern to you, based on the events of last week.

Here’s what I wanted to let you know: I’ve received some information from a credible source that alleges the income for a site like MamaPop could be as much as $175,000.00 or more per year. I have run my own estimates based on your publicly posted advertising rates and current ad inventory sales that projects a more conservative estimate of as much as about $100,000 in annual gross income to the LLC. I wanted to give you a chance to comment on these numbers before I post.

If you would like to comment in any way, I’d be happy to include your response in my post. Specifically, I have these questions:

How much gross revenue does MamaPop bring in per year?
Does MamaPop pay its writers?
And if so, are all of the writers for MamaPop paid?
And if not, what percentage of the site’s content is produced by unpaid writers?
Can you please explain the recent absence of Catherine Connors from MamaPop’s list of writers and/or staff members (as well as her reinstatement)?

Thanks for your time.

Anna

[Please note: after I sent the email, I realized that Catherine Connors is actually no longer working for MamaPop; apparently, her reinstatement was temporary, and I didn't realize this until looking at the list of staff members on the MamaPop site, which had been updated again to reflect this change.]

Here is the response I received to my email:

I hate to take the wind out of your sails, but 1) Your numbers are ridiculously inflated, and you are being badly misinformed by your “sources,” and 2) every writer for MamaPop is paid for every post they write, plus incentive/holiday bonuses (though, indeed, I think most if not all of the writers would write for the site for no money, were that the case. You can feel free to ask them whether that’s true or not (though I can’t guarantee you’d receive a response, as your reputation precedes you)). We’ve *always* had a core group of paid writers, plus volunteers. 2010 marks the first year we’ve been able to afford to pay everybody, and we’re really proud of that — and them.

The rest of your questions are beyond galling and no one’s business, period.

That’s the extent to which we care to comment. Thanks for your interest in MamaPop.

Then I decided to follow the suggestion of contacting the 18 people listed on the writing staff for comment. Here are the responses I received from 4 of those people:

I have no comment other than to verify what Amy and Tracey have told you: I am compensated for my writing at MamaPop. Best of luck.
— Amber

I actually do have more to say.

I have been a writer at MamaPop for almost two years. Before coming to MamaPop as a contributing writer, I was a reader. In fact, I was asked to write for the site based on my reader comments and my acquaintance with one of the writers—I was not then nor have I ever been a high-profile blogger in any capacity. While I am of course pleased to make any money for my writing, money has never been a motivation for my participation with MamaPop. I enjoy writing and I have a great love for the site’s content and our community of readers. Most importantly, I have made, during my tenure at MamaPop, some of the most cherished friendships of my adult life with many of our past and present writers. I consider Tracey and Amy not only my editors and employers, but my friends, and while I am grateful to be paid for the writing I produce for them, I would do it for free, because I love it.
— Amber

Here’s the truth of the matter. Years ago, I helped my best friend steal my dad’s car and go out on a road trip. We were young and innocent. We thought we ruled the world. Well, the car got wrecked, everything went wrong, and my life turned to shambles. My “best friend” skated clear, and still talks about that day as his big “Day OFf.” Fuck you, Ferris, I’m stuck here, writing for Mamapop. Sure, they pay me, but does it make up for not having Sloan? No, sir, it does not!

[All deconstructing aside, those MamaPop writers really are terribly droll. OK, back on topic.]

I am a paid writer for MamaPop. That’s none of anyone’s business and why you think it’s yours is beyond me. I think it’s interesting that because you’re curious, you think you have some right to know proprietary information that is absolutely no concern of yours. Where I grew up, it’s impolite to ask people how much money they make. Good luck on your rude and petty venture.
— MayoPie

Anna? I find all of this in extremely poor taste and do not see how our compensation (and yes, we are monetarily compensated) is any of your business. Your lack of manners is astounding. — Miss Banshee

You may certainly quote me. Also? I consider the staff of MamaPop, past and present, to be very precious friends. I would write for free without a moment’s hesitation. It’s called having love for what you do, and I have it for my contributions for MamaPop. This entire situation you have created is incredibly distasteful and insulting to my friends.
– Miss Banshee

Those are all of the responses I’ve received before this posting. As more come in, I will include them here for your reference.

[Edit: here are responses from 3 more of the writers, making a total of 7 responses out of 18:]

Anna:

While this “material” with which you mention working is little more than rumour and conjecture, and you have not been at all clear about the reason for your interest in whether or not I get paid for how I voluntarily choose to use my talents, I will honour your query with a short response: yes, I am paid for my writing at MamaPop.

Schmutzie.

On or off “the record,” I really don’t care:

Anna, here we are again, just like when I disagreed with you about the MamaPop party: you, making grandiose sweeping assumptions and me, disappointed in humanity because of your distasteful attitude toward other bloggers and unbelievable rudeness.

You can continue to be this link-baiting taint-face (LBTF for short since you love random consonants strung together) and I’ll continue to laugh at your efforts to be the blog world’s Fox News Undercover Reporter OMGWTFBBQ!!1!

Give it up, Geraldo.

— Karen Sugarpants

It is clear you are on a witch hunt against a site that you have a demonstrated grudge against. Your claims are baseless, pointless, and immature, and I refuse to be a part of them. The writers of mamapop are my friends and coworkers and I am thrilled to write for the site. Why I choose to do so is frankly, none of your business.

Please quote me in the entirety or not at all as I am saving this correspondence. If you bother to read mamapop at all, you know I am a lawyer. — Jodifur