Monetizing The Mommyblog: An ABDPBT 
Personal Finance Series
This is the second in a series of posts on the topic of monetizing mommy blogs that I’ll be featuring 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 might be able to try these at home, but for the love of God, please BE CAREFUL.
Most frequenters of the mommyblogosphere are familiar by now with Momversation, the video blogging series that features well-known mommy bloggers in a regular discussion of mommy-related topics. Sponsored by Target, Momversation is the brainchild of Rob Morhaim of Deca TV, who started from the premise that there were certain issues that came up repeatedly for mothers blogging on the internet, and that if you could somehow aggregate and combine those conversations in on central hub, then you could create a new kind of content that presented a multiplicity of different voices at once. Since Morhaim’s background was in television, it made sense to use video content as a means of facilitating that discussion, with the thought that the videos could appear on the sites of each of its participant bloggers, thereby providing promotion for the project as well as a “value-add” for the blogs of the panelists who participate in the project.
In terms of generating traffic for the Momversation website, this strategy appears to have worked. Though the exact web traffic to Momversation.com is not quantified, Momversation.com has an Alexa traffic ranking in the top 100,000 (currently at 43,899). It stands to reason that they have a decent number of page views per month, given that ranking and the fact that they have developed a reasonably active community and forums. But the fact that Momversation has embedded videos all over the web — including some heavily trafficked areas on the blogs of its member panelists — might serve to inflate those traffic ranks, since it seems that whenever an embedded video is loaded, this counts as a pageview on the main site.
I’m not big on video content, so I had to do some fishing around in order to understand the nitty gritty on Momversation’s video stats. At Mom 2.0, Rob Morhaim was asked about the reality of the video statistics for Momversation during a panel about using alternative forms of media in blogging. It seems that the video technology used for Momversation (as well as many other video sites) usually has some means of tracking views embedded in the player itself, but for some reason the Momversation numbers do not have these numbers readily available. To clear things up, Morhaim said that those embedded numbers are not used for Momversation because of its multi-seat promotion techniques — in short, that the numbers of views tracked by any one Momversation viewer would be inaccurate because it appears so many different places on the web, all at once. Morhaim did say that the Momversation oeuvre has easily topped twenty million views since its beginning in late 2008.
Twenty million views sounds like a lot to me, and it sounded like a lot to most of the people in the room at Mom 2.0. But as it turns out, twenty million views for a set of over two hundred videos spread out over a year and a half, while still respectable, is not as fantastic as it initially sounds. To give perspective, a video posted on a typical Dooce post (like one of her husband in the bath, say) can get anywhere from 10,000 to 50,000 views tracked on its host video site (Flickr, Vimeo, YouTube). Make two hundred of those videos, and you’ve already got four million views, with no post-production, soundtracks or other big name bloggers contributing to the conversation or pimping it out on their blogs.
Still, Momversation makes money, and presumably generates a decent return on investment for its long-term corporate sponsor, Target. DECA TV also sells ads on the main site. Opportunities to advertise with Momversation, according to the DECA TV site, include “product placement, title sponsorship, micro-sites and reskins, display and interactive media, newsletters, content licensing, and revenue shares.” It’s not clear to what degree that these methods have been deployed within Momversation itself, since DECA TV also has replicated the Momversation model in various other sectors of the blogosphere including the “properties” Parents Ask (Momversation, only with actual parenting experts, psychologists, and pediatricians), Project Lore (Momversation for Gamers), Smosh (Momversation for Teens), Good Bite (Momversation for Food Bloggers), and Dog & Pony (Momversation for Start-ups, Tech Gurus, and Entertainment people).
DECA’s website states that their company’s purpose is to locate “pre-existing online communities or ‘tribes’ along with ‘tribal leaders’ . . . people who have emerged from the online rabble to become recognized leading voices in their vertical space” and then put together “properties that have video at their core, but capitalize on all the publishing and interactive capabilities the web has to offer.” They put out a high quality product, and have a smart approach to creating unusual content for the mommy blogosphere, even if I’m still not convinced that video is the right medium through which to communicate with this particular market sector. There are a lot of questions about Momversation in the blogosphere, though, concerning the way Momversation is produced, how the panelists are chosen, what kind of compensation is involved, and — particularly with the recent launch of BlissTV — the viability of video blogging as a means of commercializing blogs. Here’s my stab at delving into the issue further, for what it’s worth.
Where Does Momversation Appear And How Much Does It Cost?
Momversation has its own website, but the peculiar level of its success is due to its exposure across a ton of different platforms, including the personal blogs of all the panel members, as well as various placements in Hearst publications and on the Oprah Winfrey Network. Momversation appears in the content column of the panelists’ blogs — which in some cases is very valuable web real estate — as well as in the sidebars of some of the blogs of panelists. It is a safe assumption that Dooce (who featured the Momversation video as a fixture in her sidebar for several months) would have been paid a fee specifically for that purpose, since that amount of space on Dooce.com would have been selling for as much as $15,000 per week at that time. Dooce’s contract would have to include the fee for her appearance as well as some kind of clause for the space on her blog, though it appears that Momversation has since removed its ad on Dooce’s site. By contrast, the space on Giyen Kim‘s sidebar is probably not billed out at the same rate, and I don’t know if the appearance of Momversation there is by contract or just the free choice of the blogger.
Because nobody is talking at Momversation. Not about salaries, not about anything.
That’s right, I was tacky and asked about money. I do these things for you guys. Because that’s what we want to know — how much are they getting paid for this gig, right?
I wrote to all of the Momversation panelists to see if they could give me ballpark numbers for the salaries they get for participating in Momversation. Several panelists wrote back, but they all explained that they had signed what one person referred to as a “pretty air-tight confidentiality and nondisclosure clause” that prevented them from talking about the specifics of their contracts. This is not surprising, since the people behind Momversation are Hollywood types who are used to the sensitivities surrounding discrepancies in talent salaries. Jessica Gottleib, a current Momversation panelist, did confide in me that she doesn’t “work cheap or silly,” and that she’s “very happy with [her] deal with Momversation.” This sentiment was echoed by another panelist, who said she loved working with them (DECA TV).
They have covered their bases, because nobody is willing to talk, even people who don’t work for them regularly, which means they must be getting paid a shit ton to participate in this deal. Of course, I had figured they must be well compensated, and I had still hoped to get some kind of ballpark numbers, but to no avail. I do have reason to believe that there is a flat fee paid to the participants, either by month or by week, per contract, and that each panelist has a set number of required appearances in the videos. I’m not sure that these requirements are the same across contracts, though, and besides, I cannot substantiate these claims, despite my best efforts at getting some more information. Here’s what Rob Morhaim had to say on the matter of salaries yesterday:
I’m sure it’s no surprise that all compensation questions are completely confidential. I cannot even give you a ballpark. I can tell you that everyone has agreed to and lives up to the terms of the same talent agreement.
TOTALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED CONJECTURE: Putting that statement through the lens of my highly specialized and scientific measuring tool, I surmise that, not only is there a discrepancy in the salaries paid to Momversation panelists, but the discrepancy must needs be so large that even a hypothetical ballpark number would betray the egregiousness of it all, viz. it’s got to be a crazy range, like a few hundred bucks per month for the lowest paid to like several thousand or even tens of thousands per month for the highest. Because if not, a ballpark wouldn’t matter much, right? Of course, sometimes these deals are so crazy careful that they just don’t ever tell you anything unless you’re on a need-to-know basis. But in my mind, the lack of a ballpark is telling. I’m just saying. End of totally unsubstantiated conjecture.
Here’s what I can tell you about hypothetical revenues associated with Momversation, though. When the Momversation project initially launched, it was running ads across the entirety of the BlogHer Ad Network, and spots for Momversation appeared several times here on ABDPBT before I eventually opted out of the campaign (only because they did not offer an option for having the video play only on demand, and I cannot countenance auto-play video — particularly with sound — no matter how high the CPM, it’s just too annoying). The CPM for those Momversation ads on BlogHer Ads at that point was about $12, which is on the higher end of rates for CPM on BlogHer Ads. To be pimping out a site at that rate — blanketing the network in spots at the time, in fact, if I recall correctly — there has to be some serious venture capital involved. Since Momversation is still going strong after a year and a half, I would guess that all parties, corporate and bloggers, are happy with the deal as it stands now. And that’s also probably why it’s so hard to find out anything about the nature of their deals.
How Do You Get On Momversation?
Rob Morhaim, the producer of Momversation and the guy that Heather Armstrong refers to as “our Bosley,” is a smart guy, and if you want to be on Momversation, it appears that the best way of doing so is to impress yourself upon him in some manner. Initially, the panelists for Momversation were chosen in a variety of ways: first, the project’s sponsor, Target, submitted a list of its “wants” for bloggers. At Mom 2.0, Morhaim told me this list was based mostly on traffic, but that Target also had required that the panelists meet certain demographics. After lining up some of the ideal bloggers on Target’s list, Morhaim went out himself and “found the voices” who would fill the other slots.
Strangely enough, most of those voices seem to have been listed on the pages of the Federated Media Parenting Federation page. Of the original panel of Momversation bloggers, there are three bloggers who were not represented by Federated Media at the time of their inclusion in Momversation; one of whom was Daphne Brogden, who is involved in another DECA-affiliated endeavor of undisclosed specifics (her blog, Cool Mom, is listed as one of DECA’s “properties.”). Giyen Kim, of Bacon Is My Enemy, uses BlogHerAds, but was featured on Guy Kawasaki’s Alltop page for Mommy Bloggers at the time she was picked for Momversation and appeared on CNN.com several times for her weight loss video blogging, and this is presumably how she came to Morhaim’s attention.
The third non-Federated Media represented blogger is Rebecca Woolf, the inclusion of whom on the panel really doesn’t require explanation: she is a beloved blogger, a gifted writer, a glamour queen and a best-selling author, and much has been made of her ability to mix high fashion with stuff she finds at Target: my guess is that she was among the few bloggers on Target’s original wishlist of ideal bloggers for Momversation. Somebody else who was likely on that ideal list of bloggers is Ree Drummond of The Pioneer Woman, who confirmed that she declined the offer to participate in Momversation mostly due to the demands of her schedule at the time (she was trying to complete what would become her best-selling cookbook, The Pioneer Woman Cooks: Recipes from an Accidental Country Girl, Harper Collins, 2009), as well as some some uncertainty that the project would be the right fit for her.
The short answer to how you can get involved in Momversation is: you can’t. At least not for pay. Panelists are chosen by traffic and by their ability to meet demographics, and this appears unlikely to change. However, as more video experiments enter the blogosphere, there may be more opportunities to become part of this kind of gig, presuming this method of monetization is really generating the return on investment that is suggested by the scant statistics available for analysis.
How Much Control Does Target Have?
One of the big questions with Momversation has been how the various bloggers were chosen, and to what degree Target, the (seemingly permanent) sponsor of Momversation influenced these choices. I asked Rob Morhaim about the initial choice of bloggers for Momversation (see panelist roster and updates here), and he told me that Target had some bloggers in mind, and that these names had been generated based mostly on traffic numbers. In addition to their traffic-based wishlist, Target wanted to have certain demographics covered by the panelists, including different races and marital statuses. At Mom 2.0, I asked, if this “need to cover certain demographics” meant that they required certain specific races to be represented, and Morhaim said, “I would find a blog, and it wasn’t a highly trafficked-blog, but it represented Asian-Americans,” to which I interjected, “Or single mothers?” and he said, “Yes.”
Other than specifics of salaries, which nobody is giving me, the one thing I wanted to know about with Momversation was how much input Target had over the choice of discussion topics. This is mostly because the inclusion of Momversation as a blogging award contender in this year’s Bloggies seemed strange to me, even if various participants have claimed that yes — Momversation is a blog, rather than a commercial for Target, and no — Target does not have editorial control over it. So I asked Morhaim about the role of Target in the choice of bloggers and content, and because our conversation became so difficult to splice into quotes that fit standard conventions of English usage, I’m just going to put a transcript of it here and you can draw your own conclusions:
Anna: “But did [Target] ever go around to the individual blogs, and look at content, and then say, ‘We don’t want this person, because of XYZ, because they use bad language or something?”
Morhaim: “No. Never.”
Anna: “So, what is [Target's] relationship to the content of Momversation, then?”
Morhaim: “They’ve been wonderful.” [Coupled with emphatic nodding.]
Anna: “Yes, but do they give you topics? Or do topics have to be run by them for approval first?”
Morhaim: “They’ve been wonderful.”
Anna: “Are there certain topics that they won’t let you do?”
Morhaim: “Well, there have been times when we’ve gone to them and have said, ‘How about we do a topic on holiday shopping, but not holiday shopping at Target? Just shopping in general,’ and they’ll say ‘Yes.’”
Now, before you go saying that he didn’t answer my question there, reflect on the fact that he DID kind of answer it, because the fact that they went to Target with a topic at all, in any event , suggests that he is in the practice of going to Target to get a topic OK’d. See what I did there? There’s no way of knowing if the topics are micromanaged by Target on a regular basis, but there is a suggestion here that there may be some degree of editorial control over content made by a corporate entity, rather than the topics being an organic result of all these dynamic moms just chatting it up.
Conclusions: I Don’t Really Have Any Yet
The article I wanted to write about Momversation was going to tell you exactly how much people are being paid to participate, how much revenue it generates for the parent company, and how Target feels about its experience with the project. But my friends, I have failed in this. So the only question remaining for me is: how do you guys feel about Momversation? Do you think it works in our community? I have my own thoughts, but I think a more valuable way of discussing this method of monetiziation is to try to explore its efficacy in this market through the comment section here. I haven’t bought stuff more often at Target as a result of Momversation, personally — I already bought a ton of stuff there to begin with, for one thing, and also, I don’t think I’ve ever watched a Momversation video from start to finish myself (except the one played at the panel at Mom 2.0) because personally, I don’t have any patience for video when I’m reading blogs. I like to read blogs, and I cannot stand the extra noise created by a video. When I want to watch TV, I watch TV. When I want to read blogs, I read blogs. Am I alone in this? What do you guys think?
TWEET THIS
{ 84 comments }
Next Comments →
Wow you really did some work on this piece. I’m not surprised that they were so tight lipped on the financials of it all.
I will say it kind of saddens me that it’s so incestuous. I mean if you look on the food site, there’s run off from momversation. It’s worse than high school in some way. How can new people every get picked up when it seems like it’s just one big circle. Also are they blogger or video stars? I think if Heather makes it on TV she’ll kiss her blog goodbye forever.
BTW they can’t pay all that much to the lower end Momversation Panelists. Mindy Roberts of the Mommyblog has her home up for sale and is auctioning off art and jewelery.
I will say that I wonder why some of these women are on there. Just because they have a popular blog doesn’t mean they’re experts on parenting. But this venue sure does try to impress it upon people that since Target and Momversation picked them, they must be smarter then you’all.
Hi Michele:
Re incestuousness, it does annoy me a bit, too, but I understand how it happens. Once a blogger becomes visible, that visibility tends to just multiply, especially when corporate America gets involved. These people are not part of the mommyblogger community, and their choice is always going to be made from a position outside the community until they start hiring bloggers as consultants to tell them the best bloggers to work with, given their brand, and given the specific people they want to target. If I was coming from the outside, starting over, I’d probably pick a lot of these same people to be in a project like this, just because they’re easier to find.
But the problem with it is, I’m not sure that these people are the right ones to reach the audience that will be influenced by video. Maybe they are, but as I said, if you’re used to using one media, you kind of like that form and I’m not sure how much you’re going to switch over. But that’s just my opinion based on my own tastes, and I might be wrong about how appealing video is in this venue.
Michele,
Do you even have children Michele? I see you pop up all over the place leaving negative comments all over the place. Staying at home, unhappy you aren’t making anything out of your life? Husband’s got a good job so you ‘job’ is to tell the world what they don’t do right?
Steven
Steven, I like to let all the comments through on my site, but I’m not interested in having disputes from other websites/areas discussed here. I have plenty of controversy of my own to deal with. If you continue to leave comments on topics/issues unrelated to this post, I’m going to start sending them to spam. Just so you understand.
Thanks.
There was a way to criticize or disagree with Michelle without insulting women across the board.
Fascinating. Especially the pay part, because you’re right…the only time I was ever THAT tight-lipped about what a job paid was when I had mile-wide discrepancies in what incumbants were making. The discrepancies were justified (because if one person brings in a lot more business than another, she’s gonna make more). But it’s still best not to let that out. It sucks for the lower-paid ones, though, who would be better served by knowing where they stand relative to their peers.
I love the Jessica Gottleib quote about not working cheap or silly. Rock on. It’s refreshing to see someone who’s proud to be a smart businesswoman.
I’m shocked that other people hate the noise of these. I’m always jarred when sound comes out of my computer, especially when I’m reading blogs. I just need that to be a quiet activity. Plus I never really listen to what they’re saying, because I’m busy noticing what’s in the background, where they chose to film (the bedroom floor seems popular), where they put the camera (putting it above you seems to make you look younger, which is a tip I’ve since employed myself), etc.
I totally understand why they need salaries to be confidential. But it does concern me a little bit that the feeling I got, just generally speaking, from doing this research is that the people involved in Momversation are so happy that they don’t want to do anything that might in any way jeopardize their affiliation with the project. And that includes the people who have done guest spots for no money or people who don’t even work there anymore, they do not want to say anything about it lest they not be asked to do it again. I can understand that feeling, but I find it troubling that an entity would be given that much power. I don’t see how any good can come from it.
Also, I really hope that it’s big, big numbers involved for all of them, given how loyal they are.
In other words, I don’t like the scarcity mentality. It creates problems, in my experience.
Wow! You did a lot of research on this. I haven’t thought one way or the other about Momversation primarily because I’m not that into video. I don’t have time to watch video unless someone specifically sends me a link.
I will say this, though: I do admire Deca for giving talented mothers a way to freelance and earn money for their families. Kudos to them for taking a risk and making it work even though their “views” numbers aren’t astronomical and even though those annoying commercials start each video and make me immediately click away. I need quick! Get to it.
Hi Jennifer:
I agree, I do like to see these kinds of experiments in this space, particularly when they involve a pretty large up-front investment of capital, as I’m assuming this one does. I try to balance that thought with the fact that, in terms of what advertising usually costs, this is a cheap project. So, yes, it’s a risk, but it’s also not as expensive as the mass media campaigns they are used to footing the bill for.
Definitely a compelling read, Anna. Video is an entirely different beast and I think you’re right that mom bloggers are less likely to click and also to participate (at this point – but I’m starting to see signs that may be changing). As far as Momversation goes, I should be watching every episode, three times a week because I AM in to video – but the formula gets stale quickly. During that Mom 2.0 session Rob himself said he’s shortened the videos to 4 minutes because they even feel long to him.
In terms of compensation – there’s no doubt there’s a huge range and of course that’s because Dooce pulls in most of the views, so it’s fair that she makes oodles more than the rest. They’re able to see how many clicks the embeds get on each blogger’s site, so the producers know exactly who they have to keep around.
It will be interesting to see how much longer Dooce remains part of the cast now that she’s got the HGTV deal. She’s pulled the Momversation video off her page which is going to cause the video views to plummet, so my guess is that DECA will have to find other ways (maybe through paid slots) to pull the numbers back up to keep Target happy.
Yes, I remember him saying that he had revised his original position that videos had to be under five minutes, and that he felt they had to be no longer than four now. Of course, removing the Target ad would make them even shorter, and I do think that start to them is a big turnoff.
You definitely have a much-needed perspective on this, given your background in video. I never would have been able to make sense of the numbers without your question at Mom 2.0, because those numbers just don’t mean anything to me the way that pageviews or whatever do. But, as always, you can learn a lot from numbers, if you just know how to read them.
Thanks for this great article. I personally have never even heard of Momversation, (but then, I’m not that involved in the scene). Loved your treatment of the topic, and I’ll def. be subscribing.
Hi Heather, welcome!
Anna, this is an awesome attempt at cracking the Momversation code. I had done a bunch of research on Momversation myself because I AM into video and would love to see video grow online. But I am into storytelling, not just listening to someone gab away on whatever topic of the day. Vlogging and video storytelling are two different things in my opinion and there is a lot of growth to be seen in the latter area.
I had read that Momversation was Target-sponsored and I thought right on. I love that companies would be forward-thinking enough to make a home online by sponsoring content. As Jennifer James wrote in that great article recently, she predicted sponsorships would be the wave of the future and I totally agree.
I don’t love the format because I don’t love watching talking heads. But when I do think of Momversation, the name is synonymous with Target for me. So I guess that counts for something. And I’m with you, I already live for Target so can’t do too much more to make me love them.
My question is if you don’t know these Momversation women as bloggers, do you even care to watch what they have to say? I always wonder about the millions of moms online who are NOT bloggers but still go online for information and that is an audience that I think is being missed out on in this format.
Great article.
Hi Lee: Well, I don’t know about Moms who aren’t bloggers, but I do think that a huge portion of the audience for these women (and all bloggers) are people who do not blog themselves, or don’t blog all that often. I think that’s the majority of the readership, actually, though I don’t have any way of knowing that for sure. I think that bloggers have a lot of fans who are not necessarily bloggers but still read blogs. As far as the search engine traffic kind of people, I’m really not sure if they’d be interested — but I suppose that it would depend upon whether they prefer the video format to reading the text. Because it seems like people do have clear preferences for one or the other in many cases.
Great analysis. I like when these blogging deconstructions don’t have any clear answers or takeaways because it shows it’s still an open game for others, in this case those outside the tight-lipped Momversation circle. You did a fantastic job getting info from Morhaim. I think video will be used more and more (it already is), but I’m also not certain exactly how since readers’ patience for video is awfully short. In the last two weeks, I’ve noticed three bloggers starting video series.
I still think a challenger to the Momversation model could be put together, provided the right sort of sponsor is identified. I think soon the advertisers and SM outreach people who rep products ripe for mommyblogger partnership will tire of the same old faces and always going to the same well for ad space, sponsored Tweets, etc. Plus, once you decide to do deeper than the Momversation-level bloggers, things get cheaper on their end. It would be an interesting experiment to see if a sponsor would want to attempt this replicate this model because then you’d have a case of lower-level (I know, I’m sorry, but I don’t know else to describe) bloggers getting attention *before* their blogs reach Dooce/Finslippy/Jessica Gottlieb/etc. readership levels.
Yeah, well, that’s another reason that it would be nice to discuss salaries, even in really loose terms, so that any bloggers who might be approached for this kind of thing would have some frame of reference for what to ask. It would be impossible to negotiate a deal for one’s self without knowing the market rate. But in this case, there’s only one contender in town (really, although it is changing), so they are setting the price and keeping it secret.
No smart, successful businessperson starts a business without some heavy-duty analysis of the marketplace. You can’t write a business plan without having some sense of potential revenue. You can’t get funding. You can’t do anything.
Why is this any different? And why do women beat the shit out of each other when one of them dares to treat her business like…a business? Are we all supposed to just giggle and blush and pretend our husbands pay all the bills?
Here’s the deal. I can’t even have a conference call with a brand without signing a NDA. I have conference calls ALL THE TIME. I say “no thank you” to more pitches than anyone could imagine.
When I align myself with a brand, a website, or even just other bloggers it’s thoughtful.
Oh, also, since presumably everyone here is a mommy blogger. I was up all night with a sick kid, so my bitch-o-meter is wiggling in the red zone.
My knee jerk reaction is that Anna doesn’t like Momversation and formed a post around that, which is okay, except that many folks think that this site is a great resource. I won’t say everything is inaccurate, but I can say that the bulk of this post is. I’m sad and uncomfortable that I can’t give you the multitude of reasons why.
If there was an anonymous survey about how much bloggers make, and an anonymous survey about how much vloggers make I’d happily participate in them. I believe problogger does them every now and again, but I don’t discuss salary, nor would I discuss the little details of how a show is produced. They are called “trade secrets” for a reason. For the record, my husband never discusses his salary, nor do any of his friends. We don’t do that, and maybe it’s just us, but we don’t.
I can tell you that blogging takes a lot of time before you see any returns.
I also get the feeling from reading this and Anna’s post about Heather getting the HGTV deal that she’s incredibly jealous.
As an FYI I am too, but that just means I’ll be working harder.
Okay, well, I TOTALLY get the up-all-night thing. We’ve all been there.
And I get the frustration of knowing more than you can say. I was an HR person. I’ve done all kinds of things where people thought I was the bad guy, and I couldn’t tell them the real story. It was one of the things I hated most about that line of work. It’s one of the reasons I spent so much of my time and energy arguing for transparency whenever humanly possible.
I think Momversation is putting you (and the other participants) in an unnecessarily tough spot here. The reality is that when you (you=Momversation, not you=Jessica) do something like this, in a new space, with famous-in-the-space people, folks will talk. They will wonder. So the more you shroud it with mystery, the more you give others the responsibility of telling the story. Even those with the best of intentions are going to get stuff wrong if force them to guess…and you can’t complain, because you cause that situation. Would being more forthcoming REALLY affect the success of Momversation? Probably not. If it would, something’s not right.
I’m not saying they should publish every detail; just that they shouldn’t act like they have something big and juicy to hide. That always backfires. Every time.
I don’t discuss salary either. Salary, to me, is when you are working full-time for a company and receiving a W-2 at the end of the year. That’s not what’s happening here (or if it is…well, they should hire an HR consultant to tell them why that’s the dumbest idea ever. I’ll tell them for free, actually.) I don’t think we’re talking salaries here at all; I think we’re talking revenue, for businesses. You, Dooce, Finslippy—all businesses (in fact, we all call them Dooce and Finslippy, not Alice and Heather. That’s why. They’re running businesses by those names. You’re the only one I know by a real name, which I spelled wrong earlier, because I suck.) Discussing revenue is a natural part of business. You can decline to do so (especially if you signed something saying you wouldn’t). But I don’t think you can argue that it’s uncouth for a business to be asked about it’s revenue.
If you signed and NDA and can’t talk, you can’t talk. I wouldn’t either in your shoes. But I think Momversation is making a bad business decision by handling these things with an iron fist…and I definitely think the number of people looking to peek behind the curtain is only going to increase when things are handled this way. In fact, with the numbers we’re talking about here, I’d be surprised if some sort of old media outlet doesn’t report on this sooner rather than later.
I wonder, could you quantify a shit-ton for me?
Also, Steven’s comment is not entirely unrelated. He saw my name mentioned here at the same time a nasty comment was left on my site by a person with the same name and same tone, and it set him off. He’s being protective because he knows how hard we as a group work and how little our work is appreciated by some who aren’t privy to the confidential information, as if attacking our honoring the NDA is preventing others from having a fair shake in the same arena.
Hmmm. First off, I’m with you, I don’t like video. I always feel annoyed when I’m reading a news website, like NYT or CNN, and to get a story I have to watch a video. I don’t do it. I’ve watched a grand total of one Momversation video, despite the fact that I read many of their blogs.
And then I wonder if, even though it’s incestuous, if this is a good thing for bloggers, that big corporations see there’s money to be made out here. Or if it will actually lead to a less open field for unknown bloggers, as more money and conglomeration comes to the blog world.
I don’t know. It is a cheap means of reaching their audience, compared to what they’re paying. But I’m not sure if it’s effective — I think nobody really knows this for sure, actually. But it seems like there should be more attempts at this, given the success of Momversation.
1. I’m not with Federated Media. I currently run NO ADS on my site, though that is subject to change.
2. I wanted to like you.
3. If you called my house and asked me what my husband made for a living I’d still call you tacky.
Wow. I did not see that coming at all. I thought you were the really smart one.
When companies report on earnings, is that tacky? When the Wall Street Journal reports on salaries of executives, is that tacky? When someone wants to start a business and they research the market first, is that tacky?
These are normal business activities. This is how it works in business. One of the reason woman have been underpaid for decades is because they don’t want to talk about money (I know, because I have spent my career telling companies how much they should pay people). People who think talking about revenue is “tacky” are easy to take advantage of.
This only reinforces the insular, secretive nature of Momversation and its arrangement with its bloggers. It’s like back at BlogHer in ’07 when everyone was all, “Oh, but you MUST monetize to be taken seriously” but then they’d get cagey and refuse to answer a single question about what they charge for ad rates.
When I hear the word “tacky” I instantly think of the attitude that female bloggers are supposed to be in it for the community, the sharing but never for money. When it comes from someone who’s actually making money its disingenuous but also just plain stingy. Most bloggers are simply awed by your success, Jessica, and are just trying to figure out how to make it happen for themselves. No one’s disparaging what you’ve worked for.
I expected this reaction, though not from Jessica specifically. But fair enough, her opinion is just as valid as anyone else’s. I think it’s only “tacky” because nobody has done it before. If you’re researching how much an investment banker makes, you can get ballpark figures through tons of different sources, that baseline info is out there, and it’s arguably the ONLY reason many people go into that particular profession. But with blogging, the information is not out there yet, so somebody has to find it out.
I suppose, when you’re among the only group doing something new like this, any sort of critical attention feels intrusive and grubby. I am surprised that there’s no spirit of bloggerly courtesy. I don’t expect the Momversation bloggers to lay it all out in your combox, but why was it so hard to get info at the conference? Is this business already that cutthroat?
It makes people very uncomfortable. Not everyone. But many. And those people are very uncomfortable with me at present. I am losing followers on Twitter as we speak. As far as bloggerly courtesy, I am not sure that all of the people consider me a member of the community, simply because I’m writing about this topic. I am hoping that will change, as it is my goal to give a balanced view, but not everyone will agree on what that means, I suppose.
I really, really hope Jessica comes back and expands on her comments. I’ve read the post over repeatedly, I’ve pondered all afternoon…and I still truly don’t understand her reaction. Truly, sincerely…I want to understand why she was upset by it.
There are other bloggers from whom I would totally expect such a response…but not this one. I’ll be very disappointed if she doesn’t come back and explain further.
Me too. And I’ve been sitting here trying to come up with a comment that makes sense, but Kerry, you already said what I wanted to say: How many tweets TODAY did I read about how women are so vastly underpaid online? Three. Yes, folks, THREE. And that was in the last four hours or so, and I wasn’t even on Twitter much today at all.
As Anna points out, there is no range of normal to draw from — no one talks about it, so no one knows what to expect. One of the tweets was from Finslippy, who is a Momversation blogger (vlogger? oh, barf). Now, I adore and worship Alice (I really do), but I can’t help but wonder if Alice’s version of insultingly low isn’t someone else’s acceptably high? Why? Because NO ONE TALKS ABOUT IT. What can a highly sought-after blogger expect vs. a newbie who’s in the throes of her first deal? What traffic (other than the vague BS from Federated Media) warrants you a higher salary?
I fail to see how this is tacky, because it’s a new model, and one that we can probably expect to see replicated — and if we don’t get a range now, how will we, as women, know what to expect? Other than expecting to get a pole rammed up our asses over and over again, because we’re too chicken to talk about it?
I don’t know, Jessica. I appreciated that you talked to Anna, but that comment bugs me.
I said the original panelists, not the current ones. But what, specifically, are you objecting to here? Did I misquote you? I will happily edit if so.
I think this is so interesting. I’m not a huge fan of video myself, but the Momversation model has always been intriguing from a business standpoint. I think there’s a future for this sort of model, but I’m not sure it’s exactly there yet. And I’m not sure that it’s with the “traditional” mommyblogging community–I almost think it will take a completely different audience to make it really take off. But I have nothing to base that on, just a sort of gut reaction.
Of course, it will be interesting to see what happens with Dooce now that the HGTV deal is in place, and how that impacts Momversation in the future–not that some of the other panelists don’t have a following, but you know, Dooce and all.
Yeah, I wonder if she has to pare down her appearances or something . . . I guess we’ll find out.
I don’t think it’s tacky to ask Jessica. Long ago when I was graduating with my business degree and looking for a job in my field, I needed to know what was fair pay and what wasn’t. I would think it was especially important since this vlogging is a new industry. I mean really who would have ever imagined ,being paid to blog or gab on a video. How can anyone know what the industry standards for pay are?
When everyone is so tight lipped and gets all prickly about things it just proves to me that this is a bunch of sharks in a pool, not the lovey dovey “Mommy’s” they portray to be. It’s not women for women, it’s every man for him or herself.
I honestly don’t think this particular article would be considered objectionable. I realize some things are more sacred than others, but I had no idea that delving into the statistics of Momversation be one of them. I mean, of all things!
What I find interesting:
That the BlogHer model didn’t last long. (Or was it meant to only be a small series and then go away? I forgot what they called it, but it had Lindsay from Suburban Turmoil, Chris from Notes from the Trenches and Erin from Queen of Spain. It seemed more like a TV show, though.)
That people would push you (Anna) away for asking questions and trying to find out about this new presence in the mommy blogging community. It seems that they want it to stay strictly in a certain circle of bloggers. However, there have been complaints that because some (lesser known) bloggers take a low amount on ad space or for writing for a product that brings the numbers down for other bloggers who have made this their career. Well, if the bar is kept very quiet how does anyone know what is too low or what would be a better amount to ask for?
As for the Momversation, I have watched a few, but only the ones that might interest me. Some bloggers I just don’t care to know their opinion, hence why I don’t read their blogs, or others are hard to watch on video. I have rarely gone to the actual site to continue the Momversation, because, quite frankly, a lot of the topics have been discussed to death. I could careless who breastfeeds their baby and who doesn’t and the reasons behind it. If you are a blogger I read, then I know the answer to that question already.
That’s a good point, I’m not sure what happened with the BlogHer thing. I didn’t watch it, but maybe they were just planning on doing it for a short while.
You are allowed to criticize in certain ways in this community, constructive or hyperbolic, it doesn’t matter — only the target matters. It is OK to ask questions of somebody doing a product review or working with a brand in a very public way (like on Twitter or the Eleven Moms), but it is not OK to ask about other forms of monetization. I saw this at Mom 2.0 in action.
Fascinating stuff – I’ve wondered what the deal with Momversation is. One the one hand, it’s interesting to see several bloggers talking about the same subject but I’ve found it ultimately disappointing because there is no depth/insight to any of the conversations. Length is part of the problem – the videos are very short – but I also think editing and probably some self-censorship come into play to create a video that appeals to a broad audience.
This is undoubtedly in both the blogger and Momversation/Target’s best interest but it creates such a banal conversation that in the end, what was the point? Each episode plays out as 1) Parenting Problem/Controversy 2) Panelists kinda sorta say what their opinion is….but mostly just restate the topic 3) The question is put forth to viewers and 4) Momversation gets a handful of comments from viewers. I just don’t see that as a sustainable model long term – I certainly lost interest quickly and I don’t think they are cultivating the “tribes” they might have imagined.
Well, actually, they’ve said that the reason the videos are short is that people just won’t watch longer videos online. They have found that the videos that go viral on You Tube are short, because that is the attention span the person watching videos online has.
Oh I get that the length of video is due to the attention span of viewers – I guess I just don’t see how this platform will result in a dedicated community for the site. Especially given that the bloggers tend to write about the subjects in depth on their site – not on the Momversation site. Is there really a long term strategy monetizing strategy there? It’s just a commercial with commercials….I don’t get it.
I’m absolutely fascinated with this series, especially this post… I’m not a mommyblogger and only follow a few (dooce, mainly), and there’s this almost driving-by-a-car-accident feeling to this whole mommyblogging-for-profit world. I can’t imagine putting my family’s life out there for everyone to criticize and make money – comfortable money, too – while doing it. And the layers and politics involved in it all, too… just wow.
Thank you, Anna, for delving into this world. I’m looking very forward to what you’ve got in store next
Well, once people start getting annoyed with each other, there’s definitely a car accident factor to it, that’s for sure.
Don’t know if you came across this in your research:
http://www.haworthmedia.com/casestudies/targetmv.pdf
but it looked interesting. One thing caught my eye:
“synchronously foster Target’s message in such a way that the boundaries separating advertising and content fade; ultimately overshadowed by genuine experience”
I watched the Valentine’s Day segment with Dooce and didn’t feel like genuine experience overshadowed the insipid content or the blatant target ad at the beginning. But I’m kind of a crusty old curmudgeon.
No. Interesting. I am going to take a look at that. I guess they are putting stuff out like that, assuming that mommybloggers won’t look at it? Or, at the very least, that we won’t talk about it? I guess they DO have good reason to believe that.
You should start something like GlassDoor for bloggers. Imagine the pursed lips!
PS: Can’t get uptight over salary questions when mine is published online for everyone to gawk at (courtesy Uncle Sam).
You know who is tacky? Barack Obama. Imagine the audacity he must have to publish your salary online. I wanted to like him, too.
I don’t get why anyone would feel anger or disapproval towards you for asking this question. WSJ asks bloggers what they make all the time. Deflecting is as simple as saying “My contract doesn’t let me tell you that.”
I love your personal finance section, Anna. You’re like your own mini-WSJ up in here.
Thanks, Monkey. I think people are not used to having these questions asked, and so they assume that this means they are questions that should not be asked at all. I disagree.
Not to belabor this point, but what I’m concerned about is the talking-out-of-two-sides-of-one’s-mouth angle here. All I seem to read from bloggers, especially bloggers who monetize their sites, is that it’s a legitimate job, that they’re a media force to be taken seriously and that they possess the same credibility as “traditional” professional writers such as journalists. And then they’ll tack a lolcatism or FAIL! or OMG YOU GUYS ALLCAPS on the end of their posts or whatever, but that’s another pet peeve I have altogether that has nothing to do with the point I want to make (that I obviously can’t stop bringing up…maybe if New York Times put lolcatisms and OMG YOU GUYS in the middle of stories the paper would sell better? That’s the day we reach an Idiocracy).
The point I want to make is that a goodly portion of professional bloggers whine about being given the same status as professional journalists but get semi-hysterical and offended when another blogger tries to engage in “investigative journalism” or work /act like a traditional media entity. I mean, what is it? Is this a sorority sleepover party with besties and losers not invited to the pool (because Janice is obviously like a lesbian), or are is this a group of professionals? Because I can’t imagine taking b*tchface over someone simply asking me about my salary (even if it weren’t published online). If I were legally prohibited from declaring it, I would never give it up. But I wouldn’t lob “tacky” accusations.
Oh yeah, and I bet if you actually had the title of “Journalist at Newspaper X” and you were writing a story on this, you wouldn’t have been given the same amount of disapproval. Which is all to say that certain bloggers want me, the average blog reader, to think that professional bloggers are equivalent to professional journalists, but that they don’t want to treat their peers in the same way.
I’ve heard of Momversation before (although, to be honest, it was in the context of making fun of it) but I’ve never sat through one of the videos. Right now on the site, the “Best of Momversation” thing features these fascinating topics: did you take your husband’s name, childfree by choice, circumcision, and vaccinations. As I wrote that list of topics, I actually died of boredom. These are all issues people generally have their minds made up about and about which nobody finds your opinion as interesting as you do.
Also, I’d rather get a tiny image of Mike Tyson tattooed on my face than watch videos on the internet, unless they’re of miniature pinschers doing cute shit.
The whole thing kind of makes me like Target a little less, but I’m a curmudgeon who hates any sort of advertising/marketing more than is normal.
LOL. Welcome home, Tracy.
Interesting look at this. I want to like Momversations, and think a video site could work. I’m not in the mommy-of-young-ones demo, so their topics don’t interest me–but I don’t think the topics matter. It’s built on the star-stalking theory which is what I think drives a lot of blog traffic. So I’m cruising along the web, looking for content via links, and BLAM, hello Rebecca, you are awesome, how do I not know about you, I want to spend the next few days finding all about you and then will add you to my daily route. Momversation as a destination for learning about Rebecca, or whoever the reader/viewer is interested in, makes sense. Momversation as a source of topical info does not for all the reasons listed–and I can’t remember a time when a Momversation actually created conversation on Twitter or blogs. Although I was first annoyed by them because their BlogHer ads made page loading impossible for awhile back there, I was impressed with their (though I thought it was wholly Target, so what do I know) knowledge about how fans seek out info about the bloggers they like enough to suffer through a long video commercial. Thanks for the info.
I went over to check the site out as I hadn’t been there in maybe a year. Current Versation only has 12 comments after being up since the 28th, about Palin and the use of the R Word. Plenty controversial, little discussion.
I think that the reason the Momversation site itself doesn’t get as many comments is many of the panelists post videos on their sites, and the discussion is there. There was a video on Heather Spohr’s site that got over 300 comments.
Just a thought.
That’s a good point. Reinforces my thinking that the appeal is about watching the blogger you like (and getting to see her thoughts and her bookshelves) more so than be interested in the “show” of Momversation.
Look at this promo for a vlogging seminar: http://www.vlogamama.com/
Does it make you want to attend? What info will she be imparting? I have a feeling anyone who goes will feel they have wasted time and money, but yeah, I like getting a look inside someone’s house with their kids and cats crawling around, makeup off, pile of laundry in the background.
Deb, I agree, I think the people who like Momversation are hardcore fans of the bloggers in question. People who want to see what Dooce is up to, what she sounds like when she talks, all of that. I think those are the people they’re reaching with it. So, given that, they have to get the people who are the closest to rockstars in this community, and in some cases, they’ve succeeded. In others, I’m not sure.
Anna, are you saying you think some of the Momversation panelists don’t belong there? Do tell!
Anna…your investigation regarding MOMVERSATIONS was about a mile wide and an inch deep. It appears to me that you came at your “investigation” with a point of view. Video in blogs may not be your cup of tea but we have to face the fact that it’s a multi media world. You would have appeared more objective had you answered every question asked with your own micro information regarding entangled compensations. CNN is a multi corporate sponsored news site. As is MSNBC. The Today Show is a corporate sponsored broadcast social media production. If you take a penny of sponsorship then you are subject to the question of compensation effect. The only way to avoid that is for media outlets to be government sponsored or to be financially independent and I wouldn’t want those two elements in control. We all have to be responsible for evaluating the source of what we read or view. I really wouldn’t want someone else doing it for me.
Kirk, you’re absolutely right. I investigated with a point of view. This is because I have critical thinking skills. If you believe any kind of media is truly objective, then it must be wonderful to live in your world. Please save a tinfoil hat for me.
As for the second part of your question, I don’t even know what you are talking about. I’m not worried about “entangled compensations.” I wanted to find out a ballpark number for what you get for doing a video show like this. We don’t know exactly how much Angelina Jolie gets per picture, but we can guess that it’s like $12 million, based on some facts and some educated guesses by people in the industry. That’s what I want. A rough guide.
ELIZ,
I may not be able figure out how keep my house clean or put dinner on the table without an ordeal, but I know how to generate revenue from my workshops and seminars. Mompreneurs or Mom bloggers take my workshops to learn how to incorporate video to their sites. If you don’t know me, then yes, Vlogamama looks corny, but it’s really quite successful. I invite you to enroll.
The difference, Kirk, is that the salaries of those who work for CNN, NBC et. al have been published. Someone going into broadcasting at a major TV network knows their worth vis a vis the salary ranges paid in the field. No one interviewing at the Today show will be accused by their colleagues of bringing down the salary average because they accepted too little.
I’m unsure what your point is regarding government ownership of media, though.
Eliz…Can you please copy me the OFFICIAL CNN or NBC site that lists their employees salary? There is a lot of speculation out there and that may be what you’re referring to. Private corporations or individuals don’t have to reveal their salaries. If an employee feels they can make more money somewhere else then they are free to leave and go to the other employer or start up their entity. It’s all about freedom of choice. My point regarding government ownership of media is that one proposal currently being bantered about is that the government should take over the internet to avoid the influence of corporate entities. Trusting the government to regulate freedom of expression is a grave error.
I can’t reply to Mindy’s remark because it’s exceeded the nesting limit (I think that’s what it’s called), but:
The issue isn’t honoring the NDA. You’d be an idiot if you didn’t. I think everyone agrees there, although I haven’t done a survey or anything
The issue (a) is that people are acting like it’s rude to ask, when really, it’s a normal business practice to ask, and (b) that Momversation is putting you in this position to begin with. Too much secrecy pretty much always looks bad.
I don’t think it’s rude to ask; how else are you going to find out? However, if I decline to answer, I’m not “hiding” nor is anyone “shrouding” anything in mystery, nor “too chicken” to talk about it. We are declining to comment. Why the pejorative words? Why the feeling of personal affront? It’s business. Take the answer and move on. Why complain that you didn’t get what you wanted?
For the record: Momversation did not put us in any kind of position. I was contacted for this article before I knew that anyone else had been contacted so I hadn’t been advised or warned or in any way “handled.” My standard response is, I can’t talk about it, please do not include any remarks from me, I’ve signed an NDA. It’s not out of fear, either, it’s out of integrity.
So, then, after you responded you then found out that everyone else had been contacted? Are you saying that then you were advised on how to respond, or “handled,” whereas some people were able to be handled before they responded?
Why do you assume we had to be handled? We are professionals, and all signed the same NDA. This is getting silly.
I don’t assume you needed to be handled, it was just that your initial comment suggested that the fact that you didn’t know other people had been contacted somehow influenced your response. I guess it didn’t — I was just curious.
But to answer your question, I absolutely believe that professionals are handled all the time. Even professional people have PR people who make a business of how to put the best spin on things. I was simply asking if that’s what Momversation wanted to do or something. It’s not a reflection on your professionalism.
Very interesting. You did a boat load of work Jennifer. Thanks for an intelligent and informative piece. Someday, I’ll have to break your video shell and get you on video!
Thanks, but who is Jennifer?
Next Comments →
Comments on this entry are closed.