Wired News has a post titled Can Bloggers Strike It Rich? today that is getting a bit of attention from bloggers around the web.
To be honest I’m not sure why – the article doesn’t contain anything that I’ve not seen written many times in other articles – in fact the first time I saw it I thought it was an old article because it reminded me so much of something I’d read months ago.
Maybe its time for some of these articles to find some fresh stories and/or a new angle?
How would you write an article on the topic of Blogging for Dollars that had a fresh spin on things? If you feel inspired to do so write one and let me know about it – I’d love to give it some attention by linking up.
I’d say you’re correct Darren. The article is generally a re-hash of what we do (and don’t) know about certain blogs and their business model. I think the reason that these stories continue to get re-written is because the business model of blogging is relatively new. It’s also evolving all of the time.
Perhaps another way to spin this type of story is a combination of the personal and network blog business models we know that work, along with some of the strategies that haven’t worked. [Disclosure: I blog for WIN]. It’s one thing tto hear the success stories, but often people can learn more through the not-so-successful strategies. People don’t often focus the “blogging for dollars” posts on the painful lessons learned along the journey.
People can learn as much from failure as from success — and most of the articles focus on the Nick Dentons, the Jason Calacanises (Calacani?) that are pulling in a nice sum through blogging. Very few focus on the people that are not succeeding — and those people number in the majority.
So, in other words, I agree with Kevin. ;)
Darren,
I have written about blogging for money from a different angle
In my recent article posted yesterday:
http://www.medsim.net/blog/blog.php?id=26
I refer to the business model of weblog networks and how they threaten to destabilize the blogosphere.
The theory I use is based on another content based publishing genre from the late 1990s: video game networks.
With all of the weblog networks popping up I see the direction of blogging heading towards the same downward spiral as gaming related content based networks have travelled. Anyways, give it a read and let me know what you think.. is it a “different angle”?
How about a spinoff of the same article?
http://www.onebyonemedia.com/b4h/archives/000094.php
Self promotion is allowed right?
There are so many different ways to write about something, whatever the subject and given the number of blogs there are out there now about making money it’s going to be impossible to come up with something new.
So, basically, it’s the survival of the fittest, content is king, and never put all your eggs in one basket.
Also, when the game networks were going crazy wasn’t that the time of the dot-com bubble? People with too much money throwing it around to people who knew nothing about economics. Is the current enviornment similar to that?
Your comment ” the article doesn’t contain anything that I’ve not seen written many times in other articles ” is very true not just for this article but for most “Make Big Bucks from blogging” articles appearing in Mainstream Media. This falls along the line of the email conversation we had about Ms. Kim Komando’s article
Hmmm? This article was actually just a report, it didn’t offer any advice, so it didn’t answer the question “Can bloggers strike it rich?”
Having recently had the honor of some time with The ProBlogger, I have some new perspectives on making money from blogging which I will write up in time, and hopefully provide little bit of an answer to the question.
Truth is though, the only people who can answer the question, are those who have done it – The Manolos, The ProBloggers etc.
Dr. Del, that was SO depressing. And I actually found the article in the subject of this entry was half depressing (half inspirational).
Hmm. Ok, the Dr. Del article was depressing, but I thought the other article was something else. When I read this, I was out of it, I guess.