Hmmm.... I'm a little conflicted, but I think base pay + bonus is probably the most reasonable.

The rampant capitalist side of me says, "reward them how the market rewards the site!" Which would be heavily slanted towards pageviews. But - as you state - that can really hurt long-term viability at the expense of short-term sensationalism, with these sites turning into the National Enquirer of Games.

But I think the bonus - if it doesn't overpower the base pay - might be reasonable.

Another interesting point: Who chooses the headlines? Pageviews are most often based on what the headline says, not the actual text of the article. Otherwise, people will just glance over it in their RSS feed reader or their social bookmarking page, and move on.

Interesting...I mean, I knew they were paid blogs but didn't know how. Definite removal of the state-church boundary really puts it in the clear; stuff which gets linked to makes me money, I'll post more of it. It's pretty cause-effect, right?

I wonder if they'll fall into the trap of posting inane stuff a lot more, rather then anything meaningful - it's not like one feature a month/editor is real original content (none of the linked blogs really do reviews/features often).

And who says any bloggers should be paid anyhow? What makes them "bloggers" (urg) and not "employee's" or "journalists"? Where is the line between these sites and IGN/Gamespot/etc, who likely also pay flat rate money and bonuses? (although not likely per view ones). Don't they get removed from the "blogging" angle and put into the "columist" or "news reporter" categories?

Anyway, although I don't often read Kotaku or Joystiq (for one; Kotaku make my eyes hurt :( ), their actions do however indirectly affect me; when they post something so banal or "controversial", or downright lies or guesswork, which has happened before - then gets replicated everywhere else without any sourcing or actual, well, journalism. Makes it all look a bit foolish, really. (Remember, of course, Gizmodo acted stupidly at CES, and Kotaku is under the same leadership. Great fun >:( )

Even for entertainment industry journalism, surely getting paid to do it would rise the quality and so the pay-per-view bonus wouldn't be needed? Oh well, it's their site, not mine, I just hope it doesn't anything negatively.

And to have proper critical entertainment journalism is tough, and is something none of the blogs you mention does (especially regarding the fact they never review anything or report anything first hand often, and often rely heavily on PR to get stories so never post much critical stuff), so the question might be not that this possibly breaks anything, but if it has anything to break in their existing ecosystems.

For other areas (ie; non-blogs), it depends, of course if this style would affect anything - a bit too big a question to discuss here.

In the case of these blogs, I think you're right: we'll certainly end up with more sensationalist posts! Those are the posts that hit the best return of page views vs. time spent writing...

There's certainly room for quality content (see AiGameDev.com :-) but that takes much more time and builds page views over a much longer period of time. That probably won't fit with Kotaku's business strategy anyway.

Alex
AiGameDev.com

Wow, this is like, such a classy post. Really, truly it is. Doesn't approach bad form in the least.

I'm sure your peers in the games writing community really appreciate it. I know I do.

Do you know why Destructoid pays less? Because we're small. Nothing would make me happier than to give my staff the world, but I can't, because I run Destructoid out of my home; that's why. Kotaku = Gawker. Joystiq = AOL. Destructoid = some guy in Miami with a tiny bank loan. Cut me some slack.

If you have any bright ideas on how I could do a better job of running my business without selling it to VC who can burn through a pile of money and where editorial is run at a gaping loss in the hopes of "flipping it" to a larger media company. Is that how you would run Destructoid? That's what would happen if I fail, but it doesn't have to be that way, and editors don't have to be treated like pistons in an engine cranking out a quota. I think all of us got away from 9-5 jobs to stop doing that and I'd like to keep it that way.

PS. I obviously know where you got your source and I am utterly disappointed in both of you. Why don't you outline the pay structure for the world and see how your management likes it.

That last line should have been "your pay structure" instead of "the".

How do you get paid Simon?

I guess the next step for a Kotaku writer desperate for cash would be trolling digg.com under various aliases promoting their articles. This system is ripe for exploitation.

Hey Destructoid folks - I'm a bit mystified why you are mad. As I discussed in the post, how much you get paid doesn't govern the quality of the site.

FWIW, here's the pay structure for the sites I run - for Gamasutra, we have mainly full-time salaried staff (including me), but we have at least one fixed-$-per-month writer (that is to say, $x to write for us during that month for x hours a day, no post minimum or maximum).

For our subsites like WorldsInMotion, IndieGames, GamesOnDeck, we have fixed-$-per-month stipends for each site. We don't do any traffic bonuses right now, but that isn't to say we wouldn't consider it in the future.

I think there's just a difference in approaches here, and it's one different writers will approach different ways. I know for myself the idea of writing explicitly for single-hits isn't super-keen for me. I like to think that in both commercial and game writing I get paid for delivering what my EDITOR or my CLIENT wants, because they are the ones who's job it is to understand the market and the audience and help me as a writer deliver the goods.

I do understand that when you cut the line lower and lower the rules have to change. In my case, I have two rates: what it's worth, and free. If people ask me to write something for $15 a post, I can't do it. But writing for free is a possibility and writing for an actual useful wordrate is as well.

The tradeoff here is interesting, and one I look forward to observing and noodling over, but for myself, I'd rather stick to the Free/What it's Worth angle.

The Destructoid people tend to go from Narf! to Rage! whenever anything is said about them, outside of they themselves saying it. There is wanting to respond to questions, and then there is going overboard. Someone knocked them for - allegedly - milking Digg, which caused about 50 of them (how many of them are there, anyway?) to flip out.

I wouldn't worry too much about them. It's nice they like what they do, but if I see all the headlines on GameTab turn into their style ([often] hyperbole to a ridiculous degree), then I think my head will explode.

There are very few blogs worthwhile, as it is. The blog echo effect is deafening. The few sites that do come out with some solid, original content are then simply linked and relinked until there's no point in reading the rest. But I do so love the "What do you guys think?" at the end of a ridiculously pointless post, often laced with posturing and failed sarcasm.

The cult of personality effect is poisonous, with anything interesting often being lost among the authors' inability to form a post that simply informs. It's the problem with the twenty-four hour news channels - sometimes it's best to say nothing when there isn't anything to be said.

Julian: If you don't like blogs, you don't like blogs, but don't jumble them up with news sites the way you have.

You complain about the blog "echo" effect, how all blogs report the same news, while also complaining about editorial opinions. That's the very point of a blog -- the commentate. People go to their favorite blogs not for the news, but to see what their favorite writers have to say about the news.

And criticism of blogging wasn't even my problem here. I just think it was rather low to go talking about and criticizing the pay structures of other Web sites. I wouldn't post on Dtoid about how GameSetWatch pays its writers.

I wouldn't post on Dtoid about how GameSetWatch pays its writers.

And I would say that you wouldn't because your audience wouldn't care.

I don't see what's so bad about transparency anyway? Does commenting about a business' revenue stream count as "low"? I think it's interesting and worthy of discussion. It's not like simon posted someone's annual income and social insurance number.

Julian's post is covered somewhat, but I was the poster afterwards that is being responded to in the second paragraph on. Commenting on news isn't the same as jumping up and down and pointing at yourself. A blog has more than just one function - there are plenty that actually break stories and report - so I wouldn't say the point is for the writers to revel in their narcissism.

I know a lot of people enjoy the site, so that's something. I think my response is more of a knee-jerk reaction to the chest-thumping I see from there and the self-aggrandizing behavior. Pride is pride, I suppose.

And there is nothing wrong with talking about pay scales. Most businesses openly discuss theirs all the time, whether in financial statements, to hire, or as a counterpoint. Not being able to pay as much as others isn't an insult - as you said, AOL is AOL. I'd say it's actually quite something to build something from nothing, regardless of the wages involved. It isn't low, it's simply the state of the market (as such).

As long as The Escapist doesn't switch over to click-whoring I'm okay.

Echoing Simon's puzzlement here: what are the Destructoid guys getting upset about?

Yeah, quite odd that Destructoid guys are getting riled.

If we can't discuss this here, where else can we? It's a topic of great interest especially since the media mentioned is covering the same people who read this blog (developers of games).

hebes says a few choice things on why it should be openly discussed too. :)

And Simon's post was more neutral then anything (he posts pro and con views!), and actually denounces a few potential comments on it as unfounded too.

While we're all being transparent, yeah, I did, Niero. I'm a hired writer; talking about what I used to make is simple business sense. And since we are discussing a valid issue here -- will hit-driven writing lead to pointless sensationalism? -- I didn't see the harm. There's no personal grudge at work here.

Mr. Sterling, I must respectfully disagree with your position -- I think Hebes hit the nail on the head with the "cult of personality" comments. Like you, I don't want to be a robotic reporter ("robotic" is certainly not something I've ever heard applied to my work), but I do think the word "blog" retains that vaguely negative connotation because of your type of approach and your view of the function of game writing.

In my opinion, the objective of a game journalist should be to inform the audience, address the industry fairly, provoke thought and hopefully, ideally, contribute something, not to accumulate a pedestal for oneself at any cost. Something you do at the cost of your dignity can have a wide-ranging effect on the industry's dignity. It isn't only about you as a "favorite writer."

On Simon's original question -- it's absolutely a concern if journalists are earning their money by whipping the community into a lather. But the broader problem is that there are writers who will do this not because of money, but because they want attention, or desire very deeply to be entertaining.

If we weren't engaging as writers, we wouldn't be doing our jobs. But last time I checked, providing the entertainment is what the games are for. It's not about us. It's about the damn games, simple as that.

I support addressing difficult issues like these, even if they make you guys angry. Again, nothing personal. Hit-driven, advertiser-driven, either way, our motivations are important to the integrity of what we do.

Hrmm... I don't recall dissing blogs. I write my own, I write for others. I actually think many, many blogs are flat out better journalism than "professional" sites (Bill Harris, I'm talking about you sir). My point was simply that *personally* I'd rather write for free and maintain ownership of my work in every way (which many places on the web, like my homebase at Gamers with Jobs, do) than get a "token" payment which is obviously not paying anyone's rent.

I don't think I'm a fan of the flat "pay for each post" model, which encourages saying ANYTHING just to get another spot on the page, or the "pay per hit" model, which encourages sensationalism. I *am* a fan of having an editor to please.

First of all, its hypocritical to say its your duty to talk about the "damn games" when this article couldn't be further from that.

Why I'm personally upset: I don't think any business owner wants ANY of his processes outlined on a tabloid, so while you're busy minding your integrity try constraining yourself from explaining the total details of how my organization is run on your next non-games-related un-entertaining post next time you have a slow news day.

Niero, Destructoid is a really admirable blog and I read it on a regular basis, but I think you're way off track in your comments. Simon clearly wasn't criticizing you. We all know Destructoid is a magnitude smaller than the other sites mentioned, and that's fine. Your writers do a decent job anyway... where's the insult?

"I don't think any business owner wants ANY of his processes outlined on a tabloid"

That may be true, but you should nevertheless expect it from business in the real world. People want to know how business are run, especially when those business are close to their own personal concerns. You think people don't discuss how newspapers pay their staff? It seems pretty weird that you're belly-aching in public over such a minor slight. What companies hiring policies *don't* come under outside scrutiny? The only time it seems worth keeping this stuff private is when you've got something to hide, which hopefully you haven't.

It's truly bizarre how a game blog site can be up in arms about being reported about how people are paid, which is commonly done in other industries (including the game industry...), where that blog is in fact a game industry blog. I don't see anyone posting how your site is run apart from that you pay per post with bonuses from big link sites, which it seems every other example does.

All writers are responsible for maintaining a site's reputation and delivering consistent traffic. Just rewarding the ones who cause spikes seems short-sighted and counter-productive. It should be looked at over some period of time; all writers should be equally compensated if traffic reaches certain milestones, for example.

Sometimes, it's less-trafficked articles that might improve a site's reputation, for example. Yet you're essentially penalizing your writers for doing these kinds of pieces, since the ones that get the most traffic will typically be the ones that bring "teh funnay." Or have boobs.

And man, Destructoid people have thin skins. Which is kinda ironic considering the tone of the site.

The Destructoid guys should be thankful Simon included them in the ranks alongside gaming blogs that have class and decency.

Them criticizing GSW for a post that has a degree of separation from games themselves is certainly the pot calling the kettle non-games-related and unentertaining.

I'm just going to shake my head sadly at everything that's going on in this comment section.

Though, Simon, excellent work as usual. I'd buy you a scone if it wasn't for this ocean.

As both a gamer who reads these sites and runs my own, I think this is going to be an important thing to look at moving forward.

This is a very well-written article. If this is what I can expect, I'll be a regular visitor here. :)

... and NOW she tells me that you don't even live in England! I completely rescend my scone offer on grounds of the lies that I apparently made up all by myself.

Also, I'd just like to say, that both the Destructoid people and the people bashing them are being utterly childish.

If you don't like Destructoid's content, great, don't read it. Normally I'd say they don't come to your website and insult you, but this sorta ruins my argument in that direction, huh?

Jim, Niero, c'mon guys; haven't you learned not to argue on the Internet yet? You know that your audience is different from that of those other sites and it's shockingly large, despite the smaller revenue the site brings in as a non-corporate entity.

Be happy with what you have going on and don't be so damn defensive when people mention public knowledge.

Trust me, nothing in the above post is a secret to anyone writing in the industry.

If it's that much of an ego shot to you guys then look to change it. The "independent" label has certain advantages and disadvantages -- namely, you make less cash, but you get away with whatever you want.

Be happy with your freedom and stop worrying about what other people think, otherwise you may as well just be a corporate holding like Joystiq.

And now that I've been forced to break my moratorium on arguing over the Internet I'm going to go back to flying around in the Wired Zeppelin. Kohler bought me these really awesome aviator goggles and we're going to fly low over Lake Michigan to see if we can catch any fish with our bare hands!

I'm just glad that Simon is here to tell us this stuff. He does a superb job of reporting on the video game media that, in my opinion, is unsurpassed by anyone else.

See you at GDC.

Hi! I'm new to the fold here. I run GamingAngels.com which has been up for a little over a year. We aren't making any money, but that's not the reason why I launched the site. Lately I have been struggling with how to pay/reward my writers (who are all awesome). So articles like this are very interesting from my point of view.

Since we're a community and not a blogs only site, I've been leaning toward a salary-type payment. To base payment on hits seems like asking for trouble and abusive behavior.

I think an important aspect for us to look at is how to bring video game journalism to a higher standard. That doesn't mean take out the fun. I personally love the voice of the Destructoid site. It doesn't work on my site, but it completely works there. In the past few days, I have read many sites that just put up rumors as news, just to get the hits. Never confirming anything. To me that is a bigger issue facing gaming journalism than amount paid.

Sorry if my novice voice isn't as qualified as you all, but thanks for reading!

"In the past few days, I have read many sites that just put up rumors as news, just to get the hits. Never confirming anything. To me that is a bigger issue facing gaming journalism than amount paid."

Trina is now officially the only one of you I like. Excellent point new girl!

Hey guys,

Speaking as someone who holds down 9-5 while NOT getting paid to write about games, it's hard for me to take much of this discussion seriously.

Just thought I'd weigh in with my zero cents!

(LOL)

Forgive my nonsensical ramblings, I am just spitting out things as they come to my brain.

As someone who runs a teensy website with a small cadre of writers I can relate to Niero being upset. He works incredibly hard to make Dtoid what it is, and he certainly deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Kotaku and Joystiq. You can't blame the guy for being hurt that a couple ex-editors basically went behind his back to report something that he would have rather not be public. That said, transparency is really important in business. I don't pay my writers, but eventually I'd like to. It's nice to see business models that are industry standards to base my own future pay scale on.

Trina also has a good point. I am tired of trying to keep up with the echo chamber. If you subscribe to any of these big gaming blogs, you're going to get the most up to date news no matter what. They overlap a TON, and it's just not worthwhile for a smaller site like mine to try and keep up. I don't have the time or the resources. I barely get game product for review from companies as it is.

Last week when the NPD numbers were released, Kotaku posted no less than 15 articles disseminating the chart. That's 15 separate articles based on ONE CHART. I don't want to read that insane fire hose of content, and I feel a bit miffed that those writers got paid to basically repost a chart 15 times. There needs to be a change in game journalism before we all turn into Fox News. Partly it's the cult of personality effect, but mainly it's the echo chamber.

Note to people coming to this late - Niero's final 'See you at GDC' comment is not directed at me, as I've clarified with him via email - email in which we are constructively discussing things, hurray. (Drama!)

Simon, remember to keep it clean and come out boxing!

In the interest of full disclosure, for my recent GameSetWatch writings I was remunerated with seventeen boxes of "Cookie Crisp" breakfast cereal (regular chocolate chip and peanut butter varieties), which is very much delicious and not available here in Germany.

I hope Simon will not fire me for revealing this, as I am down to the last box.

"Sie können keine Cookies für das Frühstück, aber es gibt Cookie Crisp!"

I'm not even going to get involved with the mudslinging above, but I wanted to point out another downside to the flaw of rewarding via pay-per-click: It encourages the ever-so-irritating click-through link to get the last paragraph of a story.

If this was done properly, with actual content behind the link, it'd be fine.
Oftentimes though it's a single sentence that doesn't add to the meat of the story. Consumerist is VERY guilty of this, and often suggests there is advice or a resolution behind the link when in fact there is just a closing sentence.

Gawker blogs are by no means the only ones guilty of this, just seemingly the most organized and gregarious about it.

It's a little pityful that I ran into this post a little late but after a little over a year, Destructoid did one hell of off a home in Miami.

I agree that paying writers on a flat vs performance has its ups and downs but if I had to choose, I would go with a flat rate + a small bonus to give them a little extra incentive to really write.

While in some industries, writers are paid anywhere between $3-5 per 1000 pageviews I honestly think is quite high and can lead to major exploits. An example would be greenoptions and examiner. On forums such as digitalpoint and many others are selling 1000 unique visitors for $1 and you'll be getting a bulk load of garbage traffic while the writers are reaping in the rewards. Their writers will be spamming up forums, social media sites and what not which will in the end ruin the reputation of the blog itself.

Last but not least, I am very interested in seeing how the industry are paying writers now after 1 year. IMO, repost and bring up the topic again.

Thanks for the great read and comments left by everyone a year ago.

Edit for the comment above: "It's a little pityful that I ran into this post a little late but after a little over a year, Destructoid did one hell of a job off a home in Miami."