Many "grassroots" participatory media efforts "flip" (are sold) to larger companies, earning their founders millions, while those that helped build these businesses - those who participate in them - get no portion of the ever growing riches.
Kevin Rose of Digg is furious at Jason Calacanis of Netscape to propose a model were top contributors actually get paid for their labors, their passions, their enthusiasm.
Kevin Rose seems to think it's ridiculous that some people get paid for their efforts: Ya see users like Digg, Del.icio.us, Reddit and Flickr because they are contributing to true, free, democratic social platforms devoid of monetary motivation
Really? So you're giving all your excess investment money to charity Kevin? Not taking a salary in the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars? You aren't going to take a few cool million of your own when you flip?
Driving an Hyundai like myself bub?
Didn't think so.
Here is what Dave Winer has to say:
Digg's Kevin Rose responds to Jason Calacanis, but doesn't really respond. Jason raises a good question. No doubt Kevin is going to make something like $20 or $30 million when he sells Digg, which seems a pretty likely outcome. What will the users get? It's a bit awkward for him to claim they do it for love if he himself doesn't do it for love. As always Silicon Valley breeds hubris, that's what Calacanis is taking advantage of, and doing it skillfully and without shame. If a lot of people didn't agree with him he wouldn't get away with it (Calacanis, that is).
I've mentioned before that I wouldn't want Philly Future to follow this typical Silicon Valley narrative. It would be nice to be rich, but not on anyone else's backs. Especially my neighbors. And that is the difference isn't it?
We're neighbors. Not just in the virtual sense, but in the actual physical sense.
Any continued brainstorming on your part is appreciated.
stock options
it would be interesting for the users to have some sort of tangible 'stock option' type thing for the input they've invested. say x 'shares' per post or x 'shares' per good comment. pay out accordingly.
i'm not familiar with digg, but i do know that other newsy sites like /. or dkos have comment ratings, those could be used to distinguish 'good' from 'bad' comments.
the architects of the services should get a good chunk of change, they did build it afterall. but it was the users who made it was it is now. you can bulid the greatest piece of software in the world, but if nobody knows about it and nobody uses it, you don't make $20M off of it.
I like the stock options idea
I think it has potential, but how would you administer a plan like that in an environment where so many users are effectively anonymous? And would it be possible/practical to let people claim previously anonymous contributions they've submitted? If it could be done, though, it sounds like a great approach to take.
Ignoring any possible issues falling under what I just mentioned, how would the options be issued? Would it be based on volume of content? Traffic to specific posts?
It'd be great to get the input of the wider membership on this sort of plan, as far as suitable criteria and willingness to submit actual personal information in exchange for such potential benefits.
Any takers?